Case Summary (G.R. No. 181508)
Factual Background
Petitioner represented a corporation that, while already operating a resort, applied on January 7, 2010 for zoning compliance to construct a three-storey hotel on a 998 sqm parcel in Sitio Diniwid, Barangay Balagab, Boracay Island, an area covered by a FLAgT issued by the DENR. The Municipal Zoning Administrator denied the zoning application on January 20, 2010 because the proposed site lay within the twenty-five meter “no build zone” measured from the mean high water mark as defined in Municipal Ordinance 2000-131. Petitioner appealed to the Office of the Mayor on February 1, 2010, and followed up on May 13, 2010, but the appeal remained unresolved. Despite the denial and pending appeal, petitioner continued construction, expansion, and operation of the resort.
Administrative Actions and Enforcement
Respondents issued a Notice of Assessment on April 5, 2011 seeking payment of unpaid taxes and other liabilities and later issued a Cease and Desist Order on March 28, 2011 enjoining further expansion. On June 7, 2011 the Office of the Mayor promulgated EO 10, ordering the closure and demolition of petitioner’s hotel; the EO was partially implemented on June 10, 2011 and subsequent demolitions followed, including one in February 2014. The municipal treasurer also allegedly refused tendered payment from petitioner for fees and permits.
Procedural History
Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari with prayer for injunctive relief in the Court of Appeals, alleging grave abuse of discretion in the issuance and execution of EO 10 and asserting rights under the FLAgT and DENR supervision. The CA dismissed the petition on procedural grounds, holding that certiorari lies only against tribunals, boards, or officers exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions and that a mayor issuing an Executive Order acts in an executive capacity; the CA instructed that the proper remedy was declaratory relief in the Regional Trial Court. Petitioner sought reconsideration before the CA, which denied it, and then filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court.
Issues Presented
The dispositive questions framed by the Supreme Court were: whether a petition for certiorari was the proper remedy instead of declaratory relief; whether declaratory relief remained available after enforcement of EO 10; whether the respondent mayor exercised judicial or quasi-judicial functions in issuing EO 10; whether the mayor committed grave abuse of discretion; whether petitioner’s due process rights were violated by demolition without prior judicial proceedings; whether the LGU properly refused permits and clearances; whether rights under the FLAgT prevailed over the municipal ordinance and PD 1096; and whether the DENR had primary jurisdiction rather than the LGU.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on the ground that certiorari under Rule 65 could not be directed against the mayor because the issuance of EO 10 constituted an executive act; the CA held that the appropriate remedy was declaratory relief before the Regional Trial Court. The CA thus declined to reach the substantive question of grave abuse of discretion.
Supreme Court Disposition
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that, contrary to the CA’s narrow view on procedure, certiorari under Rule 65 was the appropriate remedy in the circumstances, but that respondents did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing and implementing EO 10.
Procedural Reasoning: Declaratory Relief versus Certiorari
The Court found that declaratory relief under Rule 63 was no longer viable because the action contemplated by that remedy presupposes no actual breach or violation of rights or instruments; its purpose is to obtain authoritative guidance before breach occurs. Because EO 10 had already been enforced and demolition had been partially executed, declaratory relief could not provide the practical relief petitioner sought. The Court therefore held that the CA erred in directing petitioner to pursue declaratory relief after the EO’s enforcement. By contrast, the Court concluded that certiorari under Rule 65 was appropriate because the challenged act involved an officer exercising quasi-judicial functions and because there was no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy that would promptly remedy the injurious effects of the EO given the ongoing demolitions.
Quasi-Judicial Character of the Mayor’s Act
The Court explained that the proper inquiry is whether the particular act performed was judicial or quasi-judicial in nature, not the public character of the actor. The issuance of EO 10 rested on the mayor’s finding that petitioner’s construction was illegal. Such a factual and legal determination implicated the exercise of quasi-judicial powers because it required investigation of facts, determination of rights, and the imposition of consequences. The Court relied on previous pronouncements, including City Engineer of Baguio v. Baniqued, to sustain that a mayor may exercise quasi-judicial powers when determining the illegality of structures and ordering demolition.
Adequacy of Remedies and Urgency of Relief
The Court found that remedies under the LGC, such as review of executive orders by the provincial governor, were not adequate in the exigent circumstances because partial demolition had already occurred. The Court emphasized that adequacy is measured by whether a remedy would promptly relieve the petitioner from injurious effects and thus concluded that certiorari was an available and appropriate remedy.
Substantive Merits: Nuisance Characterization
The Court analyzed whether the hotel constituted a nuisance. Applying Article 694 of the Civil Code, the Court distinguished between nuisance per se and nuisance per accidens. It held that the hotel was not a nuisance per se, because that category attaches to matters inherently injurious irrespective of location. The Court concluded that the hotel was a nuisance per accidens because its location within the municipal no build zone transformed it into a public safety menace and thereby justified abatement.
Substantive Merits: Authority to Order Demolition under the LGC
The Court recognized limitations on the Sangguniang Bayan’s power to declare nuisances but held that the mayor possessed authority under Section 444 (b)(3)(vi) of the LGC to require owners of illegally constructed structures to obtain permits, to make changes, or to order demolition. The Court reasoned that the demolition was not predicated solely upon the nuisance doctrine but also upon the building’s illegality for having been erected without required permits and clearances.
