Case Summary (G.R. No. 148408)
Background and Zoning Dispute
Petitioner’s gasoline filling station was challenged by residents before the Sangguniang Bayan. Resolution No. 50 cited alleged violations of the Official Zoning Code—namely Section 44’s 100-meter radius prohibition for “gasoline service stations”—and health, safety, fire, traffic, and nuisance concerns. Petitioner argued that her station was a “filling station” under Section 21, not a “service station” under Section 44, and pointed to an HLURB ruling in her predecessor’s favor as res judicata.
Distinction Between Filling Station and Service Station
The zoning ordinance defines:
– Section 21 (Filling Station): retail dispensing of gasoline and oil only.
– Section 42 (Service Station): retail dispensing plus automotive services (tire repair, battery sales, minor motor adjustments, etc.).
Section 44 prohibits “gasoline service stations” near schools, churches, hospitals, and libraries. Both parties’ counsel conceded that Sections 21 and 42 create distinct categories.
Misapplication of Ejusdem Generis
The trial court applied ejusdem generis to include “filling stations” within Section 44’s prohibition on “service stations.” The Supreme Court held that expressio unius est exclusio alterius controls: the ordinance’s separate definitions demonstrate deliberate exclusion of filling stations from Section 44. Ejusdem generis cannot override the clear ordinance language.
Excessive Exercise of Police Power
Under the 1987 Constitution and RA 7160, a local government’s police power must (1) serve a public interest and not a private class, and (2) employ means reasonably necessary, not unduly oppressive. The Municipality failed to verify the critical 100-meter distance, neglected due process, and summarily abated a non-per se nuisance. A gas station is not per se a nuisance requiring immediate closure without judicial proceedings.
Binding Findings of the HLURB
Petitioner’s compliance with building permits and HLURB authority to relocate was uncontested. The HLURB found underground tanks built to safety standards, that hazards were more perceived than factual, and that the location lay within a commercial zone. Those final, conclusive findings reinforced petitioner’s lawful exercise of her business rights.
Application of Res Judicata
The HLURB decision i
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 148408)
Facts
- Concepcion Parayno owned and operated a gasoline filling station in Calasiao, Pangasinan.
- In 1989, local residents petitioned the Sangguniang Bayan (SB) for the station’s closure or transfer, alleging violations of the Official Zoning Code and safety hazards.
- The SB referred the matter to the Municipal Engineer, Chief of Police, Municipal Health Officer, and Bureau of Fire Protection, all of whom advised closure or relocation.
- In Resolution No. 50, the SB held that the station:
- Violated Art. 6, Sec. 44 of the Official Zoning Code by being within 100 meters of a school and church.
- Endangered lives and property due to its location in a thickly populated area, the storage of LPG tanks, and lack of firewalls.
- Caused health nuisances (gasoline fumes) and impeded traffic flow.
- Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration before the SB was denied.
Procedural History
- Petitioner filed a special civil action for prohibition and mandamus (with prayer for preliminary and mandatory injunction) in the RTC of Dagupan City (SP Civil Case No. 99-03010-D).
- The RTC denied the petition, applying the principle of ejusdem generis to include “gasoline filling station” within the prohibition on “gasoline service stations.”
- Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration before the RTC was denied.
- She elevated the case to the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus (CA-G.R. SP No. 61838); the CA dismissed the petition and denied reconsideration.
- Petitioner filed a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.
Issue
- W