Case Summary (G.R. No. 148408)
Key Dates and Constitutional Basis
Relevant facts date from 1989 (resident complaints and municipal action). The Court’s decision was rendered July 14, 2006. Because the decision date is later than 1990, the 1987 Constitution supplies the constitutional framework invoked by the Court (notably due process and equal protection principles).
Applicable Law and Ordinance Provisions
Primary legal sources referenced: the Municipality of Calasiao’s Official Zoning Code (Article III, including Sections 21, 42 and 44) and the Local Government Code (RA 7160) concerning municipal police power and general welfare. Section 21 defines “Filling Station”; Section 42 defines “Service Station”; Section 44 prohibits “gasoline service stations” within 100 meters of schools, churches, hospitals, etc., in business or industrial zones.
Factual Background — Municipal Complaint and Resolution
In 1989 local residents petitioned the Sangguniang Bayan (SB) to close or relocate petitioner’s gasoline filling station. The SB referred the complaint to the Municipal Engineer, Chief of Police, Municipal Health Officer and Bureau of Fire Protection. Relying on their advice, the SB adopted Resolution No. 50 recommending closure or transfer. Resolution No. 50 asserted multiple grounds: violation of the zoning code’s 100‑meter prohibition, location in a thickly populated area endangering public safety (including alleged additional LPG storage), health complaints from residents, alleged violations of building and fire safety codes, and traffic congestion and safety concerns.
Administrative and Prior Adjudication (HLURB)
HLURB had previously resolved a related challenge (Jose Jovellanos v. Dennis Parayno). In that administrative proceeding, HLURB made factual findings favorable to the station proponent: that underground storage and compliance with engineering procedures mitigated fire hazard concerns, that the site was within a Business/Commercial Zone per the zoning ordinance, and that the claimed hazard was more perceived than factual. Those HLURB findings were final and submitted by petitioner in subsequent judicial proceedings.
Trial Court Proceedings and Ruling
Petitioner sought judicial relief (special civil action for prohibition and mandamus) in RTC, Branch 44. The RTC considered issuance of a preliminary injunction and concluded that Section 44’s prohibition, though not expressly mentioning “gasoline filling station,” should be read—under the maxim ejusdem generis—to encompass petitioner’s gasoline filling station. The trial court found the station posed a danger to persons and property and denied injunctive relief. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration at the trial court was denied.
Court of Appeals Action
Petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals by petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with a prayer for injunctive relief. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition. Petitioner then sought certiorari review in the Supreme Court.
Issue on Appeal — Application of Ejusdem Generis vs. Expressio Unius
Central legal issue: whether the municipal zoning ordinance’s term “gasoline service station” in Section 44 should, by ejusdem generis, be read to include a “gasoline filling station” as defined in Section 21. The Supreme Court found that the ordinance makes a clear and deliberate distinction between “filling station” (Section 21) and “service station” (Section 42). The municipality’s own counsel admitted this distinction in court, constituting a judicial admission binding on the municipality. Given the ordinance’s express categorizations, the proper interpretive maxim is expressio unius est exclusio alterius (the express mention of one thing implies exclusion of others), not ejusdem generis. Consequently, Section 44’s prohibition of “gasoline service stations” does not automatically encompass gasoline filling stations expressly defined elsewhere in the ordinance.
Issue on Appeal — Validity of Municipal Exercise of Police Power
The Court evaluated whether the municipal resolution ordering closure/transfer constituted a valid exercise of police power under RA 7160 and the Constitution’s due process and equal protection guarantees. Two requisites for a valid local police power action were emphasized: (1) the local action must serve the public generally (equal protection), and (2) the means employed must be reasonably necessary and not unduly oppressive (due process). The Court found the municipality’s exercise deficient because it failed to prove the factual predicate for enforcement: it did not undertake or present actual measurements to establish the asserted <100‑meter> violation of Section 44; the municipal offices tasked with investigation did not measure the distance; and the record did not establish that the station was a nuisance per se permitting summary abatement. The Court reiterated that closure without judicial proceeding is permissible only for nuisances per se; a gasoline station is not a nuisance per se. Thus the municipality’s summary action failed procedural and substantive due process requirements.
Evidence and Binding Administrative Findings
Although appellate courts generally avoid re‑weighing factual evidence, the Supreme Court relied on the HLURB’s final factual findings submitted by petitioner to underscore compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements: building permits, approval for relocation authority from the Energy Regulatory Board, engineering procedures for underground storage tanks, and HLURB staff findings that the complained location was within a Business/Commercial Zone and that fire hazard concerns were more perceived than factual. The Court treated HLURB’s findings as final and conclusive with respect to the matters adjudicated administratively.
Iss
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 148408)
Procedural History
- Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Court filed before the Supreme Court challenging the Court of Appeals (CA) resolution which dismissed petitioner Concepcion Parayno’s petition for certiorari, mandamus and prohibition with prayer for preliminary and mandatory injunction.
- Petitioner was owner of a gasoline filling station in Calasiao, Pangasinan.
