Tong v. Aquino
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiff Wong Siu Tong was issued a permit to construct a building. The permit was revoked because the construction deviated from the approved plans and specifications. Plaintiff was given a second permit upon promise to rectify deviations and follow new plans, but again failed to comply, leading to the second permit's revocation. Plaintiff then applied for a third permit with different plans, proceeded with construction without a permit, and upon being ordered to stop, filed an action for injunction. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Manila granted the writ of injunction, restraining the city engineer from carrying out his order to stop construction. The Petition: The City Engineer appealed the lower court's decision, arguing that the writ of injunction should not have been granted as it would sanction lawlessness.
Issue(s)
Whether the writ of injunction was properly granted to restrain the City Engineer from enforcing the law and stopping illegal construction. Whether the Municipal Board's resolution permitting the plaintiff to follow the old building line, despite violations, is valid and overrides existing ordinances. Whether the plaintiff's remedy was to seek a writ of mandamus to compel the approval of his plans and issuance of a permit.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court, denied the petition for injunction, and ruled that the writ should not have been granted. The Court held that the plaintiff had flouted the law and that issuing the injunction would sanction an act of lawlessness. The Court also stated that the proper remedy for the plaintiff, if he believed his latest set of plans and specifications should be approved, was to apply for a writ of mandamus.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the writ of injunction: The Court held that the writ of injunction should not have been granted because it would restrain a public officer from performing a duty specifically imposed by law. Section 104 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Manila makes it the duty of the city engineer to suspend construction and revoke permits when an owner persists in violating them, and declares it unlawful for any person to perform work thereafter. Issuing an injunction would sanction an act of lawlessness, which is contrary to the purpose of the writ. The plaintiff's persistent violations of building permits and approved plans demonstrated a clear disregard for the law, making injunctive relief inappropriate. On the validity of the Municipal Board's resolution: The Court found that even if the Municipal Board's resolution permitting the plaintiff to follow the old building line were considered, the plaintiff would still have to comply with city ordinances on arcades, which are compulsory in that section of the city. The resolution, by allowing deviations from established building lines and ordinances for a single individual, was implicitly questioned by the Court's reasoning that the plaintiff's actions were lawless. The dissenting opinion by Justice Pablo further elaborated that such a resolution is void because it is discriminatory and arbitrary, favoring an individual over public welfare and contravening existing ordinances. On the proper remedy: The Court stated that if the plaintiff believed that his latest set of plans and specifications should be approved, his remedy was not an injunction to stop the city engineer, but rather to apply for a writ of mandamus to compel the officer to give his approval. Without approved plans and a corresponding permit, any construction would be illegal and subject to being stopped. This highlights the distinction between restraining a public officer from performing a legal duty (injunction) and compelling them to perform a ministerial duty (mandamus).
Main Doctrine
An injunction will not be granted to restrain a public officer from performing a duty specifically imposed by law, nor to permit the doing of that which is declared unlawful. A writ of mandamus is the proper remedy to compel a public officer to perform a duty, such as approving plans and issuing a permit, if he has a clear legal right to such action.