A decision issued in mid-December stemmed from a complaint filed by Jordan Banasen Sacpa on 11 July 2024, alleging violations of the Code of Ethics and Responsibilities for Real Estate Service Practitioners.

The Board found the respondents guilty of unethical conduct after they failed to return the complainant’s investment capital and promised returns. The case arose from a so-called “Real Estate Financial Literacy Program” or “Build-and-Sell Partnership Agreement” offered by the respondents through their company, Casa Infini.

Sacpa, an overseas worker, was enticed to invest P2 million in August 2022 after attending seminars where the respondents promised a 4 percent monthly return. While Sacpa initially received P800,000 in returns, payments eventually stopped. The respondents also refused to return the principal investment despite repeated demands.

In their defense, respondents Floresca and Melchor argued that the investment scheme did not constitute “real estate service” as defined under Republic Act No. 9646, or the Real Estate Service Act. They also claimed their failure to pay was due to a cease and desist order issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission against Casa Infini, which allegedly resulted in the freezing of their corporate and personal bank accounts. They further alleged that the complaint was a form of harassment initiated by the complainant’s counsel.

The Board rejected these arguments, ruling that a build-and-sell agreement is inherently connected to the promotion and solicitation of funds for real estate development. It stressed that the Code of Ethics applies to all registered practitioners, even when they are not strictly performing technical brokerage functions at the time of the act. The decision underscored that licensed professionals have a continuing duty to uphold honesty and integrity in all dealings with the public.

The ruling was supported by documentary evidence, including signed partnership agreements, acknowledgment receipts, and message screenshots showing the direct participation of both respondents in the transactions. The Board also noted that Floresca was declared in default on August 18, 2025, after failing to participate in the proceedings in accordance with prescribed rules, which it considered a disregard of regulatory authority.

As a result, the two-year suspension will be served successively with any other penalties previously imposed on the respondents. To resume practice after serving the suspension, they must file an affidavit of completion and desistance with the PRC-CAR legal office and notify their accredited professional organization.

The Board warned that any similar future violations would result in stiffer sanctions, including the possible permanent revocation of their professional licenses.