THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 249165. November 10, 2021.]
NORTH SUSANA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., petitioner,vs. CHEDITA V. MONTENEGRO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 10, 2021, which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 249165(North Susana Homeowners Association, Inc., Petitioner, v. Chedita V. Montenegro,Respondent.) — The Court:
(1) GRANTS petitioner's motion for an extension of twenty (20) days from March 11, 2021 within which to file a reply to respondent's comment on the petition for review on certiorari; and
(2) NOTES said Reply dated March 29, 2021.
This Court resolves the Petition for Review 1 under Rule 45 which seeks to reverse and set aside the Resolution 2 dated 23 May 2019 and Resolution 3 dated 04 September 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 160330. The CA denied the Petition for Certiorari dated 10 April 2019, which sought to declare that the Housing and Land Use Regulatory-Board of Commissioners (HLURB-BOC) and HLURB Arbiters Raymundo A. Foronda (Arbiter Foronda) and Marife C. Doblada (Arbiter Doblada) acted with grave abuse of discretion in HLURB Case No. HOA-A-180831-01080 and HLURB Case No. NCRHOA-070110-1355, respectively, and set aside the HLURB Board of Commissioners' Decision dated 18 December 2018.
Antecedents
The case stems from a complaint for collection of annual and monthly membership dues with interest filed by petitioner North Susana Homeowners Association, Inc. (North Susana) against respondent Chedita V. Montenegro (Montenegro) before HLURB-Expanded National Capital Regional Field Office (HLURB-ENCRFO) docketed as HLURB Case No. NCRHOA-070110-1355. 4
In their Amended Complaint dated 18 March 2011, 5 North Susana claimed that Montenegro has not paid her annual and monthly membership dues, plus interest of 12% compounded annually, amounting to PhP76,292.83 as of 28 February 2010. 6 On the other hand, Montenegro asserted that the amount of PhP76,292.83 is erroneous because the by-laws of North Susana only authorizes PhP300.00 monthly dues and not PhP600.00. 7
On 12 August 2015, HLURB-ENCRFO, through Arbiter Foronda, promulgated a decision ordering Montenegro to update her membership fee and monthly dues but based on the amount of PhP300.00 and not the increased amount of PhP600.00, which was only imposed by mere resolution of the Board of Directors. Arbiter Foronda ruled that " [c]onsidering that monthly dues is expressly provided in the association's by-laws, th[e] Office holds that [the] manner of increasing the same is by way of amendment of the by-laws duly ratified by the general membership rather than a simple passage of aboard resolution.'' 8
No appeal was filed from the decision of HLURB-ENCRFO. The decision became final, and a writ of execution was issued on 20 January 2016. 9 The writ issued on 20 January 2016 was returned unsatisfied, prompting Montenegro to file a motion for issuance of an alias writ. North Susana opposed the motion, citing the decision of the CA in North Susana Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Bonafide Members of North Susana Homeowners Association, Inc., et al. 10 In that case, the CA ruled that North Susana members are supposed to pay monthly dues at the rate of PhP600.00 effective July 2005, with interest at 12% compounded annually. 11
On 09 January 2017, an alias writ of execution was issued by HLURB-ENCRFO, but North Susana failed to comply and opted to file an urgent motion to quash alias writ of execution. Montenegro then filed a motion to cite North Susana in contempt. 12
HLURB-ENCRFO, now through Arbiter Doblada, denied North Susana's urgent motion to quash alias writ of execution. Further it cited North Susana for indirect contempt for failure or refusal to comply with or obey with justifiable reason the orders of HLURB-ENCRFO. 13 Thus, North Susana filed an appeal before HLURB-BOC. CAIHTE
Ruling of the HLURB-BOC
The HLURB-BOC denied North Susana's appeal in its Decision dated 18 December 2018. 14 HLURB-BOC found that the decision of HLURB-ENCRFO had become final and executory and thus, as a rule, it can no longer be modified.
HLURB-BOC noted that the CA's decision in North Susana Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Bonafide Members of North Susana Homeowners Association, Inc., et al., 15 cannot be considered a supervening event that will alter or modify HLURB-ENCRFO's decision because it was rendered on 04 April 2014, or before the decision of Arbiter Foronda dated 12 August 2015 was handed down. According to HLURB-BOC, North Susana should have invoked the CA decision in the proceedings before HLURB-ENCRFO before the decision was promulgated.
