Francis Patrick Cloud vs. First Marbella Condominium Association, Inc.

[SEC-SICD * CASE NO. 2935. October 26, 1987.] FRANCIS PATRICK CLOUD , complainant , vs . FIRST MARBELLA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. , respondent . D E C I S I O N This complaint is against the First Marbella Condominium Association, Inc., a duly organized and existing corporation under the laws of the Philippines, for inequitable assessments for electrical and water charges on common areas, for quarterly assessments on real estate taxes on the common areas from 1977 to 1982, and for insurance premium. The complainant is a resident of Flat No. 706, Marbella I, 2223 Roxas Blvd., Pasay City, allegedly a stockholder of the corporation. Because of the threat of the respondent to cut his electrical and water facilities, he prayed for the issuance of a restraining order which was granted for a period of twenty (20) days pending hearing of his prayer for a mandatory injunctive relief. This relief was likewise granted when the petitioner put up a cash bond in the amount of P14,300.76 corresponding to total assessments in question and which was concurred in by respondent. The complainant alleged that he has paid regularly all his monthly assessment from 1977 to 1982. However, in 1981, for failure of the corporation to pay the taxes due on the common areas of the property, the same was sold at public auction, the Pasay City government itself acquiring the same as the sole bidder. For this he claimed that there never was any stockholders' meeting called by the corporation; the assessment on electric and water charges are grossly inequitable in that the corporation has leased portions of the condominium for business purposes when the same are for residential purposes only. Respondent, in its answer, claimed that all assessments, have been duly passed and approved by the Board of Directors primarily to meet the rising costs of maintenance. That there never was a stockholders' meeting is because of the By-Laws provision that "until the Developers of the Condominium Project has completed and sold all of the units of the condominium, or until the developer elects to terminate its control of the condominium whichever shall first occur, there shall be no meeting of the members of the corporation pursuant to this articles unless a meeting is called by the Board of Directors named in the Articles of Incorporation." As to complainant's claim that the condominium is only for residential purposes, Sec. 6(b), Part II of the Declaration of Restructures provides that "No Unit owner shall occupy or use his unit or permit the same or any part thereof to be occupied or used for any purpose other than as an office and/or display room for the use of the owner or his tenants or lessees." It claimed further that the corporation was able to update its real estate taxes on land and machineries on November 9, 1983 and June 21, 1985, respectively. After the complainant rested his case, respondent after several notices and even after filing its counter manifestation for a chance to present its case dated September 18, 1986, failed to do so, which prompted the complainant to move for the submission of the case for decision which was finally granted in November 26, 1986. Relying mainly on complainants' testimonial and documentary evidence, the Commission finds no valid reason to lift the writ of mandatory injunction. The respondent did not present evidence to contradict the claim of complainant. The complainant has always been regularly paying his dues and he is willing to pay all assessments which are deemed equitable. Thus, complainant has proven that he had already paid the first item of the Statement of Account, dated January 2, 1986 (Exh. A-1) regarding the Association dues for December, 1985. Also that respondent's Statement of Account dated January 13, 1982 (Exh. C) in the amount of P1,811.16 for the quarterly assessment, 1st to 4th quarter, 1981, appearing in Exh. "A-1", was erroneous, and that the same should only be P811.16. Moreover, for failure of the respondent to present counter evidence, complainant has shown that he had paid his monthly assessment from 1977 to 1982, which included contributions for real estate taxes. Nonetheless, as to the other matters re electrical expenses/dues/assessment/taxes/premiums, to be charged effective after 1982, this Commission will not substitute its judgment on the wisdom of the resolution of the Board unless it can be clearly presented that it is grossly inequitable or unconscionable. Wherefore, judgment is hereby rendered, invalidating the erroneous assessments against complainant by the respondent covering 1977 to 1982 pertaining to electrical expenses, quarterly assessment, share on real estate taxes and insurance premium; and declaring the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction permanent. SO ORDERED. llcd (SGD.) EMMANUEL R. SISON Hearing Officer