Case Digest (G.R. No. 200403)
Facts:
Municipality of Binan, Laguna, Rogelio V. Lee, Antonio P. Aguilar and Roberto Hernandez v. Holiday Hills Stock & Breeding Farm Corporation and Domino Farms, Inc., G.R. No. 200403, October 10, 2022, Supreme Court Second Division, Lopez, J., writing for the Court.On November 24, 2004 the Sangguniang Bayan of Binan, Laguna approved Municipal Ordinance No. 06 (2004), titled "Urban Control Zones Regulation and Gradual Phase Out of Large Livestock Farms in Binan, Laguna," which sought to regulate agricultural uses in urban control zones, to phase out large piggeries and poultry (defining "large" quantitatively), and to bar issuance of business or operating permits to such large farms three years after enactment. The Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Laguna approved the ordinance on April 6, 2005. Respondents Holiday Hills Stock & Breeding Farm Corporation and Domino Farms, Inc. were notified of the ordinance's implementation on August 25, 2005.
On February 7, 2006 respondents filed a Petition for Certiorari, Declaratory Relief, and Prohibition with application for preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 25, Biñan, Laguna, challenging Sections 2, 3, and 6 of the ordinance as vague, whimsical, arbitrary, capricious and violative of due process. The RTC (Judge Teodoro N. Solis) dismissed the petition on October 30, 2008 and upheld the ordinance, finding the farms to constitute a nuisance per se and the ordinance a valid exercise of police power.
Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). In a Decision dated August 22, 2011 (CA‑G.R. SP No. 107564), the CA reversed the RTC: it accepted that the ordinance was not vague and that it did not violate property rights, but concluded the farms were at best a nuisance per accidens, not a nuisance per se, and that summary abatement by ordinance violated respondents' right to substantive due process; the CA therefore set aside the RTC order. The CA denied reconsideration in a Resolution dated January 26, 2012.
Petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals correctly reverse the RTC and declare Municipal Ordinance No. 06 (2004) unconstitutional?
- Were respondents' hog farms a nuisance per se such that the ordinance’s summary abatement and gradual phase‑out measures were a valid exercise of local police power and not unduly oppressive in violation ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)