Case Digest (G.R. No. 211353)
Facts:
William G. Kwong Management, Inc. and William G. Kwong v. Diamond Homeowners & Residents Association, G.R. No. 211353, June 10, 2019, Supreme Court Third Division, Leonen, J., writing for the Court.Diamond Subdivision in Angeles City contained numerous commercial establishments (beer houses, karaoke bars, night clubs) whose patrons’ unrestricted access allegedly led to robberies, akyat‑bahay, prostitution, rape, and late‑night noise. The Diamond Homeowners & Residents Association (respondent) adopted in December 2006 the “No Sticker, No ID, No Entry” Policy (Policy), to be implemented March 15, 2007: vehicle visitors had to leave identification with guards (residents could instead obtain stickers).
Petitioner William G. Kwong (a long‑time resident and operator of three motels) objected. He had earlier proposed private gates and guards for his street. He filed a complaint with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) Regional Office seeking a cease and desist order and a temporary restraining order (TRO), arguing the subdivision roads were public — donated to Angeles City in 1974 — and that the Policy illegally restricted public roads and harmed his businesses.
The HLURB Regional Office issued a Cease and Desist Order and TRO, and the case proceeded to the HLURB Arbiter. On August 10, 2007 the HLURB Arbiter lifted the Cease and Desist Order and dismissed Kwong’s complaint, finding that the Policy did not impair road use, prioritized residents’ security, and lacked evidence that it harmed Kwong’s business. The HLURB Board of Commissioners, on appeal, reversed on September 12, 2008, declaring the Policy void for converting public roads into private, and holding that petitioners had a vested right to unrestricted passage. The Office of the President affirmed the Board’s decision on March 24, 2010.
Diamond Homeowners sought relief from the Court of Appeals by petition for certiorari; in its July 5, 2013 Decision the Court of Appeals set aside the Office of the President’s Decision and held the Policy valid and reasonably exercised; the CA denied reconsideration in its February 12, 2014 Resolution. Petitioners then filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 with...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Are the factual findings of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board entitled to respect and binding on this Court?
- Were the security and safety concerns within Diamond Subdivision sufficiently established?
- Was the Diamond Homeowners & Residents Association authorized to adopt the “No Sticker, No ID, No Entry” Policy despite the subdivision roads having been d...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)