GR 210297; (April, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 210297 April 3, 2019
BNL MANAGEMENT CORPORATION AND ROMEO DAVID, Petitioners vs. REYNALDO UY, RODIEL BALOY, ATTY. LUALHATI CRUZ, ALBERTO WONG, TERESITA PASIA, ROLAND INGEL, AND MARISSA SEVILLA, Respondents
FACTS
Petitioner BNL Management Corporation owned six condominium units and three parking spaces at the Imperial Bayfront Tower Condominium. In December 1996, BNL, through its president Romeo David, wrote to the condominium association listing complaints regarding maintenance, security, and the annotation of its parking spaces on the title. The letter threatened to withhold future association dues if the issues were unresolved. Following up in March 1997, BNL’s counsel declared it would place dues in escrow until its demands were met. Despite subsequent correspondence and the association providing requested documents in May 1999, BNL persistently refused to pay its accumulating dues arrears, which reached over ₱180,000 by August 1999.
After sending several billing notices, the association’s Board of Directors passed a resolution to disconnect the lighting facilities to BNL’s units due to non-payment, citing authority under the house rules derived from the Master Deed and Declaration of Restrictions. The water supply was also threatened with disconnection. BNL and David then filed a complaint for damages and specific performance against the individual board members (respondents), arguing the utility cut-off was unlawful. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Whether the condominium association, through its board members, acted lawfully in disconnecting utility services to the petitioner’s units due to non-payment of association dues.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower courts’ rulings. The legal foundation for the association’s action is Section 9 of the Condominium Act ( Republic Act No. 4726 ), which mandates the annotation of a Declaration of Restrictions on the condominium’s certificate of title. This declaration, which includes the condominium’s by-laws and house rules, binds all unit owners. The house rules of Imperial Bayfront explicitly empowered the association to limit or cut off services and utilities to delinquent unit owners. Therefore, the respondents’ act was a valid exercise of a contractual and legally sanctioned remedy to enforce payment, essential for funding the condominium’s common services. The Court emphasized that the obligation to pay association dues is reciprocal to the right to enjoy common areas and services. BNL’s unilateral act of withholding dues based on its grievances was unjustified; it should have paid under protest and pursued its complaints separately. The respondents, acting in their official capacity within the scope of the association’s governing rules, incurred no liability for implementing a lawful collection measure.