________________________________________________________________

BNL MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, et al., Petitioners v. REYNALDO UY, et

al., RESPONDENTS.
G.R. No. 210297, April 03, 2019
Ponente: LEONEN, J.: THIRD DIVISION
________________________________________________________________

Nature of Action: This is an action for Damages and Specific Performance with
preliminary mandatory/ prohibitory injunction against respondents Reynaldo Uy,
et al., instituted by BNL Management Corporation due to the failure of the former
to restore the electricity and water of the subject condominium unit owned by the
latter.

Facts: BNL Management owned six (6) condominium units at the Imperial
Bayfront Tower Condominium, A. Mabini Street, Malate, Manila (Imperial
Bayfront). These units were leased to its clients under separate contracts of
lease. BNL Management also held exclusive rights to three (3) parking spaces of
Imperial Bayfront. BNL Management, through David, wrote a letter to the building
administrator of Imperial Bayfront, acknowledging receipt of the November billing
statement.8 In the letter, it brought up concerns, among others, over the general
cleanliness and maintenance of common areas.

Further, this is to put on notice that if the above list of problems remain
unresolved, we will be constrained to withhold all future payments of association
dues until the issues are resolved satisfactorily.

BNL Management received Notice of Billing. Still, BNL Management did not pay
the arrears. Thus, in the meeting, the Association's Board of Directors composed
of Reynaldo Uy et al. resolved to disconnect the lighting facilities in the six (6)
units owned by BNL Management.

Since the Association refused to restore its electricity and water, BNL
Management and David filed before the Regional Trial Court a
Complaint17 against Uy, et al. for damages and specific performance with
preliminary mandatory/prohibitory injunction.

The RTC dismissed the complaint . It found out that the homeowners’ association
depended on the dues paid by its members to deliver services such as building
maintenance.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal denied the petition affirming the decision of the
RTC. The CA held that the act of cutting off BNL Management’s electricity and
water supply was legal.

Thus this Petition for Review on Certiorari

Issue: Whether or not the act in disconnecting the lighting facilities was ultra
vires and therefore the same is liable for damages to BNL Management.

Held: Negative. The Court held that BNL cannot justify their nonpayment of dues
with mere allegations that the House Rules and Regulations are invalid and that
the Association's Board of Directors was not duly elected. Petitioners' action for
damages is not the proper forum to determine the legitimacy of the Association's
Board of Directors and whether its acts are ultra vires. Finally, petitioners are not
entitled to the damages they prayed for.

Moral damages are awarded in circumstances enumerated under Article 2217 of

the Civil Code: ARTICLE 2217. Moral damages include physical suffering, mental
anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral
shock, social humiliation, and similar injury. Though incapable of pecuniary
computation, moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result
of the defendant's wrongful act or omission. For moral damages to be awarded,
the following requisites must be present: Such damages, to be recoverable, must
be the proximate result of a wrongful act or omission the factual basis for which is
satisfactorily established by the aggrieved party. There is no showing here that
an exception should apply pro hac vice in favor of petitioner BNL Management.