- In 1989, residents petitioned the Sangguniang Bayan (SB) of Calasiao for closure or transfer of petitioner’s station; SB referred matter to Municipal Engineer, Chief of Police, Municipal Health Officer and Bureau of Fire Protection for investigation; SB recommended closure/transfer to the Mayor and issued Resolution No. 50.
- Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration before the SB was denied.
- Petitioner filed a special civil action for prohibition and mandamus with RTC Dagupan City, Branch 44 (SP Civil Case No. 99-03010-D), raffled to Judge Crispin Laron.
- Trial court conducted hearing on propriety of writs of preliminary prohibitory and mandatory injunction and denied petitioner’s request, applying ejusdem generis and finding petitioner’s filling station fell within ambit of Section 44.
- Petitioner moved for reconsideration of RTC decision; denied.
- Petitioner filed petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus before the CA (CA-G.R. SP No. 61838); CA dismissed the petition and denied reconsideration.
- Petitioner elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by Rule 45 petition.
Facts
- Petitioner owned and operated a gasoline filling station in Calasiao, Pangasinan.
- In 1989, some residents petitioned for the station’s closure or transfer alleging proximity to school and church, population density, storage/sale of LPG tanks, health complaints from gasoline odor, building and fire safety code violations, and traffic hazards.
- SB’s Resolution No. 50 summarized findings and reasons for recommending closure/transfer, including alleged violation of zoning ordinance and safety/health concerns.
- Petitioner asserted her station was a “gasoline filling station” governed by Section 21 of the municipal Official Zoning Code, not a “gasoline service station” governed by Section 42, and relied on a prior HLURB decision in HLURB Case No. TPZ-C-01-9-0003 (Jose Jovellanos v. Dennis Parayno) involving respondent Jovellanos against petitioner’s predecessor.
- Petitioner presented HLURB findings and other permits and approvals showing compliance with requirements prior to implementation of the project, including building permit and authority to relocate letter of the Energy Regulatory Board.
Resolution No. 50 (Sangguniang Bayan Findings)
- Resolution No. 50 declared:
- (a) The existing gasoline station is a blatant violation and disregard of existing law, citing the Official Zoning Code of Calasiao, Art. 6, Section 44, alleging distances to San Miguel Elementary School and church were less than 100 meters and that no neighbors were called as witnesses when HLURB staff performed measurements on 22 June 1989.
- (b) The gasoline station remains in a thickly populated area with commercial/residential buildings close to each other, endangering lives and safety in case of fire; additional selling and storing of several LPG tanks observed.
- (c) Residents consistently complained of irritating gasoline smell during gas filling, allegedly exposing residents, especially children, to frequent colds, asthma, cough and similar ailments.
- (d) The station violated Building and Fire Safety Codes due to a 2nd storey building used for business rental offices, iron grilled windows, no firewalls, endangering upstairs occupants.
- (e) The station hampered traffic flow: too small and narrow, entrances/exits close to street property lines, could not cope with congested area traffic conditions.
Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Provisions (as quoted in the record)
- Section 21. Filling Station: “A retail station servicing automobiles and other motor vehicles with gasoline and oil only.”
- Section 42. Service Station: Defines a building and premises where gasoline, oil, grease, batteries, tires and car accessories may be supplied and dispensed at retail and enumerates additional services that may be rendered and sales such as sale and servicing of spark plugs, batteries, distributor parts; tire servicing and repair (but not recapping or regrooving); replacement of mufflers and tail pipes, water hose, fan belts, brake fluids, light bulbs, fuses, floor mats, seat covers, windshield wipers and wiper blades, grease retainers, wheel bearings, mirrors and the like; radiator cleaning and flushing; washing and polishing and sale of automobile washing and polishing materials; grease and lubricating; emergency wiring repairs; minor servicing of carburetors; adjusting and repairing brakes; minor motor adjustments not involving removal of the head or crankcase, or raising the motor.
- Section 44. Gasoline Service Stations (as footnoted in record): “In business or industrial zones, no gasoline service station, commercial gasoline bus station or public parking lot shall be allowed within one hundred (100) meters away from any public or private school, public library, playground, church, and hospital based on the straight line method measured from the nearest side of the building nearest the lot if there are no intervening buildings to the nearest pump of the gasoline station;” (italics supplied in source).
Trial Court Ruling (RTC, Judge Crispin Laron)
- RTC denied issuance of writ of preliminary prohibitory and mandatory injunction.
- Court reasoned that although Section 44 does not expressly mention a gasoline filling station, by applying the principle of ejusdem generis a gasoline filling station falls within the ambit of Section 44.
- RTC found petitioner’s station located under an establishment and very near several buildings occupied by several persons; concluded justice dictates that the business should not be allowed to continue in that place.
- RTC held the gasoline filling station endangers lives and safety because in case of fire the establishment and nearby houses could be razed.
- Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration before the RTC was denied.
Court of Appeals Action
- Petitioner elevated the RTC decision to the Court of Appeals via petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with injunctive relief (CA docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 61838).
- The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration