G.R. No. 236726 , September 14, 2021
Atty. Pablo B. Francisco, Petitioner, vs. Melanio Del Castillo, Sandra Bernales, and the Republic of the Philippines, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Atty. Pablo B. Francisco and private respondents Melanio Del Castillo and Sandra Bernales are members of the Board of Brookside Residents Association, Inc. (BRAI). On September 3, 2014, petitioner requested to inspect and obtain copies of BRAI’s financial books and records for 2008-2013 at the BRAI office. After his request was not favorably acted upon, petitioner filed a criminal case against private respondents for violating Section 7(b) of Republic Act No. 9904 (The Magna Carta for Homeowners and Homeowners Associations). An Information was filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Antipolo City, Branch 71, docketed as Criminal Case No. 15-50102. The RTC issued a warrant of arrest and denied private respondents’ Omnibus Motion to Quash the Information, Warrant of Arrest, and to Cancel Arraignment. Private respondents filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA granted the petition, reversed the RTC Orders, and dismissed the criminal case, holding that the dispute was an intra-association controversy falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB). Petitioner filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

1. Whether it is the HLURB or the RTC that has jurisdiction over the controversy.
2. Whether Section 23, in relation to Sections 7(b) and 22(c) of R.A. No. 9904 , is a penal provision.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the CA Decision.
1. The HLURB has exclusive jurisdiction to resolve the intra-association dispute. The controversy involves a conflict among association members regarding the enforcement of a member’s right to inspect association books and records under Section 7(b) of R.A. No. 9904 . Section 20(d) of R.A. No. 9904 explicitly grants the HLURB the authority to hear and decide intra-association controversies. The act complained of—preventing a homeowner from exercising the right to inspect—is a prohibited act under Section 22(c) of the same law. While Section 23 authorizes the HLURB to impose administrative fines for violations, the proviso allowing filing of cases in regular courts “without prejudice to being charged before a regular court for violations of the provisions of the Revised Penal Code, Civil Code and other pertinent laws” applies only when the violation is accompanied by an act constituting an offense under those laws. A sole violation of a member’s right under R.A. No. 9904 , unaccompanied by such an independent criminal or civil wrong, does not create a cause of action cognizable by the regular courts.
2. Section 23 of R.A. No. 9904 is not a penal provision that defines a crime. The fine imposed under Section 23 is an administrative penalty, not a criminal punishment. The law does not define a crime and prescribe a corresponding penalty for its violation. For a law to be considered penal, it must define a criminal act and provide for its punishment. R.A. No. 9904 lacks these essential elements. The HLURB’s power to impose fines is part of its administrative and regulatory functions over homeowners associations. Therefore, the RTC had no jurisdiction over the criminal case filed by the petitioner.