Case Digest (G.R. No. 124873)
Facts:
United BF Homeowners Association, and Home Insurance and Guaranty Corporation v. BF Homes, Inc., G.R. No. 124873, July 14, 1999, Supreme Court First Division, Pardo, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner United BF Homeowners Association, Inc. (UBFHAI) is the umbrella organization representing homeowners in the BF Homes Parañaque Subdivision; petitioner Home Insurance and Guaranty Corporation (HIGC) is the agency charged with registration and supervision of homeowners’ associations by virtue of Executive Order No. 535 and related law. BF Homes, Inc. (BFHI) is the owner-developer of the subdivision and, since 1988, has been under SEC-ordered receivership and a court-approved rehabilitation program.
In 1988 the SEC placed BFHI under receivership and Atty. Florencio B. Orendain was appointed receiver to carry out a ten-year rehabilitation plan. Prior to and during receivership, management problems in the subdivision — including absence of centralized security, many satellite associations, water-well failures, and lack of zoning controls — prompted the receiver to negotiate with the major homeowners’ associations for a single representative body and an integrated security scheme. Pursuant to those arrangements, UBFHAI was organized and registered with HIGC on May 18, 1989, and the receiver turned over administration of the clubhouse and certain open spaces to UBFHAI in 1989 and 1993.
On November 7, 1994, the first receiver was replaced by a new committee of receivers composed of BFHI’s board of directors. On April 7, 1995, the committee advised homeowners’ associations that BFHI, as part of rehabilitation, would assume responsibility for subdivision security and centralize operations. On that same day UBFHAI filed before HIGC a petition for mandamus with preliminary injunction (docketed HIGC Case No. HOA-95-027), alleging that the new committee unlawfully revoked prior security agreements and had undertaken acts such as taking over the clubhouse and security administration.
Ex parte, on April 11, 1995 HIGC (through hearing officer Atty. Roberto C. Abrajano) issued a temporary restraining order enjoining BFHI from taking over the clubhouse, assuming control of security at entry/exit points and main avenues, impeding auctions in HIGC HOA-90-138, and otherwise repudiating contracts made with the former receiver. Without answering the HIGC petition, BFHI filed on April 24, 1995 a petition for prohibition with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 37072) to enjoin HIGC from proceeding.
The HIGC deferred resolution of the preliminary injunction pending the CA action and, when the twenty-day TRO lapsed, ordered status quo maintained. On November 27, 1995 the Court of Appeals granted BFHI’s petition for prohibition, ordering the public respondent (Atty. Abrajano) to refrain from hearing HIGC Case No. HOA-95-027 and to dismiss it for lack of jurisdiction; the CA denied reconsideration on April 24, 1996. ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is Section 1(b), Rule II of the HIGC “Revised Rules of Procedure in the Hearing of Homeowners’ Disputes” valid?
- Did HIGC have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide HIGC Case No. HOA‑95‑027 (i.e., was the Court of Appeals correct to grant prohibition for lack of jurisdiction)?
- Do the acts complained of by UBFHAI constitute an...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)