Republic of the Philippines

Office of the President

HOUSING AND LAND USE REGULATORY BOARD
National Capital Regional Field Office
Sunnymede IT Center, Quezon Avenue, Quezon City

JEFFREY S. MENDOZA,
Complainant
-versus- Case No. NCRHDA-071919-3037

JOSE JAVIER TINSAY, JR.

ROSENDO ROEHL CORNEJO JR.
ARTURO ARCA, DALIA PINEDA,
GEMMA ESTRELLA, GEMMA SOLIDUM,
LEONARDO CARANI, EVANGELINE STA. MARIA
MARY JANE BELMONTE
Respondents
X---------------------------------------------------X

JOSE JAVIER TINSAY, JR.

ROSENDO ROEHL CORNEJO JR.
ARTURO ARCA, DALIA PINEDA,
GEMMA ESTRELLA, GEMMA SOLIDUM,
LEONARDO CARANI, EVANGELINE STA. MARIA
MARY JANE BELMONTE
Third party - Complainants
-versus-

ROMEO ESTRELLA, MARK ACE RHOMER P BARBOSA,

ENGR. ELISEO RIVERA,
c/o FILINVEST LAND CORPORATION
Third party - Respondents

ANSWER WITH THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT AND COUNTER-CLAIM

Respondents JOSE JAVIER TINSAY, JR., ROSENDO ROEHL CORNEJO

JR., ARTURO ARCA, DALIA PINEDA, GEMMA ESTRELLA, GEMMA
SOLIDUM,LEONARDO CARANI, EVANGELINE STA. MARIA, MARY JANE
BELMONTE by counsel respectfully states:
 TIMELINESS

Instant complaint was received by herein respondents on September 2, 2019

and was given ten (10) days to file their answer or until September 12, 2019, hence
the timeliness of the filing of this pleading.

I.
ADMISSION

1. Respondents JOSE JAVIER TINSAY, JR., ROSENDO ROEHL CORNEJO

JR., ARTURO ARCA, DALIA PINEDA, GEMMA ESTRELLA, GEMMA
SOLIDUM, LEONARDO CARANI, EVANGELINE STA. MARIA, MARY
JANE BELMONTE admit the allegation contained in the following
paragraphs of the Complaint:
a. Paragraphs 1 and 2, insofar as the personal circumstance of the
parties.
b. Paragraph 3 is admitted insofar as the nature of the case and paragraph
4 insofar as the composition of Spring Country Homeowners
Association, Inc. (SCHAI) is concerned as of July 18, 2016.

II.
SPECIFIC DENIALS

2. For reason/facts stated in its Affirmative Allegation/Defenses herein below

and/or lack of information sufficient to form a belief as to its truth or falsity,
respondents JOSE JAVIER TINSAY, JR., ROSENDO ROEHL CORNEJO
JR., ARTURO ARCA, DALIA PINEDA, GEMMA ESTRELLA, GEMMA
SOLIDUM,LEONARDO CARANI, EVANGELINE STA. MARIA, MARY
JANE BELMONTE specifically deny the allegations in the following
paragraphs of the Complaint:

