SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 249897. February 3, 2020.]
NEOPOLITAN BRITANNY EXECUTIVE VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., ROLANDO SANTOS, CESAR DAYMON, MARISSA DE UNGRIA, JANET GARDUQUE, AND JOEL MARAYAG, petitioners,vs. SPOUSES RUDY A. RONDOLO AND DRA. EVELYN O. RONDOLO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated03 February 2020which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 249897 (Neopolitan Britanny Executive Village Homeowners Association, Inc., Rolando Santos, Cesar Daymon, Marissa De Ungria, Janet Garduque, and Joel Marayag v. Spouses Rudy A. Rondolo and Dra. Evelyn O. Rondolo). — The Court resolves to: (a) GRANT the motion of petitioners Neopolitan Britanny Executive Village Homeowners Association, Inc., Rolando Santos, Cesar Daymon, Marissa De Ungria, Janet Garduque, and Joel Marayag (petitioners) for an extension of thirty (30) days from the expiration of the reglementary period within which to file a petition for review on certiorari; and (b) NOTE the ex-parte manifestations dated October 10, 2019 and November 11, 2019 of counsel of petitioners, stating that the aforesaid motion and the petition for review on certiorari, respectively, were both filed through registered mail, and furnishing the Court an advanced copy of the same.
After a judicious study of the case, the Court further resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the May 7, 2019 Decision 1 and the September 13, 2019 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 150584 for failure of petitioners to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in ordering each one of them to jointly and severally pay respondent Spouses Rudy and Dra. Evelyn Rondolo (respondents) the following amounts: (a) P20,000.00 as moral damages; (b) P20,000.00 as exemplary damages; and (c) P20,000.00 as attorney's fees. Moreover, all monetary awards shall earn an interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until full payment.
As correctly ruled by the CA, petitioners are liable for moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees under the principle of abuse of rights as provided under Articles 19 3 and 21 4 of the Civil Code, considering that they acted in bad faith in denying basic community services to respondents, and in failing to address the latter's residential concerns, while they were still members in good standing of the homeowner's association, and for compelling them to litigate by refusing to settle their plainly valid, just, and demandable claim. 5 Case law provides that there is an abuse of right under the Civil Code, when an act is attended with malice or bad faith or otherwise committed only for the purpose of prejudicing or injuring another, 6 which, as correctly observed by the CA, obtains in the instant case. It bears stressing that factual findings of the trial courts, when adopted and confirmed by the CA, are binding and conclusive on this Court, and will generally not be reviewed on appeal, absent any of the recognized exceptions, 7 as in this case.
SO ORDERED. (Hernando, J., on official leave.)"
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo (Vol. I), pp. 9-28. Penned by Associate Justice Rafael Antonio M. Santos with Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and Danton Q. Bueser, concurring.
2.Id. at 30-32.
3. Article 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.
4. Article 21. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.
5. See rollo (Vol. I), pp. 22-25.
6. See Mata v. Agravante, 583 Phil. 64, 70 (2008).
7. See Insular Investment and Trust Corporation v. Capital One Equities Corporation, 686 Phil. 819, 830-831 (2012).