The Supreme Court has dismissed a Petition for Certiorari filed by the 2017-2021 directors and officers of La Costa Brava Homeowners' Association, Inc. (LCBHAI), affirming two resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA), Eighteenth Division, Cebu City. The Court ruled that the petition was both procedurally defective and substantively without merit.
The petitioners were Reuben Mikhail P. Sabig, Christopher Siamundo, Ella Salcedo, Katherine Jallorina, Antonio Suganob, Cherrie Mae I, Davelyn Nuqui, Marilyn Gamboa, and Robert Pascua.
The Case
Private respondents Spouses Linley and Juvy Retirado are homeowners in La Costa Brava Subdivision. From 2016 to 2021, they did not pay the monthly association dues collected by LCBHAI, the homeowners' association of the subdivision.
As a result, the petitioners, who are directors of LCBHAI, declared the Spouses Retirado as delinquent members and imposed various sanctions under Board Resolution Nos. 06-2021 and 001-2017. These included banning grass-cutting or maintenance within five meters from the property of delinquent members unless requested in writing, and reducing garbage collection to once every two weeks.
The petitioners also imposed the subject sanctions: banning delivery of food, packages, construction materials, appliances, gas and similar items to residences of delinquent members; banning empty taxis, tricycles or Grab vehicles from entering the subdivision and fetching delinquent members; banning entry of guests of delinquent members; and imposing delivery fees from trucks and vehicles delivering supply and materials to the construction site.
The Spouses Retirado filed a Complaint before the Human Settlements Adjudication Commission (HSAC) against the petitioners for violation of Republic Act No. 9904. The HSAC Special Adjudicator ruled that the Board Resolutions are contrary to law for restricting the use and passage through the roads, and ordered the petitioners permanently disqualified from holding any office in LCBHAI. This was affirmed by the HSAC Second Division and the HSAC En Banc.
The petitioners appealed to the CA under Rule 43, but served the CA Petition upon the Spouses Retirado themselves, and not their counsels. The CA dismissed the appeal due to the defective service.
The Issue
The question was whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petitioners' appeal on the ground of procedural defects.
The Ruling
The Court was "not persuaded." It found the petition "riddled with fatal procedural defects": the petitioners availed of the wrong remedy, and the petition was belatedly filed. Under Rule 65, certiorari is not a substitute for a lapsed appeal; the correct remedy against the CA's final Second Resolution was a petition for review under Rule 45.
The Court disposed: "ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Certiorari is DISMISSED. The Resolutions dated March 15, 2024 and September 3, 2024 of the Court of Appeals, Eighteenth Division, Cebu City in CA-G.R. SP No. 16524 are AFFIRMED."
By the Numbers
- G.R. No. 278137
- CA-G.R. SP No. 16524
- Non-payment period: 2016 to 2021
- CA First Resolution: March 15, 2024
- CA Second Resolution: September 3, 2024
- HSAC Second Division Decision: May 25, 2023
- HSAC En Banc Resolution: November 30, 2023
- Second Resolution received: October 18, 2024; Petition filed: December 17, 2024
- Reglementary period under Rule 45: 15 days
The Court's Reasoning
The Court held that even if the defects were set aside, the petition would still be dismissed. The CA did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the CA Petition for defective service, and the petitioners did not even prove their service upon the Spouses Retirado themselves.
On the merits, the Court held that the subject sanctions violate the Spouses Retirado's right as delinquent members under Section 7(a) of Republic Act No. 9904. The Court explained that a homeowners' association may deprive delinquent members of the right to avail of or enjoy basic community services and facilities, but may not deprive them of the right to use common areas such as the roads.
The Court rejected the petitioners' claim that the non-lifting of the boom gates was the only sanction being imposed, calling it "tongue in cheek reasoning" that was misleading. It found their offense "serious and grave" because violating the full right to use the roads "produces great harm and dangerous consequences," hampering delivery of basic goods and mobile transportation. The Court also rejected claims of a due process violation and of being wrongfully declared in default, the latter being moot since the petitioners were able to raise defenses on appeal.
Source: Supreme Court Decision in G.R. No. 278137, entitled Reuben Mikhail P. Sabig, et al. v. Spouses Linley and Juvy Retirado. The name of the ponente (writer of the opinion) is not legible in the provided text; Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa signed the Attestation as Division Chairperson, attesting that the conclusions were reached in consultation before assignment to the writer.
This report summarizes a public Supreme Court decision and is not legal advice.