Chua v. Go

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 240467. * November 11, 2021.]

STANLEY CHUA, MARIANO SIY, JOSE LETRAN, FERDINAND ONG, ANTONIO TAN PUG, JR., HERBERT LEE, FRANCIS TIU, PETER CO, HELEN LI (CO), DANIEL TAN, KEN PATRICK TAN, BENITO GO AND GENARO TAN, petitioners, vs. EDMUND GO, JOSELITO FERNANDEZ, MILLIE BISMONTE, MANUEL KIOK, SUSAN GO, DANNY GO AND DERRICK UY, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 11, 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 240467 (Stanley Chua, Mariano Siy, Jose Letran, Ferdinand Ong, Antonio Tan Pug, Jr., Herbert Lee, Francis Tiu, Peter Co, Helen Li (Co), Daniel Tan, Ken Patrick Tan, Benito Go and Genaro Tan, petitioners v. Edmund Go, Joselito Fernandez, Millie Bismonte, Manuel Kiok, Susan Go, Danny Go and Derrick Uy, respondents).

Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the February 28, 2018 Decision 2 and June 21, 2018 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 144680, which reversed and set aside the February 5, 2016 Decision 4 of the Board of Commissioners (BOC) of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) in HLURB Case No. HOA-A-160115-0768 (NCRHOA-090315-2319).

Antecedents

The present case involves an election contest between two opposing groups of homeowners in Grace Village in Quezon City, who are also members of Grace Village Association, Inc. (GVAI).

The election dispute between the parties started in 2012 when the scheduled election of the GVAI Board of Directors was cancelled for lack of quorum. Respondents Edmund Go, Joselito Fernandez, Millie Bismonte, Manuel Kiok, Susan Go, Danny Go and Derrick Uy (collectively referred to as the Go Group) filed a complaint before the HLURB questioning the cancellation of the elections. The case was docketed as HLURB Case No. NCRHOA-041912-1664. At that time, petitioners Stanley Chua (Chua), Jose Letran (Letran), Antonio Tan, Pug, Jr. (Pug, Jr.), Pin Sing Ng Chua, and Derrick Tan were the incumbent members of the GVAI Board. 5

The HLURB dismissed the Go Group's complaint and directed Chua, Letran, Pug, Jr., Mariano Siy (Siy), Ferdinand Ong, Herbert Lee, Francis Tiu, Richard Yu, Peter Co, Helen Li (Co), Daniel Tan, Ken Patrick Tan, Benito Go, and Genaro Tan (collectively referred to as the Chua Group) to hold an election after they have revised GVAI's voting policies to conform with Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9904, 6 otherwise known as the Magna Carta for Homeowners and Homeowners' Associations. 7

Meantime, the Go Group appealed to the BOC. 8

In compliance with the appealed order of the HLURB, the Chua Group created an Election Committee (Elecom) to draft the voting policies of the election for the approval of the GVAI Board. However, the Elecom, which was led by the Go Group, formulated the election rules and scheduled an election without the approval of the GVAI Board. In order to prevent the conduct of the scheduled election, the Chua Group sent out notices to its members informing them that the actions of the Elecom were unauthorized and advised them to ignore the scheduled elections. 9

However, the election still took place on February 24, 2013, and the Go Group was declared the winner. The following day, the Go Group took over the administration office of GVAI. 10

The BOC later on dismissed the appeal by the Go Group of their earlier complaint. 11

With the conduct of the alleged unauthorized election on February 24, 2013 by the Elecom led by the Go Group, the Chua Group filed a complaint before the HLURB questioning the validity and the results of the said contested election. 12 The Chua Group sought to annul the contested election and prayed for a supervised election. 13 The case was docketed as HLURB Case No. NCRHOA-081613-1896.

