Twin Notice Rule

Here, PDGCC complied with the “two-notice rule” stated above. PDGCC complied with the first notice requirement, i.e. notice informing the petitioner of his infractions, as shown by the following: (1) the Memorandum dated September 27, 2005 sent by Cruz to the petitioner requiring the latter to explain and to submit his report on the additional compensation he received from COMELEC; and (2) the letter dated December 9, 2005 sent by Cruz to the petitioner requiring him to explain 
why he allowed the EGB Security Investigation and General Services, Inc. to render services to the condominium.

The second notice requirement was likewise complied with by PDGCC when it sent to the petitioner the Memorandum dated October 28, 2006 which, in essence, informed the latter that a new Building Administrator had been appointed. It was stated in the said Memorandum that the decision to appoint a new Building Administrator was due to the fact that the PDGCC Board of Directors found the petitioner’s explanation to the charges against him unsatisfactory (Sebastian F. Oasay, Jr. Vs. Palacio del Gobernador Condominium Corporation and Omar T. Cruz, G.R. No. 194306. February 6, 2012).