CERTIORARI
CERTIORARI
CERTIORARI
SUPREME COURT
MANILA
-versus-
NAPICO HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION III, INC.,
represented by its Vice
President ROSELLER D.
FORTICH,
Honorable Commissioners
REA CORAZON GOLEZ-
CABRERA, ROLANDO B.
FALLER and DOMNINA T.
RANCES of the HLURB
Board of Commissioners
Third Division
1
NOW COMES the Petitioner, through counsel and unto the
Honorable Supreme Court, most respectfully avers that:
2
from enjoyment of the premises they are now occupying by means
of eviction.
6. Under Rule 65, petitioners have sixty (60) days from 20 March 2019
within which to file this petition. The 60th day falls on 20 May 2019 to
consider that petitioner filed the same on time. Petitioner will pay the docket
and other lawful fees simultaneous with the filing of this petition.
PARTIES
3
serving pleadings, notices, orders and decisions of the Most
Honorable Court, these processes can be forwarded to 1922 Monggo
St., NAPICO, Manggahan Pasig City c/o ARMANDO CANLAS.
BACKGROUNDS
13. There was an oversight when both the Honorable Arbiter and
the Board of Commissioners rendered their respective decisions in
not applying the provision of RA 9904 pertain Resolutions Delisting
or Expelling Association Members in Land Tenurial Projects, which
is the most applicable section of the IRR of RA 9904, including the
issuance of the Writ of Execution.
5
19. The decisions that disregarded the provisions of the
operative law, Republic Act 9904 or the Magna Carta for
Homeowners and Homeowners Associations and the “non-
application of the dictum of prospectivity of law” is a serious invalidation
of statutes not on constitutional grounds are ordinarily of sufficient
importance to warrant review. Hence, the instant petition.
6
applying the operative law and the “dictum of prospective application
of law in absence of retroactive provision.”
7
find it difficult to weigh up the realistic qualities of each party when
the controversy becomes concrete and required attention.
8
procedural barriers, if any, in taking cognizance of this petition be
brushed aside.
The Majority Leader also clarified that "all homeowners can become members of the
homeowners' association and at the same time allows homeowners not to engage or
member in any homeowners association as indicated in Article III, sec. 8 of the 1987
Constitution, stating "membership in homeowner's association is generally voluntary,
subject only to a few exceptions recognized by the Supreme Court through various
decisions on the matter."
He said that while the law recognized that membership in any association is voluntary
unless it is stipulated in the contract or annotated in the title.
The proposed act likewise recognized two classes of homeowners exist, non-member
homeowners and the homeowner members.
"The rights of both classes are enumerated in the proposed legislation, subject to any
additional benefits which they may receive by virtue of the homeowners' association by-
laws," Zubiri said.
"A non-member homeowner has the duty to pay the costs and expenses incurred by the
association for the payment of basic community services."
9
projects/arrangements, the resolution
delisting/expelling members from the association, and
the corresponding substitutions, if any, shall be
submitted to the HLURB, within thirty (30) days from
its adoption. Otherwise, the delisting or expulsion
of members shall not be enforceable.
10
(see also Bonifacio v. Dizon, 177 SCRA 294 and Balatbat v. CA, 205 SCRA
419). chanrobles virtual law library
The prospectivity principle has also been made to apply to administrative
rulings and circulars, to wit: ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation v. CTA,
October 12, 1981, 108 SCRA 142, holding that a circular or ruling of the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue may not be given retroactive effect
adversely to a taxpayer; Sanchez v. COMELEC, 193 SCRA 317, ruling
that Resolution No. 90-0590 of the Commission on Elections, which
directed the holding of recall proceedings, had no retroactive application;
Romualdez v. CSC, 197 SCRA 168, where it was ruled that CSC
Memorandum Circular No. 29, s. 1989 cannot be given retrospective effect
so as to entitle to permanent appointment an employee whose temporary
appointment had expired before the Circular was issued.
11
37. Being poor and unlettered to the law, petitioners cannot be
faulted in reposing so much trust and confidence to their counsel.
Herein petitioners believed that their counsel would amply protect
their interest and expected that the counsel will make good her
representation and take the necessary steps to defend the case.
12
“Procedural technicality should not be made a bar to
the vindication of a legitimate grievance. When such
technicality deserts from being an aid to justice, the
courts are justified in excepting from its operation a
particular case. Where there were something fishy
and suspicious about the actuations of the former
counsel of petitioner in the case at bar, in that he did
not given any significance at all to the processes of
the court, which has proven prejudicial to the rights
of said clients, under a lame and flimsy explanation
that the court’s processes just escaped his attention,
it is said that said lawyer deprived his clients of their
day in court, thus entitling said clients to petition for
relief from judgment despite the lapse of the
reglementary period for filing said petition.”
40. One specific point that petitioners beg the Most Honorable
Court to consider is the claim of ownership by the respondent on the
premises occupied by the petitioners, which is a patent
misrepresentation. There is nothing in the Complaint that alleged
herein respondent is the absolute owner of the property being an
essential requisite of mortgage and it has the free disposal of the
property.
13
Johny S. Atienza of 242 Kaimito Extension, NAPICO, Pasig City.
Second paragraph of the said reply states:
14
In closing, a final and executory judgment can no longer be attacked
by any of the parties or be modified, directly or indirectly, even by
the highest court of the land.
However, the Most Honorable Court has relaxed this rule in order
to serve substantial justice considering (a) matters of life, liberty,
honor or property, (b) the existence of special or compelling
circumstances, (c) the merits of the case, (d) a cause not entirely
attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the
suspension of the rules, (e) a lack of any showing that the review
sought is merely frivolous and dilatory, and (f) the other party will
not be unjustly prejudiced thereby. (APO Fruits Corporation and Hijo
Plantation, Inc. vs. Land Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 164195,October 12, 2010).
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Petitioner most respectfully
prays of the Most Honorable Court the following:
Other reliefs and remedies, which are just and equitable, are
likewise prayed for.
15
Pasig City for City of Manila; 26 March 2019
Respectfully Submitted:
16
Affiant Affiant
Notary Public
Copy furnished:
17
18