On March 14, 2014, HLURB Arbiter Marino B. M. Torres (Arbiter Torres) annulled the February 24, 2013 election and ordered a supervised election. 14 Aggrieved, the Go Group appealed to the BOC, but the latter affirmed the ruling of the HLURB Arbiter. 15 The Go Group elevated the case before the CA in the case docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 137432. 16

In compliance with the directive of HLURB Arbiter Torres to conduct a supervised election, the HLURB Homeowners' Association Franchising Unit created a Special Elecom on June 23, 2015 to oversee the new election of the GVAI Board. 17

The Special Elecom listed a total of 156 GVAI members who were qualified to vote and disqualified 264 members. 18

Upon motion of petitioner Pug, Jr. and Siy, the Special Elecom excluded an additional 126 members, including the Go Group, due to unpaid homeowner's dues. 19 Even after the Go Group presented proof of payments of the association dues to GVAI's depositary bank on July 31, 2015, the Special Elecom still excluded them from the list of qualified voters and declared them as delinquent members. 20

The special election was held on August 15, 2015, where only 13 members actually voted out of the 43 qualified members under the Special Elecom list. 21

Aggrieved, the Go Group and other disqualified GVAI members filed an election protest and moved for the declaration of failure of election. 22 The Special Elecom denied the Go Group's election protest. 23

Thus, the Go Group filed a complaint with the HLURB seeking to annul the special election conducted on August 15, 2015. 24 The case was docketed as HLURB Case No. NCR HOA-090315-2319.

In view of the conduct of the special election, the CA dismissed the Go Group's appeal in CA-G.R. SP No. 137432 (HLURB Case No. NCRHOA-081613-1896) for being moot and academic. 25

Ruling of the HLURB Arbiter

On December 10, 2015, HLURB Arbiter Joselito F. Melchor (Arbiter Melchor) found merit in the Go Group's complaint and voided the August 15, 2015 special election based on the following grounds: (a) lack of quorum; (b) the Junior members were unduly excluded from the list of qualified voters; and (c) the disenfranchisement of the 138 members for their non-payment of association dues is not in consonance with the requirements set forth in the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9904. 26

The fallo of Arbiter Melchor's decision in NCR HOA-090315-2319, reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

1. DECLARING the elections of GVAI conducted on 15 August 2015 as NULL AND VOID.

2. DECLARING the 13 August 2015 Order of the public respondents disqualifying 138 GVAI members for being delinquent as NULL AND VOID, and

3. ORDERING the HLURB-ENCRFO-HOA Regulation and Franchising Unit to immediately call, conduct and supervise the elections of the members of the Board of Directors of GVAI.

No pronouncement as to costs. 27

The Chua Group appealed the case before the BOC. 28 The Go Group, on the other hand, filed a Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution to enforce the December 10, 2015 Decision of the HLURB Arbiter. 29

Ruling of the HLURB-BOC

On February 5, 2016, the BOC rendered a Decision granting the Chua Group's appeal and reversed the December 10, 2015 Decision of the HLURB Arbiter on the ground that the rule on quorum does not apply in a special election. The BOC held that the Go Group is not qualified to run as directors for their failure to render accounting and turn over the books and records of the association. Likewise, the BOC denied the Go Group ' s Motion for Execution. 30

The dispositive portion of the BOC decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of the Arbiter is SET ASIDE and a new Decision is hereby rendered declaring the 15 August 2015 GVHAI election as valid.

Complainant's Motion for Execution is DENIED.

All claims and counter-claims are DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.31

This time, the Go Group elevated the case before the CA via Rule 43 of the Rules of Court praying for a reversal of the BOC's Decision.

While the case was pending before the CA, the Special Elecom of GVAI conducted a special election on December 22, 2018 and a new set of officers were proclaimed by Special Elecom Chairman Atty. Joel M. Clamor on the same day. 32

Ruling of the CA

On February 28, 2018, the CA granted the Go Group's petition for review, reversed and set aside the February 5, 2016 BOC Decision, and reinstated Arbiter Melchor's December 10, 2015 Decision. The decretal portion of the now assailed CA decision reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition of Edmund Go, Joselito Fernandez, Millie Bismonte, Manuel Kiok, Susan Go, Danny Go, and Derrick Uy is GRANTED.

The Decision dated [February 5, 2016] of the Board of Commissioners of House and Land Regulatory Board in HLURB Case No. HOA-A-160115-0768 (NCRHOA-090315-2319) is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

The Decision dated [December 10, 2015] of the HLURB Arbiter Joselito F. Melchor is REINSTATED.

SO ORDERED.33

Upon denial of their motion for reconsideration by the CA, 34 the Chua Group, now petitioners, filed the present petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the CA decision.

It appears that while this petition is pending before the Court, a supervised election of the board of directors of GVAI was held on December 22, 2018 and a new set of directors were proclaimed. 35

Issue

The core issue of this case boils down to whether this petition presents a justiciable controversy considering that the term of office of the GVAI directors had lapsed and a new set of directors were already elected into office.

