G.R. No. L-3602 - Wong Siu Tong vs. Aquino

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-3602)

Factual Background

Wong Siu Tong was initially issued a building permit to erect a building at the corner of Echague Street on Plaza Goiti. The City Engineer later found that the construction was not being carried out according to the plans and specifications approved by the City Engineer, and the permit was revoked pursuant to Section 104 of the Revised Ordinances. That section required the City Engineer, when construction did not follow the approved plans, to notify the owner or agent, require suspension of the work, and revoke the permit if the owner failed to comply with the notice.

Wong Siu Tong then obtained a second permit after promising to remove portions encroaching on the new building line on Echague Street and to follow a new set of plans and specifications submitted by him and approved by the City Engineer. He did not keep his promise, and the City Engineer likewise revoked the second permit. Instead of conforming, he pursued what he wanted: he submitted a third set of plans and specifications that differed from the previously approved plans, proceeded with construction without any permit, and continued construction despite the lack of a valid permit.

Initiation of the Injunction Proceeding

When construction proceeded and the City of Manila ordered the work stopped, Wong Siu Tong instituted the present action in the Court of First Instance of Manila to enjoin the City Engineer from carrying out his order. The trial court granted the writ of injunction. The City Engineer appealed, contending that the injunction should not have issued.

Legal Framework Under Section 104 of the Revised Ordinances

The Supreme Court emphasized the operation of Section 104. Under that provision, the City Engineer had an affirmative duty to suspend construction and revoke the permit when the owner persisted in violating the approved plans and specifications. The provision further declared that it became unlawful for any person to perform further work in or about the structure after revocation and service and posting requirements had been met.

The Court held that an injunction proceeding should not be used to restrain a public officer from performing a legal duty imposed by ordinance. The Court further held that granting injunctive relief would effectively sanction conduct that the ordinance declared unlawful.

The Parties’ Contentions and the Municipal Board Resolution

Wong Siu Tong raised defenses directed at the necessity of expropriation. He argued that the City could not insist on compliance with the new building line on Echague Street without first expropriating affected land. He also invoked a Municipal Board resolution allowing him to follow the old building line on Echague Street under certain conditions.

The Municipal Board resolution, adopted July 6, 1949, was based on the finding that the City had “no funds to pay for the expropriation of the properties needed for the widening of Calle Echague.” The resolution “gave” the old line for Calle Echague, prior to the enactment of the then-relevant ordinance, “in connection with the construction” of Wong Siu Tong’s building located at Plaza Goiti corner Echague, and it imposed conditions. Among those conditions were: that the permit to be issued would be temporary; that when widening was undertaken, Wong Siu Tong would ask no indemnity from the City and would bear the expense of removal; and that he would post a surety bond in the amount of P10,000.00 to secure faithful compliance with the obligation to remove.

The trial court had accepted the injunctive approach, but the Supreme Court did not.

The Supreme Court’s Ruling on the Propriety of Injunction

The Supreme Court ruled that the writ of injunction should not have been granted. It held that Wong Siu Tong had “flouted the law,” and issuing the writ would constitute sanctioning lawlessness.

The Court reasoned that Section 104 directly commanded the City Engineer to suspend construction and revoke the permit once noncompliance persisted. It also declared the work unlawful thereafter. In that situation, an injunction that prevented the City Engineer from acting would interfere with the enforcement of an ordinance-imposed duty.

The Court rejected the argument that expropriation was a necessary precondition to insist on compliance with the new building line. It stated that even if the old building line were followed, Wong Siu Tong still had to comply with the ordinance on arcades. The Court relied on the testimony of assistant city engineer Augusto Santamaria, which it described as indicating that arcades were compulsory in the relevant section. The Court also stated that the existence of a Municipal Board resolution did not dissolve the requirement of conforming to the applicable ordinance on arcades.

The Court further pointed to a procedural remedy: if Wong Siu Tong believed his latest plans and specifications should be approved, his remedy was to seek mandamus to compel the City Engineer to approve them. Absent approved plans and a corresponding permit, construction based on the unapproved specifications remained illegal and should have been stopped.

Disposition

On the basis of these principles, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment appealed from and denied the petition for injunction.

Separate Opinions: Concurrence

Justice Pablo, acting as resident, concurred in the view to revoke the trial court’s decision. He described the pattern of deviations. He recounted that Wong Siu Tong first applied for approval of a piano de building but did not follow the plan approved by the City Engineer; he submitted another plan but again deviated; he therefore built “as he pleased.” When the City Engineer restrained further construction, Wong Siu Tong allegedly resorted to means that led to an approval by the Municipal Board of a resolution giving the old building line for Calle Echague under conditions.

Justice Pablo studied the resolution. He considered temporary suspension of the street widening ordinance potentially justified because the City lacked funds, but he considered the resolution’s authorization of Wong Siu Tong to continue construction under conditions to be invalid. He viewed the resolution as discriminatory and arbitrary because it favored one individual over the public welfare, and because, in his view, it was guided by caprice rather than reason. He criticized the Municipal Board’s action as sanctioning illegal construction contrary to existing ordinances, including the arcade requirement. He further concluded that, even assuming the resolution’s validity, the proper course for Wong Siu Tong would have been to ask for a provisional permit and continue only in accordance with that licensing scheme, which would still require adherence to the ordinance on arcades.

