Farrales v. City Mayor of Baguio
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiff Leonor Farrales, a holder of a municipal license to sell liquor and sari-sari goods, was ordered to move her stall to a temporary location when her original stall in a temporary building was demolished for the construction of a permanent market building. Dissatisfied with the assigned location, Plaintiff constructed a temporary shack on a cement passageway at the end of the Rice Section of the Baguio City Market without seeking prior permit or permission from city officials. Procedural History: When the police threatened to demolish the shack, Plaintiff sought an injunction from the Court of First Instance (CFI). A hearing was held, and the CFI refused to issue the injunction unless Plaintiff could show a proper permit. Plaintiff failed to do so, and the police demolished the shack, confiscating the materials and goods, which were later returned to Plaintiff. Plaintiff cited the police for contempt, but the CFI denied her petition in an order dated September 19, 1956, which was deemed final and operated as res judicata to her subsequent action for damages based on the same demolition. Plaintiff amended her complaint to include the policemen as defendants, but the CFI dismissed her action. The Petition: Plaintiffs appealed the decision of the CFI to the Court of Appeals, which certified the case to the Supreme Court due to the involvement of only questions of law.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in refusing to declare the defendants in default and in allowing them to file their answer after the reglementary period. Whether the demolition of the shack was in order, or if it constituted a nuisance that could only be abated through judicial proceedings. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance, dismissing the complaint and holding that the demolition of the shack was justified. The Court found no error in the trial court's procedural rulings and concluded that the structure constituted a nuisance that could be abated by the police, especially given the circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of default and filing of answer: The Court found that the trial court's action in allowing the defendants to file their answer was justified. The records showed that the plaintiffs' counsel initially agreed to the withdrawal of the motion to declare defendants in default and to the filing of their answer. Plaintiffs are bound by the actuations of their counsel, and their personal motion for reconsideration was correctly denied for lack of merit. On the issue of the demolition of the shack as a nuisance: The Court held that the demolition was in order. The plaintiff had no permit to construct the temporary stall in the precise location where she built it. Furthermore, its location on the cement passageway at the end of the Rice Section building constituted an obstruction to the free movement of people, as clearly shown by the photographs. The Court noted that what the plaintiff constructed was nothing more than a lean-to, improvised with scrap iron roofing sheets, and not a "building" within the meaning of the City Charter that would require specific procedures for abatement by the City Engineer. The Court also cited Verzosa v. City of Baguio to support the removal of structures built without proper authorization or when permits expire. On the issue of abatement without judicial proceedings and damages: The Court clarified that while Article 702 of the Civil Code provides for the determination of abatement without judicial proceedings for public nuisances, the failure to observe this provision does not automatically warrant damages. According to Article 707 of the Civil Code, a public official is liable for damages only if unnecessary injury is caused or if the alleged nuisance is later declared by the courts to be not a real nuisance. In this case, no unnecessary injury was caused, and the trial court found the structure to be a nuisance. Moreover, the abatement was not entirely summary, as the plaintiff had sought judicial intervention through an injunction, and the denial of her petition upon failure to show a permit effectively authorized the police action, which was later confirmed by the trial court's decision. Therefore, there were no grounds to award damages.
Main Doctrine
A structure built without a permit on a public passageway, constituting an obstruction, may be summarily abated by the police, especially when the owner, after being warned, failed to secure a permit and was denied an injunction by the court, which denial was later confirmed by the trial court's decision finding the structure to be a nuisance.