Ruling of the Court

The present petition is denied for being moot and academic.

The Court may only exercise its adjudication power when there is existence of an actual and justiciable case or controversy. An actual case or controversy refers to an existing case that is ripe for judicial resolution and not merely anticipatory in nature or based on pure conjectures. 36 When a case ceases to present an actual and justiciable controversy due to supervening events, it is considered moot and academic. 37 A declaration thereon would be of no practical value, thus, as a rule, the Court shall dismiss a case on the ground of mootness. 38 At times, the Court may assume jurisdiction and rule upon moot and academic cases granting that the following circumstances are present: (1) grave constitutional violations; (2) exceptional character of the case; (3) paramount public interest; (4) the case presents an opportunity to guide the bench, the bar, and the public; or (5) the case is capable of repetition yet evading review. 39 None of these circumstances are present in this case.

The present petition primarily seeks to uphold the validity of the August 15, 2015 special election, which was declared void by the CA. The records indisputably show that the GVAI Board of Directors holds office for a term of one (1) year only. 40 Upon the issuance of the February 5, 2016 BOC Decision declaring the August 15, 2015 special election as valid and denying the Go Group's motion for execution of the December 10, 2015 Decision of the HLURB Arbiter (which voided the special election), the term of office of the elected directors already commenced. In the absence of any injunctive writ preventing the elected directors from holding office, their term of office is deemed to have already commenced. Hence, during the pendency of the case before the CA, the term of the elected GVAI directors during the special election have already lapsed. 41 In effect, the lapse of the one-year term of the directors renders the subsequent annulment of the special election by the CA useless .

Granting that the directors were not able to serve their term in office, another supervening event occurred which would also render the nullification of the questioned special election moot. While the case was pending before the CA, an HLURB supervised election of the GVAI Board of Directors was conducted on December 22, 2018 and a new set of directors was elected as shown in the Official Report of the Special Election Committee dated January 8, 2019. 42

Lastly, the Court finds that the academic discussion of the issues raised in the petition is not necessary considering that there is no practical relief that can be granted in this case.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for being moot and academic. Costs against petitioners.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

By:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

* Part of the Supreme Court Decongestion Program.

1.Rollo (Vol. I), pp. 3-44.

2.Id. at 45-65; penned by Associate Justice Pablito A. Perez, with Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Ramon A. Cruz, concurring.

3.Id. at 66-70.

4.Id. at 113-118.

5.Id. at 46.

6. AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A MAGNA CARTA FOR HOMEOWNERS AND HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATIONS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

7.Rollo (Vol. I), pp. 46-47.

8.Id. at 47.

9.Id.

10.Id.

11.Id.

12.Id. at 47-48.

13.Id. at 71.

14.Rollo (Vol. II), p. 515.

15.Rollo (Vol. I), pp. 71-86.

16.Rollo (Vol. II), p. 515.

17.Rollo (Vol. I), pp. 48-49.

18.Id. at 49.

19.Id.

20.Rollo (Vol. III), pp. 1105-1107.

21.Rollo (Vol. I), pp. 409-410.

22.Id. at 393-408.

23.Id. at 411-412.

24.Rollo (Vol. I), pp. 414-433.

25.Id. at 90-95.

26.Rollo (Vol. II), pp. 519-520.

27.Id. at 521.

28.Id. at 525-535.

29.Id. at 522-523.

30.Rollo (Vol. I), pp. 116-118.

31.Id. at 118.

32.Rollo (Vol. III), pp. 1300-1301.

33.Rollo (Vol. I), pp. 64-65.

34.Id. at 66-70.

35.Rollo (Vol. III), pp. 1300-1302; per Official Report of the Special Election Committee dated January 8, 2019.

36.Bagumbayan-VNP Movement, Inc. v. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 206719, 206784 & 207755, April 10, 2019, 901 SCRA 89, 119.

37.Id.

38.Abayon v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, 785 Phil. 683, 710 (2016).

39.Oclarino v. Navarro, G.R. No. 220514, September 25, 2019.

40. Rollo (Vol. III), p. 1305.

41.Sison v. Joaquin, G.R. Nos. 238741-42, March 11, 2020.

42.Rollo (Vol. III), pp. 1300-1302.