Republic of the Philippines

HUMAN SETTLEMENTS ADJUDICATION COMMISSION

REGIONAL ADJUDICATION BRANCH -III
Malikhain St. DMGC, Brgy. Maimpis, City of San Fernando, Pampanga

RASHIDA UNDA et al.,

Complainants,

-versus- HLURB CASE NO.

NTR-HOA-081619-960

PETER PARDILLA et al.,

Respondents.
x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x
DECISION
Unda et al. v. Pardilla et al.
HLURB CASE NO. NTR-HOA-081619-960
DECISION
Page 2 of 4

For resolution is an election protest filed by Rashida Unda et al

against Peter Pardilla et al of St. Louis Phase Homeowners Association.

The facts of the case are as follows:

On August 16, 2019 complainants filed this case alleging among

other that the election conducted last July 14, 2019 was void and that
respondents committed irregularities during the said election

Complainants alleged that on July 18, 2019, they made an inquiry

upon the Election Committee (Elecom) with regard to the irregularities
that had happened during the said election; that the Elecom Chair Ms.
Ailene Patanao received the inquiry on July 19, 2019 and that she
ignored the same.

Additionally, complainants asserted that respondents failed to

furnished them a copy of the Constitution and By-Laws of the
association despite repeated request; that the previous officers did not
call for a genera; assembly to conduct the purpose of electing the
Elecom, but instead they appointed the four persons to act as Elecom;
that one of the member of the Elecom is not a homeowner; that Mr.
Noriel Sales who is a member of the Elecom keep on campaigning in
favor of the candidate of his choice; that the Elecom only announced the
requirements for filing the Certificate of Candidacy (COC) a day before
the last day of filing; that there was no opportunity for the others who
wanted to be elected; that the Elecom call all the candidates a day prior
to the election; that the Elecom never provide the voters list of all the
members of the association; that the counting of votes was made close
door or exclusive for the Elecom; and that the actuations of the Elecom
are tainted with irregularities.

Aggrieved, complainants filed the instant case to declared the

election held last July 14, 2019 as void; that the officers who won during
the said election be declared not elected and the position be declared
vacant.

Summonses were sent to the respondents. During the mandatory

conference dated December 13, 2019, both parties agreed to settle the
issues and submit their compromise agreement. However, parties did
not arrive in any amicable settlement as agreed upon during the said
mandatory conference.
Unda et al. v. Pardilla et al.
HLURB CASE NO. NTR-HOA-081619-960
DECISION
Page 3 of 4

Respondents filed their answer dated November 22, 2019, and denies
most of the allegations stated in the complaint. Hence, they prayed that
the case be dismiss for lack of merit.

On March 12, 2020, Complainants filed their manifestation before

the Office of the HSAC-Executive Commissioner without even furnishing
this Office a copy of the same.

On September 28, 2020, this Office issues an Order but none of the
parties complied.

The issue to be resolved is whether or not the complainants are

entitled to the remedies they prayed for.

Ruling of the case.

This Office finds the complaint to be unmeritorious.

The case filed was an election contest, thus, it should have been
filed within ten (10) days from the date of election or proclamation,
whichever is later. Considering that the instant case was only filed on
August 16, 2019, or more than one (1) month after the election, the
complaint is barred by the statute of limitations and should have been
dismissed with prejudiced pursuant to Section 1, Rule 9 1 in relation to
Section 1 (f)2 and Section 5,3 Rule 16 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

The complainants should not be allowed to disregard the rules and

the processes of this Commission. The dismissal of the case being
proper, there is no basis to grant or even entertain the complainants’
claims and the relief they prayed for.
1
Section 1. Defenses and objections not pleaded. — Defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to
dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived. However, when it appears from the pleadings or the evidence on
record that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, that there is another action pending between the
same parties for the same cause, or that the action is barred by a prior judgment or by statute of limitations, the
court shall dismiss the claim.
2
Section 1. Grounds. — Within the time for but before filing the answer to the complaint or pleading asserting a
claim, a motion to dismiss may be made on any of the following grounds:
xxx
(f) That the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment or by the statute of limitations;
xxx
3
Section 5. Effect of dismissal. — Subject to the right of appeal, an order granting a motion to dismiss based on
paragraphs (f), (h) and (i) of section 1 hereof shall bar the refiling of the same action or claim. (n)
Unda et al. v. Pardilla et al.
HLURB CASE NO. NTR-HOA-081619-960
DECISION
Page 4 of 4

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant case is hereby

DISMISSED.

No Costs.

SO ORDERED.
City of San Fernando, Pampanga. 12 April 2021.

ATTY. DONN C. TAMAYO

OIC, Chief Adjudicator