Case Digest (G.R. No. 184681)
Facts:
In G.R. No. 150270 decided on November 26, 2008, private respondent Rolando Baniqued owned a residential structure on a titled lot in Upper Quezon Hill, Baguio City (TCT No. 25860). Generoso Bonifacio, as attorney-in-fact for adjacent landowners, petitioned the Office of the Mayor to demolish the structure for lack of a building permit and for violating P.D. 1096 (National Building Code) and R.A. 7279 (Urban Development and Housing Act). On May 19, 1999, then-Mayor Mauricio Domogan issued Notice of Demolition No. 55, Series of 1999, ordering spouses Rolando and Fidela Baniqued to remove their house within seven days or face demolition at their expense. Aggrieved, Baniqued filed a complaint for prohibition with a temporary restraining order (TRO) and injunction in RTC Branch 60, alleging lack of due process because he was never notified of the underlying complaint, never heard in the city engineer’s ocular inspection or by the Anti-Squatting Committee, and never given relocationCase Digest (G.R. No. 184681)
Facts:
- Background of the Demolition Notice
- Generoso Bonifacio, as attorney-in-fact for Purificacion de Joya, Milagros Villar, Minerva Baluyut and Israel de Leon, filed with the Baguio City Mayor’s Office a complaint to demolish a house built by spouses Rolando and Fidela Baniqued on a parcel at Upper Quezon Hill, Baguio City (TCT No. 25860).
- On May 19, 1999, Mayor Mauricio Domogan issued Notice of Demolition No. 55, Series of 1999, ordering voluntary removal of the structures within seven (7) days for alleged violations of PD 1096 (National Building Code) and possibly RA 7279, based on an ocular inspection and recommendation of the Anti-Squatting Committee (Resolution No. 52-4, April 22, 1999).
- Judicial Proceedings
- Rolando Baniqued filed a complaint for prohibition with temporary restraining order (TRO) and injunction before RTC Branch 60, alleging lack of due process (no copy of complaint, no summons or hearing before City Engineer’s inspection or Anti-Squatting Committee), and citing:
- Civil Code Art. 536 (court order required before demolition),
- RA 7279 Sec. 28 (relocation prior to demolition),
- PD 1096 Sec. 213 (criminal prosecution as remedy if structure not dangerous), and
- 1991 Local Government Code (prior hearing required).
- RTC granted TRO on June 7, 1999; petitioners moved to dismiss (June 25, 1999) for lack of cause of action and failure to allege lack/excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion, and for non-exhaustion of admin remedies.
- On October 15, 1999, RTC granted the motion and dismissed Baniqued’s complaint; motion for reconsideration denied (March 3, 2000). Baniqued appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).
- CA Set Aside the RTC orders, denied the motion to dismiss, and remanded for decision on the merits, holding that:
- The Mayor, in issuing demolition notices, exercises quasi-judicial functions affecting property rights;
- The complaint stated a cause of action and properly invoked prohibition.
- Petitioners sought reconsideration in CA without success and elevated the case to the Supreme Court via Rule 45 petition.
Issues:
- Whether the issuance of a Notice of Demolition by the City Mayor is a quasi-judicial function amenable to a writ of prohibition.
- Whether Rolando Baniqued properly invoked the remedy of prohibition (Rule 65 Sec. 2) despite non-exhaustion of administrative remedies.
- Whether the CA gravely erred in reversing the RTC’s dismissal of the prohibition complaint.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)