G.R. No. 188307 - Multinational Village Homeowners' Association, Inc. vs. Gacutan

The controversy involves an election contest between two rival groups of directors of the Multinational Village Homeowners Association, Inc. (MVHAI).
Petitioners (the 2005 directors) and respondents (the 2004 directors) have been at odds since 2004, with each group asserting their right to occupy and manage the Board of Directors (BOD).

In the first week of January 2005, the respondents—then holding the positions as officers and members of the BOD—approved a resolution setting the annual election for 23 January 2005, along with guidelines on proxy voting and other related matters.
Notifications in the form of distributed copies of the resolution were sent to the homeowners of MVHAI.
Two days before the scheduled election (21 January 2005), petitioner Jimmy del Mundo sought injunctive relief from the HLURB-NCRFO alleging irregularities such as the lack of transparency in issuing proxy forms and the alleged burning of election records to forestall verification of previous elections.
The HLURB-NCRFO granted the injunction and issued a restraining order against any further issuance of proxy forms and proxy voting for the impending election.

Despite the restraining order, the Committee on Election (Comelec) formed by the respondents postponed the village poll on the morning of 23 January 2005 to accommodate those intending to vote by proxy.
A majority of the qualified members of MVHAI, however, ignored the respondent-appointed Comelec and constituted a new body to supervise the election, which proceeded as scheduled with petitioners garnering the highest number of votes.
Respondents, arguing that the petitioners were not authorized by the association’s by-laws to call an election, refused to relinquish their seats and declared themselves as hold-over directors, claiming their term had not expired until a proper election was held.
Petitioners filed an election contest (HLURB Case No. NCRHOA-020105-557) petitioning that their election be affirmed and asking for a permanent injunction against the respondents’ continued hold-over.

On 10 March 2005, the HLURB-NCRFO rendered a decision nullifying the 2005 election, directing that petitioners relinquish their positions and turn over the MVHAI clubhouse, records, and assets to the former (respondent) BOD.
Petitioners appealed this decision and, on 13 October 2005, the HLURB-Board of Commissioners (BoC) reversed the HLURB-NCRFO ruling, declaring the 2005 election valid by emphasizing the need to respect the majority’s will.
In response, respondents filed a Petition for Review with the Office of the President (OP); subsequently, on 16 May 2006, the OP set aside the HLURB-BoC decision and reinstated the HLURB-NCRFO decision.
A further resolution (18 June 2006) by the OP declared its earlier decision final and executory.

The HLURB-NCRFO issued a Writ of Execution (3 August 2006) to enforce the 10 March 2005 decision. Petitioners moved to quash this writ on the ground of changed circumstances following the 29 January 2006 election and the constitution of a 2006 BOD, but the motion was denied (16 August 2006).
A status quo was maintained temporarily by the HLURB-BoC via an injunction allowing the 2006 BOD to continue its functions pending further resolution.
In January 2007, as the 2006 BOD planned an election for the 2007 term, respondents sought injunctive relief before the HLURB-NCRFO; meanwhile, the OP issued a Clarificatory Resolution on 2 April 2007, directing that:

The 2004 (respondents’) BOD call and conduct an election within thirty (30) days.
The HLURB-BoC supervise the said election.
The interim management of MVHAI’s operations remain with the 2004 BOD pending the election.

Further, an Alias Writ of Execution was issued (9–12 February 2007) and partially implemented on 29 March 2007 when the possession of the clubhouse was taken. The 2007 BOD, however, contested the writ on the basis that it applied only to the 2005 BOD.
The matter was elevated to the Court of Appeals (CA) through a Petition for Certiorari filed on 16 July 2007, which was initially dismissed then later reinstated upon motion.
Consequent elections were held on 12 August 2007, as well as on 25 and 30 January 2009.
Ultimately, on 27 February 2009, the CA nullified all elections conducted after the 10 March 2005 decision and directed the HLURB to enforce the OP Decision dated 16 May 2006. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied on 5 June 2009.
Petitioners then elevated the matter through a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

Whether the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in reconsidering and reinstating the Petition for Certiorari, despite the OP Clarificatory Resolution and the Resolution dated 18 June 2007 having become final and executory.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in declaring that the OP Clarificatory Resolution and the subsequent Resolution effectively modified the dispositive portion of the 10 March 2005 HLURB-NCRFO decision, which had been reinstated by the final and executory OP Decision dated 16 May 2006.
Whether it was erroneous for the Court of Appeals to invalidate all elections held subsequent to the 10 March 2005 decision during the pendency of this case.