Case Digest (G.R. No. 148408) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Concepcion Parayno v. Jose Jovellanos and the Municipality of Calasiao, Pangasinan (G.R. No. 148408, July 14, 2006), petitioner Concepcion Parayno owned a gasoline filling station in Calasiao, Pangasinan. In 1989, residents filed a petition with the Sangguniang Bayan (SB) to close or transfer her station for allegedly violating Article VI, Section 44 of the municipality’s Official Zoning Code, which prohibits gasoline service stations within 100 meters of schools, churches, hospitals, and similar structures. The SB’s Resolution No. 50 also cited health and safety concerns—noisy traffic, irritating gasoline fumes, fire hazards due to LPG tanks and structural non-compliance with Building and Fire Codes. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied. She then filed a special civil action for prohibition and mandamus in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dagupan City, Branch 44, arguing that her establishment was a “filling station” under Section 21 of the zoning code, not a Case Digest (G.R. No. 148408) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Subject Matter
- Petitioner Concepcion Parayno owned and operated a gasoline filling station in Calasiao, Pangasinan.
- Respondents were Jose Jovellanos and the Municipality of Calasiao.
- Municipal Resolution and Administrative Proceedings
- In 1989, residents petitioned the Sangguniang Bayan (SB) to close or transfer the station for alleged violation of the Official Zoning Code (Sec. 44), health, safety, fire code and traffic hazards.
- SB Resolution No. 50 ordered closure/transfer, citing:
- Proximity (under 100 meters) to San Miguel Elementary School and church (Sec. 44).
- Location in densely populated area with LPG tanks.
- Health complaints (fumes causing asthma, cough).
- Building and fire code violations (second-floor offices, no firewalls).
- Traffic obstructions.
- Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration before the SB was denied.
- Judicial Proceedings
- Petitioner filed a special civil action for prohibition and mandamus with prayer for injunctive relief in the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
- RTC dismissed the petition, applying the legal maxim of ejusdem generis to include “gasoline filling station” under Sec. 44’s “gasoline service station,” and found a threat to public safety.
- Court of Appeals (CA) denied certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.
- Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court via Rule 45 petition.
Issues:
- Applicability of the legal maxim of ejusdem generis in construing Sec. 44 to cover a “gasoline filling station.”
- Validity of the Municipality’s exercise of police power in ordering the closure or transfer of the gasoline filling station.
- Applicability of the principle of res judicata based on a prior HLURB decision involving the same parties and issues.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)