a. Paragraph 5 insofar as Spring Country Homeowners Association

refuse to accept turnover of HOA from Filinvest
b. Paragraph 6, insofar as it is made to appear that the ad hoc committee
are not members of good standing.
c. Paragraph 7 and 8 as respondents do not have personal knowledge on
said allegations.
d. Paragraph 9, falsification as it is made to appear that the collection of
fees made by the Ad Hoc Committee was never approved or authorized by
the SCHAI Board.
e. Paragraph 10, as the action is personal to the complainant.
f. Paragraph 11, 12, 13, 14 are interrelated and allegations of harassment
and statements allegedly uttered by Respondent Tinsay are complainant’s
perception without basis in truth and in fact and not related to documentary
 evidence presented. The grievance committee meeting is in relation to the
collection of fees and not alleged harassment.
g. Paragraph 15 insofar as the collections of association fees and special
assessments are illegal and that respondent Tinsay acted in bad faith in
issuing the complainant a homeowner’s clearance.
h. Paragraph 16 as respondent Tinsay is not authorized to sign any
compromise agreement and stop the collection of Php 100.00. Furthermore,
homeowner’s clearance were regularly issued.
i. Paragraph 17 because the complainant was not denied any
homeowner’s clearance.
j. Paragraph 18, 19, 20 insofar as the utterances cited are without basis
and that the Ad Hoc Committee does not have any grievance committee, it is
the SCHAI which has a grievance committee.
k. Paragraph 21 insofar as there is a grievance committee but with the
SCHAI under the leadership of Mr. Luis T. Fernandez.
l. Paragraph 22 insofar as the complainant were given notices and
attended meetings of the association. Complainant has received all the
courtesy accorded to homeowner’s association member.
m. Paragraph 23 alleged arrears of respondents do not have any relation
to being adhoc committee members and a violation of the rights of
respondents to data privacy.
n. Paragraph 24 is without basis and inconsistent with previous issuances
o. Paragraph 25 insofar as usurping rights and powers of the legitimate
HOA and intimidate harass and humiliate herein complainant.
p. Paragraph 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 insofar as complainant is entitled to
reliefs

III.
AFFIRMATIVE ALLEGATIONS

3. Respondents re-pleads by reference the foregoing admissions and denials

and by way of Affirmative Allegation further avers that:

a. Respondent JOSE JAVIER TINSAY, JR., is not an adviser of the

Adhoc Committee of SCHAI Inc, but was the President of the Adhoc
Committee when the Special Assessment Fee was agreed upon by the
members of the Homeowner’s Association as ratified and confirmed by
SCHAI, Inc. on a Board meeting held last April 8, 2016.

b. ROSENDO ROEHL CORNEJO JR., ARTURO ARCA, DALIA

PINEDA, GEMMA ESTRELLA, GEMMA SOLIDUM, LEONARDO
CARANI, EVANGELINE STA. MARIA, MARY JANE BELMONTE are
officers and members of the current Adhoc Committee which implemented
the agreed imposition of Php 100 as Special Assessment Fund.
c. Resolution No. 01-14 Series of 2014 (marked as Annex “B-3” of the
complaint) was adopted, hereto attached as Annex “1” which is the result of
a referendum by the homeowners allowing the collection of Php 100.00 for
special assessment. The specific provision marked as Annex “1-a” reads:

1. Shall the collection of Php 100.00 for Special Assessment Fee

(formerly garbage collection fee) from the arrears be made retroactive, that
is prior to May 2014 or from the time a homeowner acquired property with
the subdivision? (87 votes A. Yes; 38 votes B. No)

d. Another Board Resolution No. 15-006 Series of 2015 was adopted to

for the Special Assessment Fund marked as Annex “2” with specific
provision on special assessment marked as Annex “2-a” to wit:

WHEREAS, The Board of Directors resolved that a Special

Assessment Fee (SAF) of Php 100 per month be collected.

e. The Board Resolutions and other acts of the Adhoc Committee were
confirmed and ratified by the SCHAI Board. Spring Country Homeowner’s
Association (SCHAI, Inc.) convened on April 8, 2016 and adopted and
approved Board Resolution No. 2016-04-01 to collect fees to the amount of
Php 100.00 as special assessment, said resolution is hereto attached as
Annex “3” with the specific provision marked as Annex “3-a” to wit:

“RESOLVED, FURTHER, that finding the same necessary and

beneficial to the members of the Association, the Board hereby
confirms the authority of the Ad Hoc Committee to impose and
collect an additional monthly fee of Php 100.00 as a special
assessment, and to ratify the previous acts and resolution s of
the Committee, such as but not limited to Resolution No. 01-14
Series of 2014, in relation to the imposition and collection of
special assessment fees for the members.”

f. The complainant received a letter on April 8, 2016 which

explained to him that the Adhoc Committee is authorized to collect
fees, hereto attached as Annex “4,” pertinent provision of the letter
marked as Annex “4-a” reads:

Please note that the Association is empowered under the By-

Laws not only to impose and collect association or maintenance
dues but also special assessments of reasonable amounts as may
be required by the activities or occasion of the Association. We
deem the Php 100 fee as reasonable.
 g. In effect, Annex “B” dated April 21, 2014 of the complaint which is
hereto marked as Annex “5” specifically laid down the basis for collection of
the Special Assessment Fund, was likewise confirmed by the Board
Resolution No. 2016-04-01. The pertinent portion of the letter to the
complainant marked as Annex “5-a” reads:

In order to efficiently and effectively deliver the basic

community services and facilities to the homeowners, the
SCHAI needs to defray expenses through the monthly
association dues of Php100 that is able to collect from the
homeowners.

h. To further state, the Special Assessment Fund underwent due process

and reflected the will of the homeowners and not just one person. Annex “C”
of the complaint, hereto adopted as Annex “6” called for a referendum, there
was notice of meeting, minutes of the meeting were taken, there was no
falsification. The allegation that Mr. Tinsay falsified the minutes of the
meeting, marked as Annex “C-2” adopted as Annex “6-a” by the respondent,
regarding the insertion of the Special Assessment Fund is without basis
because Mr. Tinsay was not the one who prepared the minutes as well as
noted it, it was Corazon Adrade and Romeo Estrella, marked as Annex “6-b”
and “6-c” respectively.

i. The Board Resolutions and minutes of the meetings were submitted to

HLURB on March 17, 2018 stamped on the said documents and marked as
Annex “1-b,” Annex “2-b,” and Annex “3-b” as official documents and part
of good faith and transparency.

IV.
SPECIAL AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

4. Respondents hereby replead, by reference the foregoing, and by way of

special and affirmative defenses, further avers.

a. Complainant has no cause of action against the respondents

i. Respondents did not usurp the office, powers and functions of

the legitimate Board of Directors/Trustees of the SCHAI. Respondents
only implemented the Board Resolutions of the previous Ad hoc
committees, specifically Resolution No. 01-14 Series of 2014 and
Board Resolution No. 15-006 Series of 2015 which was ratified by
Board Resolution No. 2016-04-01 of the Spring Country
Homeowner’s Association, Inc. The Adhoc Committee is under the
supervision of the Board of SCHAI and did not in any way was
 disciplined nor reprimanded by the Board of SCHAI, instead, through
the special assessment fund, the basketball court of the association
was built and essential services were greatly improved.

ii. Respondents did not violate any rights of the complainant as

member of the Homeowner’s association. Complainant actively
participated in the affairs of the Homeowners Association and even
ran for Board of Director but lost, copy of the document on candidacy
hereto attached and marked as Annex “7.” Furthermore, the
complainant actively participated in the sports activity of the adhoc
committee, a picture is hereto attached where the complainant is with
the respondents marked as Annex “8.”

iii. There were no evidence to show that the complainant was

humiliated nor his rights deprived. His own actions of being a free
rider, not paying Php100 a month and not cooperating with the will of
the homeowners is an embarrassment in itself. In fact, even if the
collection of the Special Assessment Fund is an imposition sanctioned
by the Board of SCHAI, complainant still received his homeowner’s
clearance and car stickers because the Adhoc Committee deemed it
necessary to maintain peace between members.

iv. This complaint should be dismissed for failure to exhaust all

administrative remedies. As admitted by the complainant, he did not
submit himself to the grievance procedure. By the name itself, an
Adhoc Committee is temporary in nature, it is SCHAI which has the
final say, hence the final arbiter before seeking redress with this
Honorable Office.

