LAKERIDGE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND ERLINDA K. ILUSORIO, PETITIONERS-APPELLANTS, VS. PACIFIC PLAZA CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION AND MONTANO DIMAPILIS, RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES, LAKERI…

Lakeridge Development Corporation versus Pacific Plaza Condominium Corporation

The Case

This is a petition for mandamus with damages. Lakeridge Development Corporation, the registered owner of Penthouse Unit 43-C of the Pacific Plaza Condominium, together with Erlinda K. Ilusorio, sought to compel Pacific Plaza Condominium Corporation and its resident manager, Montano Dimapilis, to issue a renovation permit for that unit. The condominium refused, and the question that reaches us is whether the courts may command that refusal to be undone. The case matters because it is a clean illustration of the strict requirements of the extraordinary writ of mandamus, and of how a corporation acts only through a board whose legitimacy must itself be settled before any officer may claim a clear legal right in its name.

Procedural History

Lakeridge and Erlinda K. Ilusorio filed a Petition for Mandamus and Damages before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 150, praying that the respondents be compelled to issue the work permit, with actual and moral damages and attorney's fees. An intervenor, Erlinda I. Bildner, claiming to represent Lakeridge through the rival faction, was allowed to intervene. On 22 June 2009, the trial court dismissed the petition. The petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court, which denied the appeal and affirmed the trial court.

Facts

Lakeridge, controlled by the family of the late Atty. Potenciano Ilusorio, is the registered owner of Penthouse Unit 43-C of Pacific Plaza. The Ilusorio family, however, was split into two feuding factions: the group led by Atty. Potenciano Ilusorio, and the group of Ramon K. Ilusorio, to which the petitioner Erlinda K. Ilusorio belonged.

Erlinda K. Ilusorio demanded that Pacific Plaza and its resident manager Dimapilis approve her application to renovate the unit. Dimapilis denied the application on the ground that she failed to adduce evidence that she had the indubitable right and authority to apply for the renovation on behalf of Lakeridge.

Hence the petition for mandamus. The respondents answered that they were merely caught in the middle of the family's legal battle, and that other cases were pending involving the ownership and possession of the unit and the legitimate representation in Lakeridge's board of directors. The intervenor added that the pendency of those cases rendered the petitioners' claimed right questionable, unclear, and uncertain.

Issues

• Whether or not Erlinda K. Ilusorio has legal capacity to sue for and on behalf of Lakeridge Development Corporation.
• Whether or not the petitioners have a well-defined, clear, and certain legal right to demand the issuance of the writ of mandamus.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote a statutory text; it states the governing rule of the extraordinary writ of mandamus as follows:

The peremptory writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that is issued only in extreme necessity, and the ordinary course of procedure is powerless to afford an adequate and speedy relief to one who has a clear legal right to the performance of the act to be compelled.

This rule bears on the case because the petitioners must show a clear legal right before the writ may issue.

Mandamus will issue only when the petitioner has a clear legal right to the performance of the act sought to be compelled and the respondent has an imperative duty to perform the same.

This bears on the case because the respondent's duty to issue the permit depends entirely on the petitioner's right to demand it.

The petitioner bears the burden to show that there is such a clear legal right to the performance of the act, and a corresponding compelling duty on the part of the respondent to perform the act.

This bears on the case because the burden of proving the clear right rests on the petitioners, and it was not discharged.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that Erlinda K. Ilusorio's authority to act for Lakeridge was not established. There were two groups claiming to be the legitimate board of directors of Lakeridge, and a case was pending before Branch 46 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila whose primary issue was the legitimacy of those two groups. Unless and until that issue is resolved with finality, she cannot assert a clear right in the corporation's name. The Court also recalled its earlier ruling in the case of Marietta K. Ilusorio against Sylvia K. Ilusorio, where it found insufficient evidence that Erlinda K. Ilusorio was the lawful occupant of the unit, and where a letter issued by her for Lakeridge was without the appropriate board resolution to support it. That bolstered the finding that her authority to represent the corporation was questionable.

On the second issue, the Court held that the petitioners had no well-defined, clear, and certain legal right. The writ is an extraordinary remedy issued only in extreme necessity, and it merely compels action and coerces the performance of a pre-existing duty. The petitioner bears the burden of showing a clear legal right and a corresponding compelling duty on the part of the respondent. Here, whether Erlinda K. Ilusorio may compel the issuance of the permit hinges on her authority to act for Lakeridge, and that authority remains unresolved. The trial court therefore did not err in dismissing the petition.

Doctrine

First, mandamus is an extraordinary remedy issued only in extreme necessity, where the ordinary course of procedure is powerless to afford adequate and speedy relief. It lies only to compel action and to coerce the performance of a pre-existing duty.

Second, the petitioner must show a clear legal right to the performance of the act sought to be compelled, and a corresponding imperative duty on the part of the respondent. The burden of proof rests on the petitioner.

Third, a corporation acts only through its board of directors. Where the legitimacy of the board is itself in question and pending in another court, an officer claiming to represent the corporation cannot assert a clear legal right in its name, and mandamus will not lie.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the appeal for lack of merit and affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 150, dismissing the petition for mandamus and damages. The respondents won.

Remember This

Memorize this line: mandamus issues only where the petitioner has a clear legal right and the respondent an imperative duty, and the burden of showing both rests on the petitioner. Examiners use this case to test the requisites of mandamus and the rule that a corporation's authority flows only from a legitimate board of directors.