Moreover, since North Susana did not appeal said decision, it cannot now assail the HLURB-ENCRFO's decision that has become final and executory. Finally, HLURB-BOC noted that Montenegro was not a party in the case before the CA, and therefore, the pronouncements therein do not apply ipso facto against her. It is only from the date of finality of said CA decision that the increased monthly rate of PhP600.00 can be imposed against Montenegro. 16
Aggrieved, North Susana immediately filed a petition for certiorari dated 10 April 2019 before the CA seeking to declare that the HLURB-BOC and HLURB Arbiters Foronda and Doblada acted with grave abuse of discretion in HLURB Case No. HOA-A-180831-01080 and HLURB Case No. NCRHOA-070110-1355, respectively. Likewise, it prayed that the HLURB-BOC Decision denying its appeal be set aside.
Ruling of the CA
The CA in its Resolution 17 dated 23 May 2019 dismissed North Susana's petition for certiorari for failure to exhaust all administrative remedies. The CA cited Section 2, Rule XXI of HLURB Resolution No. 765, Series of 2004, which provides:
SECTION 2. Appeal. — Any party may, upon notice to the Board and the other party, appeal a decision rendered by the Board of Commissioners to the Office of the President within fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof, in accordance with P.D. No. 1344 and A.O. No. 18, Series of 1987. [. . .] 18
The CA also cited this Court's pronouncement in Lefebre v. A Brown Co., Inc., 19 citing Teotico v. Baer, 20 in ruling that an appeal before the Office of the President was necessary before resorting to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The CA held, " [i]t is clear that the failure to file an appeal on the decision of the HLURB before the Office of the President, prior to the filing of Petition for Certiorari, constitutes a violation of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies and warrants the dismissal of said Petition." 21
North Susana filed a motion for reconsideration on 07 June 2019. It argued that the CA erred in invoking the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies because under Section 20 (d), Chapter IV of Republic Act No. 9904 (RA 9904) or the Magna Carta for Homeowners and Homeowners' Associations, which was approved on 07 January 2010, all decisions of the HLURB are appealable directly to the CA. North Susana also claims that Section 2, Rule XXI of HLURB Resolution No. 765, Series of 2004 has already been modified by HLURB Resolution No. 877 dated 24 June 2011, or the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9904, which provides that "[a]ll decisions of the HLURB are appealable directly to the Court of Appeals." 22 Moreover, North Susana argued that Lefebre v. A Brown Co., Inc. and Teotico v. Baer, do not apply here because the matters in those cases arose before the passage of RA 9904. 23
On 07 October 2019, North Susana filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari. 24
On 13 August 2020, Montenegro filed her Comment where she posits that the CA correctly dismissed North Susana's petition for certiorari. She argues that North Susana availed of the wrong remedy in filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court instead of a petition for review under Rule 43. 25 In any event, the HLURB-BOC Decision was correct and there is no need to remand the case to the CA. 26
Issue
The sole issue for this Court's resolution is whether the CA erred in dismissing North Susana's Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
Ruling of the Court
The petition has no merit. We find no basis to reverse the CA's dismissal of North Susana's Petition for Certiorari. DETACa
At the outset, We emphasize that the facts in this case are not in issue and the only matter raised before Us is whether or not the CA erred in dismissing North Susana's petition for certiorari for violating the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies. 27
To recall, the CA dismissed North Susana's Petition for Certiorari for failure to exhaust all administrative remedies. The CA cited Section 2, Rule XXI of HLURB Resolution No. 765, Series of 2004, which provides that an adverse decision rendered by the HLURB-BOC may be appealed to the Office of the President within fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof. The CA also referred to Lefebre v. A Brown Co., Inc., 28 citing Teotico v. Baer, 29 where the rule applied by this Court therein was HLURB Resolution No. 765, Series of 2004. 30
However, North Susana correctly pointed out that at the time the HLURB-BOC denied its appeal on 18 December 2018, 31 RA 9904 or the Magna Carta for Homeowners and Homeowners' Associations, which was approved on 07 January 2010, was already in effect. 32 Section 20 (d), Chapter IV of RA 9904 expressly provides that "all decisions of the HLURB are appealable directly to the Court of Appeals." Pursuant to this, HLURB issued Resolution No. 877 dated 24 June 2011 or the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9904 which provides that "[a]ll decisions of the HLURB are appealable directly to the Court of Appeals" that modified Section 2, Rule XXI of HLURB Resolution No. 765, Series of 2004. 33
Be that as it may, North Susana's petition for certiorari before the CA was still correctly dismissed. The extraordinary remedy of certiorari is a prerogative writ and never issues as a matter of right. 34 A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is a special civil action that may be resorted to only in the absence of appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. It is availed of to correct errors of jurisdiction committed by the lower court or quasi-judicial agency, or when there is grave abuse of discretion on the part of such court or agency amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. 35
The term "grave abuse of discretion" has been held to have a specific meaning. An act of a court or tribunal can only be considered as with grave abuse of discretion when such act is done in a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility. 36
As an extraordinary remedy, a petition for certiorari may be filed only if appeal is not available. If appeal is available, an appeal must be taken even if the ground relied upon is grave abuse of discretion. 37
In this case, an appeal to the CA under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court was available and the proper remedy from the decision of the HLURB-BOC. 38 North Susana, however, filed an original action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court instead of a Rule 43 petition for review. Nonetheless, even if the ground relied upon by North Susana was grave abuse of discretion on the part of the HLURB Board of Commissioners and the HLURB-ENCRFO Arbiters, an appeal, which was available, must be taken before resorting to a Rule 65 Petition, an extraordinary remedy.
