04/08/2026
PRC suspends real estate practitioners in Casa Infini administrative cases
By Mia Magdalena Fokno
August 3, 2026
BAGUIO CITY — Four investors have won administrative cases before the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) after the Board of Real Estate Service suspended licensed real estate practitioner Jennylyn Galletes Delos Santos-Floresca in all four complaints and Jacqueline Corel Melchor in two of them for violating the profession’s Code of Ethics and Responsibilities in connection with investment transactions involving Casa Infini.
The rulings, contained in four separate administrative decisions—two dated December 17, 2025 and two dated July 30, 2026—resolved complaints filed before the PRC-Cordillera against the two licensed real estate practitioners.
The Board emphasized that the cases involve administrative liability under Republic Act No. 9646, or the Real Estate Service Act of the Philippines, and do not determine any civil or criminal liability. It also stressed that administrative cases are decided based on substantial evidence, rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Across the four cases, the Board imposed a two-year suspension on Delos Santos-Floresca. Melchor was likewise suspended in two cases, while the complaints against her in the remaining two were dismissed after the Board found no substantial evidence proving her direct participation in the questioned transactions.
The complaints were filed by Jemilee Galasgas Baladad (Administrative Case No. BAG 24-19), Jordan Banasen Sacpa (BAG 24-14), Shirlyn Cumahiling Guinyang-Pelila (BAG 24-13), and Liza Anyindan Ballawit-Pitas (BAG 24-18).
In the Baladad and Sacpa cases, the Board found both Delos Santos-Floresca and Melchor liable for unethical conduct and suspended their Certificates of Registration for two years.
In the Guinyang-Pelila and Ballawit-Pitas cases, however, the Board suspended only Delos Santos-Floresca and dismissed the complaints against Melchor, ruling that the complainants failed to present substantial evidence establishing her direct participation in the transactions.
In its decisions, the Board found substantial evidence that the respondents entered into written agreements with complainants involving investments tied to real estate projects, promised periodic investment returns, and later failed to comply with the agreements by failing to deliver the agreed returns and return the complainants’ capital despite written undertakings and repeated demands.
The respondents denied committing unethical conduct and argued that the transactions involved legitimate “Build and Sell Partnership Agreements,” rather than regulated real estate service. They maintained that Casa Infini’s financial difficulties stemmed from regulatory actions, including cease-and-desist orders issued by government agencies, and argued that allegations involving securities laws and possible criminal offenses fell outside the PRC Board’s jurisdiction.
The Board rejected those arguments, ruling that the transactions constituted real estate service covered by Republic Act No. 9646. It held that licensed real estate practitioners remain bound by the profession’s Code of Ethics whenever they hold themselves out as professionals and engage in transactions involving real estate, regardless of how the agreements are described.
The Board further ruled that issues involving securities laws or possible criminal liability are matters for the appropriate courts and government agencies, those proceedings do not prevent the PRC from determining whether licensed practitioners violated the ethical standards governing their profession.
In the July 30, 2026 decisions, the Board also denied the complainants’ requests for preventive suspension, ruling that no specific statutory or regulatory provision authorized such relief in the administrative proceedings.
The decisions require the suspended practitioners to file an Affidavit of Compliance before resuming practice, certifying that they have completed the suspension period and refrained from practicing real estate service throughout its duration.
The December 17, 2025 decisions likewise warned that any repetition of the same or similar offense could result in a longer suspension or the ultimate penalty of revocation of license.
The rulings prove that licensed real estate practitioners may face administrative sanctions for unethical conduct arising from transactions involving real estate, even if questions of civil or criminal liability arising from the same transactions are to be resolved separately by the appropriate courts or government agencies.
📷 Casa Infi / Instagram