REUBEN MIKHAIL P. SABIG, CHRISTOPHER SIAMUNDO, ELLA SALCEDO, KATHERINE JALLORINA, ANTONIO SUGANOB, CHERRIE MAE I, DAVELYN NUQUI, MARILYN GAMBOA, AND ROBERT PASCUA AS 2017-2021 D…

Sabig versus Retirado

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari brought by Reuben Mikhail Sabig and his co-petitioners, who sat as the directors and officers of the La Costa Brava Homeowners' Association from 2017 to 2021, against the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals that dismissed their appeal. The real parties in interest on the other side are the spouses Linley and Juvy Retirado, homeowners in the La Costa Brava Subdivision who stopped paying their monthly association dues. The case matters because the Supreme Court uses it to draw the boundary between what a homeowners' association may and may not do to a delinquent member under the Magna Carta of Homeowners and Homeowners' Association, Republic Act Number 9904. It is a case about the legality of sanctions, and it is also a case about the strictness of procedure.

Procedural History

The spouses Retirado filed a complaint before the Human Settlements Adjudication Commission, the HSAC, against the petitioners for violation of Republic Act Number 9904. The HSAC Special Adjudicator ruled that the Board Resolutions were contrary to law for restricting the use and passage through the roads, and ordered that the petitioners be permanently disqualified from holding any office in the association. The HSAC Second Division affirmed this in its Decision dated May 25, 2023, and the HSAC En Banc affirmed it in its Resolution dated November 30, 2023.

The petitioners then went up to the Court of Appeals by a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. Notably, they served that petition upon the spouses Retirado themselves, and not upon their counsels. The Court of Appeals, Eighteenth Division, Cebu City, dismissed the appeal in its Resolution dated March 15, 2024, on procedural grounds, including the defective service, and denied reconsideration in its Resolution dated September 3, 2024. The petitioners then filed the present petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court to challenge both Resolutions.

Facts

The spouses Retirado are homeowners in the La Costa Brava Subdivision. From 2016 to 2021, they did not pay the monthly association dues collected by the La Costa Brava Homeowners' Association, Incorporated. Because of this, the petitioners, who were the directors of the association, declared the spouses delinquent and imposed various sanctions under two Board Resolutions.

Some of the sanctions restricted basic services. Grass-cutting or maintenance within five meters of the delinquent members' property was banned unless requested in writing by adjacent lot owners, and garbage collection was reduced to once every two weeks. These are not the sanctions in dispute.

The sanctions in dispute went further. They banned the delivery of food, packages, construction materials, appliances, gas, and similar items to the residences of delinquent members. They banned empty taxis, tricycles, or Grab vehicles from entering the subdivision to fetch delinquent members from their residence. They banned the entry of guests of delinquent members. And they imposed delivery fees on trucks and vehicles delivering supplies and materials to the construction site. The spouses Retirado then complained to the HSAC.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petitioners' appeal on the ground of procedural defects.
• Whether or not the sanctions imposed by the association upon its delinquent members violate Republic Act Number 9904.
• Whether or not the violations warrant the petitioners' permanent disqualification from holding any office in the association.

Applicable Provisions

Section 7(a) of Republic Act Number 9904 provides:

Section 7. Rights of a Member. – An association member has full rights: (a) to avail of and enjoy all basic community services and the use of common areas and facilities.

This is the source of the two separate full rights the Court distinguishes, and it is the provision the sanctions were held to violate.

Section 22(b) of Republic Act Number 9904 provides:

Section 22. Prohibited Acts. – (b) To deprive any homeowner of his/her right to avail of or enjoy basic community services and facilities when such homeowner has paid the necessary dues.

This provision names only the first right and omits the right to use common areas, and the Court reads that omission as the key limitation on the power to sanction.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition was the wrong remedy and was filed late. A petition for certiorari is not a substitute for a lapsed appeal, and where an appeal is available, certiorari will not prosper even if the ground is grave abuse of discretion. The correct remedy against the final Resolution of the Court of Appeals was a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, filed within fifteen days. The petitioners received the Second Resolution on October 18, 2024, but filed only on December 17, 2024, so the period had lapsed. The Court also found no grave abuse of discretion in the dismissal of the appeal, because service upon the party and not the counsel is defective, and the petitioners did not even prove their supposed service, having attached only a photo of the registry receipt instead of the original.

On the second issue, the Court ruled that the sanctions violate Republic Act Number 9904. Reading Section 22(b) with Section 7(a), the Court held that an association may deprive a delinquent member of the right to avail of or enjoy basic community services and facilities, but may not deprive the member of the right to use common areas such as the roads. The Court explained the omission in Section 22(b):

Clearly, the right to use the common areas was omitted in Section 22(b). Following the settled rule in statutory construction, this omission must be considered intentional.

Because the right is a full right, it includes the right to freely use the roads for mobile transportation and the delivery of basic goods. The sanctions banning deliveries, guests, and vehicles fetching the members restricted exactly that right, and so they are void.

On the third issue, the Court held that the violations are serious and grave, producing great harm and dangerous consequences because they hamper the use of roads even for the delivery of basic goods for survival and for mobile transportation. The permanent disqualification from holding office therefore stands.

Doctrine

A homeowners' association may impose sanctions upon members declared delinquent in accordance with its bylaws, but that right is not absolute. Under Section 7(a) of Republic Act Number 9904, a member has two separate full rights: the right to avail of and enjoy basic community services and facilities, and the right to use common areas such as the roads. Section 22(b) allows the deprivation of the first right when dues are unpaid, but its intentional omission of the second right means the association may never deprive a delinquent member of the full right to use common areas, including the roads for transportation and delivery of basic goods. Sanctions that restrict the use of roads are void, while sanctions that merely reduce basic services, such as reduced garbage collection, are allowed.

Disposition

The petition for certiorari was dismissed, and the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals were affirmed, so the spouses Retirado prevailed and the petitioners' permanent disqualification from office stood.

Remember This

Memorize the line: a delinquent member may lose basic community services and facilities, but never the full right to use the common areas and roads. Examiners use this case to test the limits of a homeowners' association's power to sanction, and to test whether certiorari may substitute for a lapsed appeal under Rule 45.