Skip to main content

Jovan Condominium Corporation vs. R. C. Ordoñez Mfg. Corporation

SEC-SICD Case No. 2708 • Securities and Exchange Commission Departments • Securities Investigation and Clearing Department (SICD) • Sep 25, 1990

Full text

[SEC-SICD * CASE NO. 2708. September 25, 1990.] JOVAN CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION , petitioner , vs . R. C. ORDONEZ MFG. CORPORATION , respondent . D E C I S I O N Respondent in its motion for the dismissal of this case, alleged, among other things, that the demands set forth in petitioner's petition have been paid, waived, abandoned or otherwise extinguished. Respondent averred that in the instant petition, petitioner raised the following causes of action, to wit: "xxx xxx xxx 7) As of October 16, 1984, the respondent has incurred an obligation in favor of the petitioner in the amount of P71,741.80, a) Electric bill from May 1983 to October, 1984 P7,805.07 b) Maintenance fee from February 1983 to October, 1984 P18,630.00 c) Water bill from February 1983 to October 1984 P2,220.00 d) Share of an insurance premium from 1977 to 1985 P14,759.09 e) Share on real estate taxes for common area from 1979 to 1984 P20,699.46 f) Share on 3% revolving fund P4,051.98 g) Share on elevator motor P1,352.10 h) Share on maintenance deficiency P2,224.10 Total P71,741.80 10. Respondent without the knowledge and consent of the petitioner, in violation of the Condominium Act and the other basic documents governing the Jovan Condominium Corporation, caused an opening to be made on the western side of the building, establishing a connection to the outer premises on that side; thus affecting the structural integrity of the building, amongst other adverse effects". In the issue at bar, respondent claimed that during the pendency of this case, it has succeeded in liquidating the obligations specified in items Nos. (a), (b) and (c) totalling P43,414.16; that with respect to items Nos. (d), (e), (f), (g) and (h) respectively, totalling P33,086.73, the same has not been satisfactorily proven to be due and owing to the petitioner, and therefore the same may properly be disregarded by this Commission. Respondent reiterates that it is ready, willing and able to pay its shares of the real estate taxes for the common areas from 1979 to 1984 provided that the actual receipts of payments made to the Treasurer's Office are presented for authentication and verification; that as for the other items which are the insurance premium, revolving fund, elevator motor and maintenance deficiency, all of these are purely whimsical, unreasonable and arbitrary "assessments" and respondent is definitely unwilling to pay the same. Furthermore, respondent intimated that the second cause of action which is the closure of the opening and restoration of the wall on the western side of the building, the same is already a fait accompli. Hence, the said cause of action has definitely been extinguished through waiver and/or abandonment on the part of the petitioner. By way of opposition, petitioner admitted that only items (a), (b) and (c) in the total amount of P28,655.07 and not P43,414.16, may be claimed by respondent as having been liquidated during the pendency of this case. To this extent, petitioner agrees and confirms that such amount has been already liquidated by the respondent. Moreover, petitioner confirms that the opening in the wall on the western side of the building has been closed. Considering the admission made by the petitioner that the respondent have already liquidated the items consisting of a) Electric bills from May 1983 to October, 1984; b) Maintenance fee from February 1983 to October 1984, in the amount of P28,655.07 in so far as the issues on payment on said items are concerned, as well as the closure of the wall in the western side of the building, the same have been rendered moot and academic. Anent the other items enumerated namely: the petitioner's share on the insurance premium; real estate taxes; revolving fund, elevator motor and maintenance deficiency, we agree with the respondent's contention that the same have not satisfactorily been proven by the evidence on record. Viewed in the light of the foregoing, let this case be, as it is hereby considered CLOSED. SO ORDERED. (SGD.) ENRIQUE L. FLORES, JR. Hearing Officer

Ask what this means for your situation

The assistant quotes the passage it relies on and links the source, so you can check every figure it gives you.