Justice Pablo also referenced Cu Unjieng vs. Patstone, and stated that the Municipal Board’s authority to require arcades should be understood as flowing from general regulatory powers. He concluded that the injunction did not align with the resolution, because the resolution did not authorize construction without a proper license and permit in conformity with applicable ordinances.

Separate Opinions: Dissent (Paras and Tuason)

Justice Paras dissented. He restated, in substance, the trial court’s factual findings and the main legal question on appeal as whether plaintiff-appellee could be compelled to follow the required building line and construct an arcade in conformity with Executive Order No. 98, Section 6. He observed that the trial judge had correctly ruled that Executive Order No. 98 did not apply to privately-owned buildings not intended for public utility. He further cited prior doctrine from Felipe R. Hipolito vs. City of Manila (G.R. No. L-3887) to the effect that the provision referred only to residential buildings subsidized by public funds or assistance. Justice Paras acknowledged that Wong Siu Tong’s conduct in violating the plans and permits should be condemned, but he nonetheless maintained that the refusal by the City Engineer to issue a third permit should not override the Municipal Board resolution that practically approved the erection of the building under conditions already complied with by Wong Siu Tong.

Justice Paras treated the Municipal Board resolution as conclusive in effect because Wong Siu Tong had complied with its conditions. He added that the Municipal Board resolution could not be declared invalid merely because it favored an individual,

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-3602)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Wong Siu Tong sued the city engineer of Manila, who was Alejo Aquino, as defendant and appellant, in the Court of First Instance of Manila.
The plaintiff sought an injunction to restrain the city engineer from interfering with the construction and completion of the building.
The Court of First Instance granted the writ of injunction.
The city engineer appealed to the Supreme Court, seeking reversal of the injunction order.

Key Factual Allegations

The Revised Ordinances of the City of Manila required building permits and prohibited construction not performed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications.
The plaintiff had been issued a permit to construct a building at the corner of Echague street on Plaza Goiti.
The city engineer revoked the permit upon a finding that the construction violated the approved plans and specifications.
The plaintiff obtained a second permit on the promise that he would remove the portion encroaching on the new building line on Echague street and would follow a new set of approved plans and specifications.
The plaintiff did not keep his promise, and the city engineer revoked the second permit for continued deviation.
The plaintiff then applied for a third permit using plans and specifications different from those previously approved, proceeded with construction without a permit, and the construction was ordered stopped by the city engineer.
The plaintiff filed the present action to enjoin the city engineer from carrying out the stop order.

Municipal Ordinance Mandate

Section 104 of the Revised Ordinances imposed a specific duty on the city engineer when work violated the approved permit conditions.
The city engineer was required to notify the owner or agent that the work was being carried on in violation of the permit and to order suspension until proper deviation approval or conformity to the approved plans.
If the owner or agent failed to comply after notice, the city engineer was required to revoke the permit.
Written notice of revocation had to be served on the owner or agent and posted on the premises.
After revocation, the ordinance declared it was unlawful for any person to perform any work in or about the structure thereafter.

Issues Presented

The principal issue was whether a writ of injunction could restrain the city engineer from performing the duties expressly imposed by the Revised Ordinances when permits were revoked due to noncompliance.
The case also raised whether the city engineer could require the plaintiff to follow the building line without first expropriating affected land.
The appeal further addressed whether a Municipal Board resolution allowing use of the “old building line” under conditions validated continued construction inconsistent with the ordinances.

Plaintiff’s Arguments

The plaintiff argued that the city could not insist on compliance with the new building line without prior expropriation of land affected by the widening of Echague street.
The plaintiff contended that the Municipal Board had passed a resolution permitting construction subject to conditions, which should allow the plaintiff to proceed.
The injunction granted by the trial court effectively treated the stop order as improper interference.

City Engineer’s Arguments

The city engineer maintained that the plaintiff persisted in violating permit requirements and the approved plans and specifications.
The city engineer asserted that revocation was mandatory once violations persisted after notice.
The city engineer argued that the injunction would improperly sanction continued unlawful construction and would restrain a public officer from performing a duty imposed by ordinance.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court held that the writ of injunction should not have been granted.
The Court reversed the judgment appealed from.
The Supreme Court denied the petition for injunction.
The Court concluded that issuing the injunction would give sanction to lawlessness because the plaintiff persisted in violating the ordinance.

Reasoning on Injunction Limits

The Court held that the Revised Ordinances made it the city engineer’s duty to suspend construction and revoke permits when the owner persisted in violating permit conditions.
The Court emphasized that the ordinance further declared that after revocation, it was unlawful for anyone to perform work in or about the structure.
The Court ruled that the writ of injunction was not the proper remedy to restrain a public officer from performing a duty specifically imposed by law.
The Court r