Case Digest (G.R. No. 182630)
Facts:
City of Bacolod, City Engineer and the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Bacolod City v. Sugarland Hotel, Incorporated, G.R. Nos. 182630, 182670, 182698, December 06, 2021, Supreme Court Third Division, Zalameda, J., writing for the Court.Respondent Sugarland Hotel, Inc. operated a hotel adjacent to the Bacolod City Domestic Airport. Petitioners are the City of Bacolod (including its City Engineer and Sangguniang Panlungsod), the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) and its Air Transportation Office (ATO), and the Province of Negros Occidental. Sugarland traces its ownership to a public auction acquisition in 1973; the hotel had four floors by the early 1980s, and an application for a height clearance permit for the fourth floor was denied in 1982 by the ATO.
In May 1994 then-ATO Chief Captain Panfilo Villaruel ordered closure of the Bacolod Domestic Airport citing obstructions to aerial navigation, including the hotel’s upper floors and informal settler presence. On 20 May 1994 the parties executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)—signed by ATO, the City, the Province, and Sugarland—providing for a resurvey of the hotel’s height, demolition of the fourth floor if necessary, and compensation to Sugarland for demolished portions subject to appraisal by independent bodies and approval of the respective Sanggunians and the Commission on Audit (COA). The MOU also contemplated simultaneous abatement of other structures violating ICAO safety standards.
Subsequent surveys—conducted by ATO and witnessed by provincial and city engineers—were said by Sugarland to have excluded the hotel’s representatives. ATO advised on 24 May 1994 that the hotel obstructed the final approach for Runway 22 and recommended a 6.38-meter reduction. Sugarland consented on 25 May 1994 to demolish the fourth floor; the airport reopened that day. The City and the Province thereafter passed appropriation ordinances (initially Php4,000,000 and Php5,000,000, later reduced) to pay Sugarland pursuant to the MOU, but later refused remittance. The Sangguniang Panlungsod declared remaining portions of the fourth floor a public nuisance on 3 November 1994 and authorized summary abatement, even by “extra-legal” means.
Between 7 and 18 November 1994 demolition proceeded under varying authority: Sugarland initially empowered a local task force to finish demolition subject to conditions; ATO later ordered inclusion of parapet portions; the City Engineer served a copy of a Demolition Order (15 November 1994) and, together with police and demolition crews, forcibly entered and completed demolition without a court order. The demolition damaged lower floors, mechanical equipment, and water tanks; Sugarland suspended operations (noted in the record as on 1 August 1994) and took three years of renovation before resuming business. Sugarland later asserted that the hotel did not exceed the allowable height clearance for domestic airports under Administrative Order No. 5, Series of 1967, and that the 1.6% gradient used by ATO applied only to international airports.
On 21 November 1994 Sugarland filed a Complaint for Rescission with Damages or Specific Performance with Damages and sought injunctive relief against petitioners. Petitioners contended the fourth floor violated height-clearance regulations and the National Building Code, was a nuisance, and that their actions were in good faith exercising police power. The City and Province argued the hotel had no permit for the fourth floor and thus could not recover compensation under the MOU.
The Regional Trial Court (Branch 49, Bacolod City) rendered a Decision dated 28 December 2005 in favor of Sugarland, holding the MOU valid and binding, finding petitioners breached the MOU and acted in bad faith, and concluding the fourth floor was not an obstruction to aerial navigation. The RTC ordered payment by the City (Php4,000,000) and the Province (Php3,600,000) for the demolished fourth floor, plus interest; awarded Php12,000,000 as unearned profits, Php1,000,000 moral damages, Php1,000,000 exemplary damages, Php600,000 attorneys’ fees, and costs; and ordered DOTC/ATO to reimburse the City and Province for the amounts they paid.
Petitioners’ motions for reconsideration were denied and they appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, in a Decision dated 15 November 2007 (and Resolution of 25 March 2008), affirmed the RTC in large part but modified awards: it deleted the Php12,000,000 unearned profits award and instead granted Php6,000,000 temperate damages; reduced interest on the compensation awards from 12% to 6% per annum (from 25 May 1994); and deleted the RTC’s reimbursement order against DOTC/ATO. The CA held the MOU met the elements of contract, applied Administrative Order No. 5 (not ICAO rules) for the ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did petitioners establish that Sugarland Hotel’s fourth floor was illegally constructed or a public nuisance justifying summary abatement?
- Was the Memorandum of Understanding of 20 May 1994 valid and binding, and did petitioners breach it and act in bad faith?
- Is Sugarland Hotel entitled to damages, and if so, what types and from what dat...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)