G.R. No. 123552 ; February 27, 2003
Twin Towers Condominium Corporation, petitioner, vs. The Court of Appeals, ALS Management & Development Corporation, Antonio Litonjua and Securities and Exchange Commission, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Twin Towers Condominium Corporation, a non-stock corporation managing the common areas of Twin Towers Condominium, filed a complaint with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) against respondent ALS Management & Development Corporation, the registered owner of a condominium unit, and its president, Antonio Litonjua, who occupied the unit. The complaint sought to collect unpaid condominium assessments and dues. The SEC Hearing Officer ordered ALS to pay the dues but also ordered petitioner to pay Litonjua substantial moral and exemplary damages for maliciously including his name in a posted list of delinquent owners.
Both parties appealed to the SEC en banc. The SEC en banc reversed the award of damages to Litonjua, ruling it had no jurisdiction over him as he was not the registered unit owner and thus had no intra-corporate relationship with petitioner. It also modified the order against ALS, remanding the case to determine the value of services petitioner withheld (like denying use of facilities) so this amount could be deducted from the unpaid dues. Petitioner then appealed to the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the appeal for lack of merit and for non-compliance with the certification against forum shopping requirement.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition and, substantively, whether the SEC en banc correctly ruled on the liability for condominium dues and the jurisdiction over Litonjua.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. On procedural grounds, the Court upheld the dismissal for petitioner’s failure to attach a proper certification against forum shopping, which is mandatory and jurisdictional. On substantive merits, the Court found no error in the SEC en banc’s decision. The SEC correctly held it had no jurisdiction over Litonjua for damages. Jurisdiction was based on an intra-corporate controversy under P.D. 902-A, which requires a relationship between the corporation and its stockholders, members, or officers. Litonjua, as a mere occupant and not a registered owner or member of the condominium corporation, did not have such a relationship with petitioner. His claim for damages was a personal action falling under regular court jurisdiction.
Regarding the remand to determine the value of withheld services, the Court affirmed this as correct. While the Condominium Act and the Master Deed obligate unit owners to pay assessments for common area maintenance, the condominium corporation also has a reciprocal duty to provide access to these common areas. The temporary prevention of ALS from using facilities, if unjustified, could constitute a breach of this reciprocal obligation. Therefore, the Hearing Officer must ascertain if there was a failure to render services and, if so, determine its value for a potential offset against the outstanding dues, ensuring equity between the parties.