Sun.Star Pampanga - - NA­TION! -

ma­jor­ity of the gen­eral mem­ber­ship when "only the in­cor­po­ra­tors signed the same."

Com­plainants also claimed, among oth­ers, that sub­stan­tial amend­ments to the old by­laws of VTHOAI were made and sub­mit­ted to HLURB with­out the ap­proval of the res­i­dent-mem­bers and that the new of­fi­cers were not voted thru the proper elec­tion pro­ce­dure.

In their de­fense, the re­spon­dents claimed that they reg­is­tered the new as­so­ci­a­tion, named Villa Teresa Homeowners As­so­ci­a­tion (VTHAI), with the Se­cu­ri­ties and Ex­change Com­mis­sion upon learn­ing that VTHOAI was not listed with the SEC.

In ad­di­tion, the re­spon­dents averred to have been validly elected be­cause, upon learn­ing of VTHOAI's non­reg­is­tra­tion with the SEC, they took steps in en­sur­ing the le­git­i­macy of the as­so­ci­a­tion with HLURB and that they "held-over" their po­si­tions in the mean­time.

Re­spon­dents even chal­lenged the com­plaint say­ing it should be dis­missed due to in­suf­fi­ciency in form and sub­stance as only six of the 26 com­plainants signed the com­plaints.

But the HLURB, af­ter its in­ves­ti­ga­tions and ar­bi­tra­tions, main­tained that "any de­fect in the sig­na­ture or ver­i­fi­ca­tion...shall not re­sult in the dis­missal of the com­plaint."

To re­solve the case, the HLURB said regis­tra­tion of VTHAI should be can­celed and all its ar­ti­cles of as­so­ci­a­tion and by-laws, as amended from the orig­i­nal VTHOAI laws, be de­clared null and void.

HLURB stressed that even if proof of regis­tra­tion was not found with the SEC, the re­spon­dents should have ver­i­fied the HOA's regis­tra­tion with the HIGC.

It added that it is also "im­pos­si­ble for them not to know the ex­is­tence of the old VTHOAI since some of the in­cor­po­ra­tors of the new as­so­ci­a­tion and the old one are the same per­sons.

More­over, HLURB took ju­di­cial no­tice of the as­so­ci­a­tion dock­ets of VTHAI and found that re­spon­dents' new ap­pli­ca­tion for regis­tra­tion with them in­cludes a list of per­sons al­legedly the ma­jor­ity of mem­bers who agreed to the amend­ment of its by-laws and its sub­se­quent adop­tion.

How­ever, HLURB added, a com­par­i­son of VTHAI's regis­tra­tion with HIGC and its ap­pli­ca­tion with the reg­u­la­tory board "would be­lie re­spon­dents' claim that the sig­na­to­ries are in fact a ma­jor­ity of the gen­eral mem­ber­ship.

In its orig­i­nal regis­tra­tion with HGIC, the de­ci­sion read, there are roughly 141 per­sons who are mem­ber­shome­own­ers of VTHOAI while in its new regis­tra­tion with the HLURB, only 36 sig­ni­fied their ap­proval to the pro­posed amend­ments of the as­so­ci­a­tion's by-laws.

"Clearly, the new regis­tra­tion and the amend­ment of the by-laws of VTHAI is not in ac­cor­dance with RA 9904 and its IRR and are (sic) in­valid," the de­ci­sion fur­thered.

HLURB also did not agree to the re­spon­dents' claim of "hold-over" ca­pac­i­ties as of­fi­cers of the VTHOAI be­cause there were no fac­tual ba­sis of their as­cen­sion to their of­fices as the VTHAI had not faith­fully sub­mit­ted its an­nual fi­nan­cial re­ports and elec­tion re­ports since its in­cep­tion in 1992.

HLURB, though, de­nied the com­plainants' prayer for the per­pet­ual dis­qual­i­fi­ca­tion of the re­spon­dents from hold­ing any po­si­tions in the VTHOAI as it was only their first of­fense and there was no clear ev­i­dence of bad faith in the re­spon­dents ac­tions.

Aside from or­der­ing the im­me­di­ate con­duct of an elec­tion to fill the po­si­tions of the HOA, the HLURB de­ci­sion also or­dered the re­spon­dents to pay the ad­min­is­tra­tive fine of P15,000 and an­other P30,000 for the com­plainants' at­tor­ney's fees and P5,908.80 in damages.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Philippines

© PressReader. All rights reserved.