UNITED BF HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION, ET AL. vs. BF HOMES, INC. G.R. No. 124873 July 14, 1999. BY C Y

UNITED BF HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION, ET AL. vs. BF HOMES, INC. G.R. No. 124873 July 14, 1999. Administrative case. digested by C Y the great.

UNITED BF HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATON, ET AL. vs. BF HOMES, INC. G.R. No. 124873 July 14, 1999
Facts.
1.In 1988 because of financial difficulties, the Securities and exchange commission place respondent under receivership to undergo a10 year rehabilitation
program appointing attorney Orendain as receiver.
2. Preliminary to the rehabilitation, attorney Orendain entered in to tripartite agreement with the Bf Paranyake homes owners association and the confideration
homes owners association which resulted in the creation of the united home owners association and was registered with the Home insurance guaranty corporation.
3. Respondent through its receiver turn over to the petitioner the administration and operation of the subdivision clab house at 37 Pilar street and a
strip of open space in Concha Cruz garden row.
4. On 1994, the first receiver was relief and a new committee of receivers was appointed and based on the Bfi’s title on the main road, the newly appointed
committee of receivers sent a letter to the different Home owners association informing them that they are now responsible for the security of the subdivision
as a basic requirements. For its rehabilitation.
5.Petitioner filed a petition for mandamus with a preliminary injunction with the Higc against the respondent who issue a temporary restraining order enjoining
the respondent from taking over the clubhouse at 37 Pilar street.
6. Respondent filed a petition for prohibition for the issuance of the temporary restraining order and to enjoin the Higc from proceeding with the case
Before the Court of Appeals who grant the petition and all denied the motion for reconsideration of the petitioner.
7. Petitioner filed a petition for certitorari before the supreme court.
Issue:
Whether or not, the Higc was correct in promulgating the rules of procedure in the settlements of the home owner’s dispute.
According to the Supreme court, the Home insurance guaranty corporation went beyond its authority as provided for by the law when it promulgated the revised
rules of procedure because an administrative agency cannot amend
An act of congress.

So the supreme court denied the petition for certiorari.