The Supreme Court partly granted the petition of the board of directors and officers of Golden City Taytay Homeowners' Association, Inc. (GCHAI), affirming their liability for violations of Republic Act No. 9904, but deleting the order that would have temporarily closed a Puregold outlet and a 7-Eleven convenience store inside the subdivision.
The Court ruled that the order to close the two establishments could not be sustained because their owners or operators were never impleaded as parties and were denied the chance to be heard.
The Case
The controversy arose from a Complaint filed by Samahan ng Tunay na Pagbabago ng Golden City Subdivision (Samahan), represented by respondents Rizalito Velasquez, Romeo Billones, Primitiva Balinton, Venusto Mendoza, and Reuben Mercado (Velasquez et al.), against the board and officers of GCHAI before the HSAC Adjudication Branch.
The petitioners were Edito B. Buenconcejo, Edgardo C. Bayani, Pedro B. Volante, Jr., Pedro D. Bolanos, Antonio Carifio, Dionisio Tolentino, Reynaldo R. Surop, and Hercules Umayam (Buenconcejo et al.), along with others who no longer joined the Petition.
Velasquez et al. questioned, among others: the passage of Board Resolution No. 2019-0404 reducing the construction fee from PHP 600.00 to PHP 150.00 per square meter; Board Resolution No. 2019-014 increasing the monthly dues from PHP 100.00 to PHP 200.00; the construction of a Puregold outlet and a 7-Eleven convenience store without prior consultation; the refusal to produce and furnish association books and records; the demolition of a subdivision waiting shed; and alleged delinquencies relating to members' monthly dues.
Buenconcejo et al. denied the allegations. They asserted that Samahan had no legal personality to sue because it was merely an unregistered association and not a juridical entity distinct from its members. They maintained that the questioned increase in association dues was approved by the homeowners during a general assembly, and that the Puregold and 7-Eleven establishments were located on property owned by the municipality.
The HSAC Adjudicator ruled against Buenconcejo et al. The HSAC on appeal affirmed the findings, imposed a fine and permanent disqualification, and ordered the temporary closure of Puregold and 7-Eleven. The Court of Appeals affirmed the HSAC.
The Issue
The petitioners' challenge was confined principally to the legal personality of Samahan to file the complaint, and the validity of the order directing the temporary closure of Puregold and 7-Eleven.
The Ruling
The Court found no reversible error in recognizing the standing of Velasquez et al. to file the complaint. However, it held that the order directing the temporary closure of Puregold and 7-Eleven could not be sustained and had to be deleted for violation of due process.
The Court disposed: "FOR THESE REASONS, the Petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision dated June 26, 2024 and the Resolution dated July 29, 2025 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 178228 are AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the order to temporarily close the Puregold outlet and the 7-Eleven convenience store is DELETED."
As modified, the named individuals are permanently disqualified from being elected or appointed as member of the board, officer, or employee of GCHAI; ordered to individually pay a fine of PHP 5,000.00 each for violating Section 49 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9904 and HLURB Resolution No. 001, series of 2017; and ordered to present before the respondents all pertinent books and documents of the association. The Department of Human Settlements and Urban Development's Homeowners Associations and Community Development Bureau was ordered to call and facilitate a special election to replace them. All other claims and counterclaims were dismissed.
By the Numbers
- Construction fee reduced from PHP 600.00 to PHP 150.00 per square meter (Board Resolution No. 2019-0404)
- Monthly dues increased from PHP 100.00 to PHP 200.00 (Board Resolution No. 2019-014)
- Fine of PHP 5,000.00 each
- CA Decision dated June 26, 2024; CA Resolution dated July 29, 2025
- CA-G.R. SP No. 178228
- Republic Act No. 9904; Section 49 of its Implementing Rules and Regulations; HLURB Resolution No. 001, series of 2017
The Court's Reasoning
On the legal personality issue, the Court noted that although Samahan was an unregistered association, the complaint was signed and verified by the individual homeowners, who were the real parties-in-interest. The HSAC later directed the amendment of the caption to reflect the individual respondents as complainants, which effectively addressed any irregularity from the original caption. The amendment neither introduced entirely new parties nor altered the causes of action already asserted, but merely clarified the designation of the individuals who had personally sought relief before the HSAC. Considering the liberal application of procedural rules in administrative proceedings, the HSAC and the CA did not err in refusing to dismiss the complaint solely because Samahan lacked juridical personality.
On the closure order, the Court held that basic due process requires that no person be deprived of property or business interests without being given an opportunity to be heard. Courts and quasi-judicial bodies generally cannot grant relief directly affecting the rights of persons who were not impleaded. The owners or operators of Puregold and 7-Eleven were not impleaded as respondents, and no relief was specifically sought against the operators themselves. Thus, insofar as the rulings ordered the temporary closure, the HSAC exceeded the permissible bounds of its authority, necessitating deletion of that order.
Source: Supreme Court Decision, G.R. No. E-01554.
This report summarizes a public Supreme Court decision and is not legal advice.