Case Digest (G.R. No. 211356)
Facts:
Petitioner Crisostomo B. Aquino, president and CEO of Boracay Island West Cove Management Philippines, Inc., applied for zoning clearance on January 7, 2010 for a three‑storey hotel in Sitio Diniwid, Boracay, which the Municipal Zoning Administrator denied on January 20, 2010 under Municipal Ordinance 2000-131 (no‑build zone). After follow‑up appeals and notices, the Municipality of Malay issued a Cease and Desist Order on March 28, 2011 and Executive Order No. 10 (EO 10) on June 7, 2011 ordering closure and demolition; portions of the hotel were demolished beginning June 10, 2011. The Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner’s certiorari petition as improper, prompting review before the Supreme Court.
Issues:
- Was a petition for certiorari the proper remedy instead of an action for declaratory relief?
- Is declaratory relief still available after enforcement of EO 10?
- Did the respondent mayor exercise judicial or quasi‑judicial functions when issuing EO 10?
- Did the respondent mayor commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing EO 10?
- Was petitioner deprived of due process by the demolition without prior court order?
- Was the LGU’s refusal to issue permits justified under Municipal Ordinance 2000-131 and PD 1096?
- Do petitioner’s rights under the FLAgT prevail over the municipal ordinance?
- Does the DENR have primary jurisdiction over the controversy instead of the LGU?
Ruling:
The Court denied the petition and affirmed the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that certiorari — not declaratory relief — was the appropriate remedy given the enforcement and partial execution of EO 10, but on the merits found no grave abuse of discretion by the respondent mayor. The Court ruled that the mayor acted within his powers under the Local Government Code and that petitioner’s noncompliance with permit requirements justified demolition; the FLAgT did not supersede municipal ordinance or PD 1096, and the DENR lacked dispositive primary jurisdiction over the legality of the structure.
Ratio:
The Court reasoned that declaratory relief presupposes no breach and became unavailable once EO 10 was enforced; therefore Rule 65 certiorari was proper because the mayor acted in a quasi‑judicial capacity by finding illegality and there was no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy given imminent demolition. On the merits, the Court found petitioner had constructed and operated without required zoning clearance and building permit in violation of Municipal Ordinance 2000-131 and Section 301, PD 1096, rendering the structure an actionable nuisance per accidens and subject to removal under Sec. 444(b)(3)(vi), LGC after notice; procedural due process was deemed satisfied and the FLAgT and DENR opinion did not nullify municipal regulatory requirements.
Doctrine:
- An action for declaratory relief is unavailable after the statute, order, or regulation has been breached or enforced.
- (Get Pro to unlock 4 more doctrines)