V.
COUNTER CLAIM

5. Respondents replead by reference, the foregoing allegations and by way of

counterclaim, further avers:

a. As a result of the malicious filing of the present Complaint,

notwithstanding that complainant know that he has no cause of action,
respondents reputation is besmirched entitling them to moral damages
in the conservative sum of Php 250,000.00 each.
b. To serve as an example for the public good, by not using a document
privy only to the respondents and the Filinvest (marked as Annex “J”)
marked as Annex 9 for the respondent/Third-party complainant and to
deter other from instituting plainly unmeritorious complaints.
 Complainant should be assessed exemplary damages of at least Php
250,000.00 for each respondent.
c. To defend themselves from the baseless suit, respondents is
constrained to engage the services of the counsel for the agreed fee of
Php 100,000.00 which the complainant should reimburse to the
respondents.
VI.
THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT

6. Respondents replead, by reference, the foregoing allegations and by way of

Third-Party Complaint against Third-Party Respondents ROMEO
ESTRELLA, MARK ACE RHOMER P BARBOSA, ENGR. ELISEO
RIVERA, further avers;

a. Third-party respondent Romeo Estrella is a Board members of SCHAI

and at the same time officers of Filinvest Land Corporation. Third-
party respondent Romeo Estrella is a signatories to Board Resolution
2016-04-01 and a letter dated April 8, 2016 marked as Annex “3” and
“4” respectively, which confirms the imposition of Special
Assessment Fund of Php 100.00 by the Adhoc Committee. Third-
party respondent are also officers of Filinvest Land Corporation
should have informed third-party respondent Engr. Eliseo S Rivera,
Subdivision Administrator of Filinvest Land Corporation of these
documents. However, because of this fact, an untruthful document,
marked as Annex “K” of the complaint and adopted as Annex “10” for
the respondent, where it was specifically stated that “no directive was
given to the Spring Country Ad-Hoc Committee to collect monthly
dues and other fees from homeowner’s association.” marked as Annex
“K-1,” adopted as Annex “10-a” for the respondent/Third-party
complainantwas released to the complainant to the prejudice of the
third-party complainant.

b. Complainant Jeffrey Mendoza and Third-party Respondent Mark Ace

Rhomer P. Barbosa, Bookkeeper. HOA Management should be
penalized for allowing access, using and releasing a document,
marked as Annex “J” detailing the alleged debts of the respondents
and Third-party complainant without consent and due process of law.
Said document is privy only to Filinvest Land Corporation and the
respondents and third-party complainant and not to any other party.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that judgment be rendered:

1. Dismissing the instant complaint for utter lack of merit against respondents;
 2. On its counterclaim, that complainant and third-party respondents be ordered
to pay respondent and third-party complainants the following sums:
a. Php 250,000 each as moral damages
b. Php 250,000 each as exemplary damages
c. Php 100,000 as attorney’s fees
d. Cost of suit

Respondents and third-party complainant prays for such other relief and
remedies as are just and equitable under the premises.

Quezon City September 11, 2019.

ATTY. VIRGILIO S. FERRER II

Counsel for the RESPONDENTS/Third-Party Complainant
No. 14 Mahusay St., Brgy. U.P. Village, Q.C.
Roll Number 51184 dated 5/5/05
IBP No. AR 4219794/1-3-2019/Quezon City
PTR No. 7324061/1-3-2019/Quezon City
MCLE Comp. VI-0026622, until April 14, 2022

Copy Furnished:

Jeffrey S. Mendoza
Complainant
Blk 1, Lot 14, Cypress Street
Spring Heights II Subdivision
Bagong Silangan, Quezon City

ROMEO ESTRELLA,
MARK ACE RHOMER P BARBOSA,
ENGR. ELISEO RIVERA,
Third-Party Respondents
79 EDSA Highway Hills
Mandaluyong City, Metro Manila

EXPLANATION

Due to lack of available messengerial staff during the material time

copy of the foregoing pleading will be served upon the addressee by
registered mail/LBC as shown by a registry receipt hereto attached.

Virgilio S Ferrer II