Case Summary (G.R. No. 211356)
Procedural posture
Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with injunctive relief in the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging grave abuse of discretion in the issuance and execution of EO 10 and asserting rights under a DENR‑issued FLAgT. The CA dismissed the petition on the ground that certiorari is not the proper remedy because the Mayor’s EO was an executive act and that petitioner’s appropriate remedy was declaratory relief in the Regional Trial Court. The CA denied reconsideration. Petitioner elevated the matter by petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court.
Issues presented to the Supreme Court
The Court distilled the issues to: whether certiorari was a proper remedy rather than declaratory relief; whether declaratory relief remained available; whether the Mayor acted in a judicial or quasi‑judicial capacity when issuing EO 10; whether the Mayor committed grave abuse of discretion; whether petitioner’s due process rights were violated by demolition without judicial proceedings; whether the LGU was justified in refusing permits and clearances; whether petitioner’s FLAgT rights prevailed over the municipal no‑build ordinance; and whether DENR had primary jurisdiction over the controversy.
Court of Appeals’ holding (as reviewed)
The CA ruled procedurally that the special writ of certiorari under Rule 65 could not be directed against the Mayor because EO 10 was issued in the exercise of executive functions; consequently, the CA dismissed the petition and suggested a petition for declaratory relief as the proper remedy.
Supreme Court: declaratory relief vs. certiorari — basic distinction
The Supreme Court held that an action for declaratory relief presupposes the absence of an actual breach or enforcement. Citing Rule 63, the Court explained that declaratory relief is intended for controversies before a breach or violation occurs. Because EO 10 had been enforced and demolition had commenced, any declaratory judgment would be ineffective to prevent immediate injury; declaratory relief therefore had become unavailable and inappropriate.
Supreme Court: certiorari as the appropriate remedy
Invoking Rule 65, the Court held certiorari to be the proper remedy where a government officer exercising judicial or quasi‑judicial functions acts without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion and where no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy exists. The Court rejected the CA’s categorical treatment that an executive officer’s issuance of an executive order is necessarily an executive act for purposes of Rule 65. Rather, the character of the particular act — not merely the office of the actor — determines whether it is quasi‑judicial. Because EO 10 reflected the Mayor’s adjudication that the construction was illegal, the Mayor exercised quasi‑judicial functions and certiorari was available.
Adequacy of alternative remedies
The Court found alternative administrative review (e.g., gubernatorial review) inadequate given the immediacy and ongoing enforcement of EO 10 and the need for urgent judicial relief (injunction). The presence of ongoing demolitions and the likelihood of irreparable injury rendered the remedy of administrative review not plain, speedy, and adequate in the particular circumstances.
Merits overview — no grave abuse of discretion found
After concluding certiorari was the correct procedural remedy, the Court proceeded to the merits and ruled that respondents did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Court’s analysis rests on statutory and factual findings regarding illegality of construction, the Mayor’s authority, and due process.
Nuisance characterization: per se vs. per accidens
The Court analyzed nuisance doctrine under Article 694 of the Civil Code, recognizing two categories: nuisance per se (nuisance under any circumstances) and nuisance per accidens (dependent on facts and location). It concluded the hotel was not a nuisance per se (its valuation or capital investment does not change the nature of nuisance analysis) but was a nuisance per accidens because its location in the municipal no‑build zone rendered its presence unlawful and dangerous in context.
Legal authority for demolition by the Mayor
The Court identified express authority in the Local Government Code, specifically Section 444(b)(3)(vi), empowering the municipal mayor to require demolition or removal of illegally constructed buildings when permits were lacking. The power to order closure and demolition after notice and hearing was thus within the Mayor’s statutory powers and distinct from the summary abatement reserved for nuisances per se.
Illegality of construction and petitioner’s alternatives
The Court emphasized that petitioner proceeded with construction and operation without securing required zoning clearances, building permits, and occupancy certificates. Municipal Ordinance No. 2000‑131, Section 9, and PD 1096 Section 301 mandate such permits. Petitioner’s failure to exhaust administrative options (for example, a mandamus to compel the Mayor to act on a pending appeal) did not justify unilateral continuation of construction. The Court noted the availability of mandamus to compel action but recognized it cannot dictate the substance of discretionary determinations.
Procedural due process considerations
The Court applied the presumption of regularity of official acts and found petitioner failed to prove lack of notice or hearing. The petition did not attach the Cease and Desist Order or EO 10, documents that could clarify compliance with the ordinance’s 10‑day demolition notice provision. The EO itself referenced prior notices dated March 7 and 28, 2011. In these circumstances the Court concluded that the procedural requirements for the exercise of demolition authority — including notice and opportunity to comply within the ten‑day period — were sufficiently observed, and that a court order prior to demolition was not required under the governing legal f
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 211356)
Nature of the Case
- Petition for Review on Certiorari to the Supreme Court pursuant to Rule 45, challenging the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA‑G.R. SP No. 120042 dated August 13, 2013 and February 3, 2014, respectively.
- Petition contests the issuance and implementation of Executive Order No. 10, Series of 2011 (EO 10) issued by the Mayor of Malay, Aklan, which ordered the closure and demolition of petitioner’s hotel establishment.
- Reliefs sought included annulment/modification of EO 10 and injunctive relief against its implementation.
Parties
- Petitioner: Crisostomo B. Aquino, President and CEO of Boracay Island West Cove Management Philippines, Inc. (Boracay West Cove).