Further, it appears from the records that what North Susana essentially assails is the HLURB-BOC Decision denying its appeal where it claims that the basis for the payment of Montenegro's monthly dues for the period subject of the HLURB-ENCRFO Decision dated 12 August 2015 should be increased from PhP300.00 to PhP600.00 per month. 39 In other words, what North Susana really sought to correct was an error of judgment and not an error of jurisdiction. More importantly, North Susana did not file an appeal from this decision. Thus, the HLURB-BOC's ruling in favor of Montenegro had already attained finality. This Court will not permit North Susana to unduly prolong the resolution of issues which have already been settled.
This Court has previously held that "the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period laid down by law is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional. The failure to perfect an appeal as required by the rules has the effect of defeating the right to appeal of a party and precluding the appellate court from acquiring jurisdiction over the case." 40
Notably, "[t]he right to appeal is not a natural right nor a part of due process; it is merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law. The party who seeks to avail of the same must comply with the requirements of the Rules. Failing to do so, the right to appeal is lost." 41 Consequently, the well-settled rule is that certiorari cannot be allowed when a party to a case fails to appeal a judgment despite the availability of that remedy. In turn, certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. 42
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition is hereby DENIED. Accordingly, the Resolutions dated 23 May 2019 and 04 September 2019 are AFFIRMED. aDSIHc
SO ORDERED." (Dimaampao, J., designated additional member per Special Order No. 2839 dated 16 September 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 3-172.
2. Id. at 159-161. Penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion of the Special Sixteenth Division, with Associate Justices Maria Elisa Sempio Diy and Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas, concurring.
3. Id. at 65-67. Penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion of Former Special Sixteenth Division, with Associate Justices Maria Elisa Sempio Diy and Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas, concurring.
4. Id. at 48-51; 79-83.
5. Id. at 53-58.
6. Id.
7. Id. at 79-83.
8. Id. at 49.
9. Id.
10. CA-G.R. SP No. 124805, 04 April 2014.
11. Rollo, p. 49.
12. Id.
13. Id. at 48.
14. By Commissioner Melzar P. Galicia, and Commissioner and Chief Executive Officer Lloyd Christopher A. Lao.
15. CA-G.R. SP No. 124805, 04 April 2014.
16. Rollo, pp. 50-51.
17. Id. at 159-161. Penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion of the Special Sixteenth Division, with Associate Justices Maria Elisa Sempio Diy and Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas, concurring.
18. Id. at 159-160.
19. 818 Phil. 1046 (2017) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe].
20. 523 Phil. 670 (2006) [Per C.J. Corona].
21. Rollo, pp. 160-161.
22. Id. at 162-163.
23. Id. at 163-164.
24. Id. at 6.
25. Id. at 198-201.
26. Id. at 202.
27. Id. at 6.
28. 818 Phil. 1046 (2017) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe].
29. 523 Phil. 670 (2006) [Per C.J. Corona].
30. Rollo, pp. 160-161.
31. By Commissioner Melzar P. Galicia, and Commissioner and Chief Executive Officer Lloyd Christopher A. Lao.
32. RA 9904 took effect on March 30, 2010. See RA 9904, Section 29.
33. Rollo, pp. 162-163.
34. Cerilles v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 180845, 22 November 2017 [Per J. Caguioa].
35. Hilbero v. Morales, Jr., 803 Phil. 220 (2017) [Per C.J. Leornardo-de Castro].
36. Tom v. Rodriguez, 763 Phil. 162 (2015) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe].
37. Hilbero v. Morales, Jr., 803 Phil. 220 (2017) [Per C.J. Leonardo-De Castro].
38. See Lefebre v. A Brown Co., Inc., 818 Phil. 1046 (2017) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe].
39. Rollo, pp. 202-205, 50-51.
40. Lefebre v. A Brown Co., Inc., 818 Phil. 1046 (2017) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe], citing China Banking Corp. v. City Treasurer of Manila, 762 Phil. 509 (2015) [Per J. Mendoza].
41. Id., citing Villanueva v. Court of Appeals, 282 Phil. 555 (1992) [Per J. Regalado].
42. Id., citing Indoyon, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 706 Phil. 200 (2013) [Per C.J. Sereno].