Substantive Merits: Illegality of the Construction
The Court found that petitioner admitted construction and operation without securing necessary permits and clearances. It cited Section 9 of Municipal Ordinance 2000-131, which required zoning clearance, endorsement, and issuance of a building permit before construction, and Section 301 of PD 1096, which mandated building permits for any erection, alteration, or demolition of structures. The Court held that petitioner’s continued construction after denial of zoning clearance and while an appeal remained unresolved constituted violation of municipal ordinance and the National Building Code, thereby justifying the mayor’s exercise of power under the LGC.
Procedural Due Process
The Court assessed whether procedural due process was observed. It invoked the presumption of regularity in public officers’ performances and noted the petitioner’s failure to attach the Cease and Desist Order and EO 10 to demonstrate nonobservance of the ordinance’s ten-day demolition notice. The Court observed that EO 10 itself referenced notices dated March 7 and March 28, 2011, which, if true, satisfied statutory notice requirements. The Court also noted that petitioner did not challe
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 181508)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- Petitioner Crisostomo B. Aquino sued as president and CEO of Boracay Island West Cove Management Philippines, Inc. to assail the issuance and implementation of Executive Order No. 10, Series of 2011 (EO 10) ordering demolition of its hotel.
- Respondent Municipal Government of Malay, Aklan, through Mayor John P. Yap and the Sangguniang Bayan, executed EO 10 and implemented partial demolition beginning June 10, 2011 with subsequent demolitions through February 2014.
- Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari with prayer for injunctive relief before the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 120042 contesting alleged grave abuse of discretion in EO 10.
- The CA dismissed the petition on purely procedural grounds on August 13, 2013 and denied reconsideration on February 3, 2014 on the ground that certiorari was not the proper remedy.
- Petitioner elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by a Petition for Review on Certiorari challenging both the CA Decision and Resolution.
Key Factual Allegations
- On January 7, 2010 Boracay West Cove applied for a zoning compliance and proposed a three-storey hotel on a 998 sqm parcel in Sitio Diniwid, Barangay Balabag, Boracay Island, covered by a Forest Land Use Agreement for Tourism Purposes (FLAgT) issued by the DENR.
- The Municipal Zoning Administrator denied the zoning application on January 20, 2010 on the ground that the proposed site was within the no build zone defined by Municipal Ordinance 2000-131 as twenty-five meters from the mean high water mark.
- Petitioner appealed to the Mayor on February 1, 2010, and alleged lack of action by the Mayor despite follow-up, while construction, expansion, and commercial operation continued without the required zoning clearance, building permit, and occupancy documentation.
- The municipal government issued a Notice of Assessment on April 5, 2011, a Cease and Desist Order on March 28, 2011, and thereafter EO 10 on June 7, 2011 ordering closure and demolition which was partially implemented on June 10, 2011.
Statutory Framework
- Municipal Ordinance 2000-131 established the no build zone and imposed permit and demolition procedures, including the ten-day owner demolition period in Section 10.
- Presidential Decree No. 1096 (PD 1096), the National Building Code, requires building permits under Section 301.
- Rule 63, Sec. 1, Rules of Court governs actions for declaratory relief.
- Rule 65, Sec. 1, Rules of Court governs the special writ of certiorari.
- Local Government Code (R.A. No. 7160) provisions cited include Sec. 444(b)(3)(vi) authorizing mayors to order demolition of illegally constructed structures, Sec. 447(a)(5)(i) on local forest and watershed protection, Sec. 17(b)(2)(ii) on devolved forestry functions subject to DENR supervision, and Sec. 30 on review of executive orders by the governor.
- Civil Code, Art. 694 provides the statutory definition of nuisance.
Issues Presented
- Whether declaratory relief remained a viable remedy after EO 10 was enforced.
- Whether a petition for certiorari was the proper remedy to challenge EO 10.
- Whether the Mayor was exercising a judicial or quasi-judicial function when issuing EO 10.
- Whether the respondents committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing and executing EO 10.
- Whether petitioner’s due process rights were violated by the demolition without a court order.
- Whether the LGU’s refusal to issue permits and clearances was justified.
- Whether the FLAgT rights granted by the DENR prevail over the municipal ordinance and PD 1096.
- Whether the DENR had primary jurisdiction over the controversy rather than the LGU.
Contentions of Parties
- Petitioner argued that EO 10 was issued and executed with grave abuse of discretion, that judicial proceedings should precede demolition, that the FLAgT authorized permanent improvements and vested primary jurisdiction in the DENR, and that the Ordinance admitted exceptions.
- Respondents contended that the FLAgT did not excuse noncompliance with municipal ordinances and PD 1096, that the Mayor has express power under the LGC to order removal of illegally constructed buildings, and that certiorari was not the proper remedy.
Court of Appeals Ruling
- The CA dismissed the petition on the sole ground that the writ of certiorari lies only against bodies exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions and that the issuance of