- Respondents: Municipality of Malay, Aklan (represented by Mayor John P. Yap); Sangguniang Bayan of Malay, Aklan (represented by Hon. Ezel Flores and named members); Office of the Municipal Engineer; Office of the Municipal Treasurer; Boracay PNP Chief; Boracay Foundation, Inc. (represented by Nenette Graf); Municipal Auxiliary Police; and John and Jane Does.
Relevant Facts
- January 7, 2010: Boracay West Cove applied for a zoning compliance with the municipal government of Malay for construction of a three‑storey hotel on a 998 sqm parcel in Sitio Diniwid, Barangay Balagab, Boracay Island.
- The parcel was covered by a Forest Land Use Agreement for Tourism Purposes (FLAgT) issued by the DENR in favor of Boracay West Cove.
- January 20, 2010: Municipal Zoning Administrator denied the zoning application because the proposed site lay within the "no build zone" demarcated in Municipal Ordinance 2000‑131.
- Petitioner appealed the denial to the Office of the Mayor on February 1, 2010; follow‑up letter on May 13, 2010 received no action from the mayor.
- April 5, 2011: Notice of Assessment sent to petitioner for unpaid taxes and liabilities and threatened recommendation for closure due to continuous commercial operation since 2009 without zoning clearance, building permit, and business/mayor’s permit; municipal treasurer refused tendered payment.
- Construction, expansion, and operation of the resort hotel continued despite pending appeal and denials.
- March 28, 2011: Cease and Desist Order issued by the municipal government enjoining expansion.
- June 7, 2011: Office of the Mayor issued EO 10 ordering closure and demolition of Boracay West Cove’s hotel; partial implementation occurred on June 10, 2011, with subsequent demolitions, the most recent in February 2014.
- Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari with prayer for injunctive relief before the Court of Appeals, alleging grave abuse of discretion, denial of due process, primacy of DENR jurisdiction over forestland, validity and effect of FLAgT, exceptions in the Ordinance, and fault of the mayor for not issuing clearances.
Municipal Ordinance and Statutory Provisions Invoked
- Municipal Ordinance 2000‑131 excerpts quoted and applied:
- Section 2(b): "No Build Zone" defined as space twenty‑five (25) meters from the edge of the mean high water mark measured inland.
- Section 3: Prohibition on any building or structure on the beaches around Boracay; special permits for temporary structures may be authorized by Sangguniang Bayan resolution for special activities.
- Section 6 and Section 8: Exceptions relating to slopes of 25% or higher and swamp/water‑clogged areas when authorized by DENR (quoted but distinguished in scope).
- Section 9: Requirements for permits and clearances; building permits require prior Zoning Clearance and Sangguniang Bayan endorsement; Certificate of Occupancy requirements; prohibition on issuance of Business or Mayor’s Permits without Certificate of Occupancy.
- Section 10(e): Declares structures erected in public places (including beaches) as nuisance and illegal; owner required to demolish within ten (10) days of notice or municipality authorized to demolish and retain materials.
- Presidential Decree No. 1096 (PD 1096), National Building Code:
- Section 301: Building permits required prior to erection, construction, alteration, repair, movement, conversion or demolition of any building or structure.
- Local Government Code (LGC):
- Section 444(b)(3)(vi): Powers of municipal mayor include requiring owners of illegally constructed houses/buildings to obtain necessary permits, impose fines/penalties, require changes in construction violating law/ordinance, or order demolition/removal within prescribed periods.
- Section 16: General welfare clause authorizing LGU powers necessary for governance and promotion of general welfare.
- Section 447(a)(5)(i): Sangguniang Bayan powers to provide for establishment, protection and conservation of communal forests, watersheds, mangroves, etc.
- Section 17(b)(2)(ii): Basic services for municipalities include implementation of community‑based forestry projects subject to national policies and DENR supervision, control and review.
- Section 30: Governor’s review of executive orders by component city/municipal mayors and deemed validity if not acted upon within 30 days.
Procedural History
- Zoning denial (January 20, 2010) → appeal to Mayor (February 1, 2010) with no action → Notices, Notice of Assessment (April 5, 2011) → Cease and Desist (March 28, 2011) → EO 10 issued (June 7, 2011) and partially implemented (June 10, 2011) → Petition for Certiorari filed with Court of Appeals → Court of Appeals dismissed petition on procedural grounds (August 13, 2013) holding certiorari improper because EO 10 was executive, not quasi‑judicial; CA denied reconsideration (February 3, 2014) → petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court.
Issues Presented
- Whether petition for certiorari was the proper remedy instead of declaratory relief.
- Whether declaratory relief remained available to petitioner after enforcement of EO 10.
- Whether the CA correctly held the mayor was not exercising judicial or quasi‑judicial functions when issuing EO 10.
- Whether the respondent mayor committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing EO 10.
- Whether petitioner’s right to due process was violated by issuance of EO 10 and demolition without judicial proceedings.
- Whether the LGU’s refusal to issue building permits and clearances was justified.
- Whether petitioner’s rights under the FLAgT prevail over the municipal no‑build ordinance.
- Whether the DENR has primary jurisdiction over the controversy instead of the LGU.
Court of Appeals Ruling (as assailed)
- The CA dismissed the petition on the ground that certiorari is directed only against tribunals, boards, or officers exercising judicial or quasi‑judicial functions and that EO 10 was an executive act; thus, certiorari would not lie.
- CA held the proper remedy was a petition for declaratory relief before the Regional Trial Court.
- Reconsideration before the CA was denied.
Supreme Court — Procedural Ruling: Declaratory Relief vs. Certiorari
- Declaratory Relief No Longer Viable:
- Cites Section 1, Rule 63, Rules of Court: declaratory relief presupp