Case Digest (G.R. No. 199710)
Facts:
Eric Sto. Tomas, et al. v. Adoracion I. Del Valle, et al., G.R. No. 223637, November 9, 2020, the Supreme Court Third Division, Inting, J., writing for the Court. The petition seeks review of the Court of Appeals Decision of March 21, 2016 affirming the HLURB Fourth Division Decision of June 28, 2012.The dispute began with a Complaint dated August 8, 2009 filed with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) by Adoracion I. Del Valle, Jo-Anne I. Del Valle, Jowel I. Del Valle, Arch. Roberto R. Camacho, and Nelson Z. Ochoa (respondents) against Vermont Royale Homeowners Association, Inc. (VRHAI) and several of its officers and board members (petitioners). Respondents sought injunction, annulment or revocation of construction rules, fees and penalties, damages, and a temporary restraining order (TRO)/preliminary injunction after VRHAI denied a clearance for respondents’ proposed duplex based on the association’s February 2008 Construction Rules and the Deed of Restrictions restricting construction to single-family dwellings.
Despite VRHAI’s refusal to issue a clearance, respondents obtained a building permit from the City Building Official and proceeded; VRHAI then reaffirmed its prohibition by Board Resolution dated June 21, 2009. The HLURB Board of Commissioners (Special Division) issued a TRO/Cease and Desist Order (CDO) on January 14, 2010 enjoining VRHAI from preventing respondents’ construction, subject to compliance with other VRHAI requirements.
The Housing and Land Use Arbiter, Joselito F. Melchor, issued a Decision dated June 29, 2011 making the TRO/CDO permanent, declaring the June 21, 2009 Board Resolution and conflicting deed restriction void insofar as they contradicted Antipolo City’s zoning ordinance (Medium Density Residential, R-2), ordering issuance of necessary permits/clearances, and awarding respondents P50,000 as moral damages, P50,000 as exemplary damages, and P50,000 as attorney’s fees and litigation expenses. VRHAI and its officers appealed to the HLURB, which on June 28, 2012 denied the appeal. The petitioners then filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals.
On March 21, 2016 the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for lack of merit and affirmed the HLURB decision in toto, finding petitioners acted in bad faith, violated respondents’ property rights and prolonged refusal to allow construction warranted the awards of moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. Petitioners filed a Petit...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does the HLURB have jurisdiction to award damages and attorney’s fees in intra-association disputes?
- Assuming the HLURB has such jurisdiction, did it have a proper legal basis to award moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)