VIRRA Mall Greenhills Association vs. Arcon Trade Corporation

[SEC-SICD * CASE NO. 3180. July 8, 1988.] VIRRA MALL GREENHILLS ASSOCIATION , plaintiff, vs . ARCON TRADE CORPORATION , defendant . O R D E R For resolution is respondent's motion to dismiss as well as the opposition filed thereto by the petitioner. Respondent anchored its motion to dismiss the instant case on the ground that petitioner has, and the complaint states no cause of action against the respondent; and that the instant case is purely a collection case and this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the instant action. It is defendant's submission that plaintiff's cause of action is one which is for the collection of alleged dues and of the assessments for water, security, janitorial services, building technical maintenance, repairs and maintenance, administrative personnel, legal assistance, rentals, bank charges, and other assessment and since it is purely a collection of a sum of money, this Honorable Commission has no jurisdiction over the same and that as held by this Commission sitting en banc in SEC AC No. 164 , entitled Legaspi Towers 200, Inc., Petitioner-Appellant vs. Consuelo Jurado, Respondent-Appellee, which has the same factual setting as the instant case: "We hold that such a suit is not an intra-corporate controversy falling under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of this Commission but an ordinary collection suit cognizable by the regular courts. We so hold because the obligation to pay association dues arises not so much from the fact of membership in the condominium corporation as from occupancy of a unit in the condominium building. Where, for instance, a condominium unit is rented out by the unit owner-member, the lessee could be made to pay for the association dues in lieu of the unit member. Membership dues are different from association dues. The latter may be collected from non-members who are actually occupying or leasing units in the condominium building. The subject matter of the instant case for collection, i.e., association dues, is therefore not strictly intra-corporate in nature. "The situation obtaining in this case squarely falls within the context of the above-quoted decision since the actual practice of the plaintiff is that if the unit is rented the lessee is the one paying the association dues and other assessments. Plaintiff, in opposing the motion, averred that the reason pleaded for the dismissal of the instant case is extraneous to the complaint and such being the case it cannot be raised in a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; that the Commission's jurisdiction must be tested using as sole bases Sec. 5, Presidential Decree No. 902-A, as amended, and the allegations of the instant complaint; that the instant complaint was instituted by the plaintiff acting as an association and the defendant was sued because it breached its obligations as a member thereof and therefore, there is an intra-corporate controversy over which this Commission has exclusive jurisdiction; that the ruling of this Honorable Commission en banc in Legaspi Towers cannot conceivably be made as basis to dismiss the above-captioned case since there is a distinct probability that the said ruling has been referred for appellate review; and that the instant case is not an ordinary action for collection, the same being a result of a breach of an obligation of a member to an association. We agree with the respondent's argument that the instant case is purely a collection of a sum of money of which this Commission has no jurisdiction. In fact, we gather that the greater bulk of the petitioners' claim is in terms of cash or money. For us to pass upon money claim such as this would in effect be an exercise of jurisdiction on matters which are purely beyond our competence. As clearly enunciated by this Commission sitting en banc in Legaspi Towers 200, Inc. vs. Consuelo Jurado, the obligation to pay association dues arises not so much from the fact of membership in the Condominium corporation as from occupancy of a unit in the condominium building. As rightly claimed, even lessee, not a unit owner thereof, of a condominium unit could be made to pay the association dues. In the instant case, the obligation to pay arises not by virtue of one's membership in the association but pursuant to a contract of lease between the unit owner and the occupant of the unit. To our mind, it will be beyond our power and clearly in excess of our jurisdiction to enforce the basic contract. Such power, we so hold, belongs to the regular court. WHEREFORE, respondent's motion to dismiss should be, as it is hereby GRANTED, and the instant case DISMISSED. SO ORDERED. (SGD.) ALBERTO P. ATAS Hearing Officer