Pursuant to Section 5 Item c of the By-Laws of Loakan Green Meadows Home Owners Association that were notarized on 3 September 2002, it was the President, Quino Betong, who was authorized to represent the association in all activities to which it was a party or participates, and this would include any court actions in which the association was either the plaintiff/complainant or the defendant/respondent.
Section 6 of the By-Laws further identifies that it is the Vice-President, in the absence or disability of the President, who performs the duties of the President.
Thus, for anyone else to have the same authority to represent LGMHOA it would require a resolution to be passed not only by the board but also a resolution passed by the members amending those By-Laws, and those resolutions would need to be voted on and passed during either the annual meeting or at a special meeting, both of which would need to be properly notified pursuant to the provisions of By-Laws and any HLURB Rules and Regulations.
Compliance with the content of the Rules on the Registration and Supervision of Homeowners Associations, which were promulgated specifically to prevent abuse of the rights of members and other persons entitled to become members, is as important consideration for a Community Mortgage Program HOA involving existing site occupants.
The rules required LGMHOA to file with the Regional Office a written application to amend its articles of incorporation and/or its By-Laws because HLURB has to approve any proposed amended By-Law.
The rules required a notarized certificate of the board of directors or trustees attesting that the amendment was approved by majority vote of the board;
The rules required the submission of notarized certificate of the secretary of the homeowners association attesting that the amendments were approved by 2/3 votes of the members of the homeowners association;
The rules required the submission of minutes of both meetings called for the purpose;
And the rules advise that if the application to amend the articles of incorporation and/or its by-laws is not contrary to law or public policy and does not adversely affect any interest, the Regional Office shall issue an appropriate amended certificate of incorporation or certificate of filing of amended by-laws, as the case may be.
Given the above, let us now examine the content of the complaint filed by Roehl Gapol Mandapat on behalf of LGMHOA for the purpose of pursuing the ejectment/eviction of the Baguio City Hall employee whose family had occupied their lands, for which they had documents indicating that they lay outside the boundary of Loakan Green Meadows site, for around twenty years.
When filing that complaint, Roehl Gapol Mandapat claimed to have the authority of LGMHOA, but based upon the 3 September 2002 By-Laws, only the President, Quino Betong, or in his absence, the Vice-President, Florentina Cabuyog, would have been legally and validly authorized to represent LGMHOA.
Based on the Rules on the Registration and Supervision of Homeowners Associations this meant that two resolutions would need to be approved, one by the board and one by 2/3 of the members, to amend the By-Laws should any person other than Quino Betong be chosen to represent LGMHOA in a court case as a plaintiff. Such an amended By-Law would only come into legally valid effect after it had been approved by HLURB.
Further, that resolved amendment to the By-Laws could not adversely affect any interest otherwise it would prevent HLURB from approving it.
According to the records maintained by HLURB-CAR, LGMHOA did not apply for nor were they granted approval for such an amendment to its By-Laws prior to January 2005.
Thus, quite clearly no-one other than the President, Quino Betong, or the Vice –president, Florentina Cabuyog, was legally and validly authorized to represent LGMHOA for the filing of a court case.
So Roehl Gapol Mandapat did not have legally valid LGMHOA and HLURB approved authority to represent LGMHOA.
We have commented in a previous blog post on the anomalous wording of that resolution and how it violates several provisions of the LGMHOA By-Laws. That anomalous wording can be questioned at law and the resolution can as a consequence be legally annulled through the Courts. It would also seem that, based on Rules and Regulations, HLURB can also order it to be annulled or invalidated.
Insofar as Roehl Mandapat really needed a resolution amending the By-Laws of LGMHOA and HLURB approval of the same, the documents that he presented to the Court were insufficient to demonstrate that he had valid legal authority to represent LGMHOA or vald legal capacity to sue on behalf of LGMHOA.
The resolution that he presented to the Court was quite clearly identified as a board resolution. It contained no HLURB stamp, nor was it accompanied by a HLURB approval letter.
No necessary resolution passed by the members was presented by plaintiff Roehl Mandapat before the Court. His pleadings were therefore deficient and should have been rejected by the Court.
The absence of such a resolution is also clearly indicative that the potential conflict of interest caused by Roehl Mandapat having an involvement in both BBGMFI and BGMHOA had not been discussed with the members who would potentially be adversely affected by that conflict of interest, and thus such an adverse effect on the members would cause HLURB to reject any application for amendment of the By-Laws such that Roehl Mandapat could validly and legally represent LGMHOA in place of either the President or Vice-President.
The delegated authority clearly it did not comply with HLURB rules requiring two resolutions, one for the board and one for the members, clearly it did not identify that more than 2/3 of the members approved the resolution, and thirdly no copies of the minutes of the relevant meeting were attached.
In addition, HLURB were denied the opportunity to consider whether such an amendment would not adversely affect any interest, in this case the interest of an alleged existing land occupant who had public documents to indicate occupation of lands for twenty years.
Had LGMHOA properly gone through the required HLURB application approval procedures then the question arises as to whether Roehl Gapol Mandapat would have been validly qualified or legally acceptable to file a court case on behalf of LGMHOA at all.
Indeed, it is doubtful for many reasons, most of all the fact that he was not qualified to be a member of that association or a CMP project beneficiary, that he would have been permitted by HLURB to legally represent LGMHOA in a court case.
Any self-respecting Judge, who should be aware of all pertinent laws involving CMP socialized housing programs and home owners associations, should have recognized the above, commented accordingly, if necessary requiring submission of a clearer authority legally and validly issued by LGMHOA with LGMHOA members and HLURB approval, without provision of which that Judge should have instantly dismissed the plaintiff´s complaint because of failure to adequately demonstrate valid legal capacity to sue.
Finally, it would seem that the officers of LGMHOA involved in the resolution partially delegating the representative authority of either the President or Vice-President, as set out in the By-Laws have, by way of failing to initiate and conclude a similar resolution for members to vote upon and failing to get approval of both resolutions from HLURB, violated not only their own association By-Laws, but also HLURB Rules and Regulations, and further that it remains possible that they may have acted in complicity with Roehl Gapol Mandapat to deceive Judge Danilo Camacho.
Given that Quino Betong, the President of the HOA is also a pastor for the Assemblies of God, it is abundantly clear that he needs to examine his conscience and apparent immoral involvement in the deception presented by Roehl Mandapat before Judge Camacho. If he is true to his faith then he should seek to undue the damage that has been caused by that deception perpetrated by Roehl Mandapat.
What must be most alarming about the above eviction/ejectment case is that the Judge relied upon procedural matters to find in favor of a plaintiff who did not have a valid legal capacity to sue, and did not carefully and fully consider (with reference to existing legally applicable housing agency rules and regulations), whether the facts as presented by the plaintiff prevented that Judge from finding in favor of the plaintiff. In part this was due to the plaintiff not identifying to that Judge that the case involved a Community Mortgage Program project that was the subject of various laws, rules and regulations that would need to be complied with before a complaint could be filed before and considered by that Judge. Yet another example of how Roehl Mandapat set out to deceive Judge Camacho.
This is most certainly a matter that requires investigation by the various Government housing agencies involved in socialized housing programs because it is indicative of abuse of those programs through deception of the Courts, and measures need to be adopted to prevent a repeat occurrence.
Such deception also brings the Government socialized housing programs into disrepute.
But what should be of greatest concern to the members of Loakan Green Meadows Homeowners Association is that the acts of their association trustees and officers in assisting Roehl Gapol Mandapat to file an ejectment case in Court without proper valid legal authority may also cause the members to to become liable for the consequences of those acts.