Enriquez v. Zari
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: An information was filed against Hermenegildo Enriquez and Fernando Santos for violation of Quezon City Ordinances Nos. 1530, s. 1952 and 10700, s. 1974, alleging the unlawful construction of a 'l sty residence' without a building permit on or about June 10, 1975. Procedural History: The City Court of Quezon City, through Judge Remigio E. Zari, issued an order on November 10, 1975, directing the accused to maintain the status quo and desist from adding to the building until the case was resolved, under pain of contempt. On January 22, 1976, respondent Fernando Santos pleaded guilty and was sentenced to pay a fine of P100.00 plus costs, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. He was also directed to demolish the house within thirty (30) days, failing which the City Engineer would do so at his expense. Hermenegildo Enriquez, the lessee of the premises since 1961, filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the demolition order affected his rights as a tenant and was prematurely issued as his case was still pending. He claimed the case was a scheme by the owner, Dr. Fernando Santos, to forcibly eject him. The motion was denied on February 12, 1976, for lack of merit. A subsequent motion to hold the demolition order in abeyance was also denied on March 1, 1976. However, on March 18, 1976, the respondent judge issued an order holding the demolition in abeyance until further orders, after Enriquez failed to secure an injunction within fifteen (15) days. The Petition: Enriquez filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, praying for the annulment of the demolition orders issued by the respondent judge, alleging they were issued contrary to law and with grave abuse of discretion. He also sought a restraining order, which was granted.
Issue(s)
Whether the information filed for violation of city ordinances is fatally defective because it did not specifically describe and locate the building alleged to have been illegally constructed. Whether the order for demolition of the building was issued with grave abuse of discretion and contrary to law, considering the procedural requirements of Ordinance No. 1530, s. 1952, and the fact that the charged party was a lessee, not the owner.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The orders of the respondent judge dated February 12, 1976, and March 1, 1976, are set aside for lack of legal basis. Costs against the private respondent.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the information was fatally defective because it did not specifically describe and locate the building alleged to have been illegally constructed. The information merely stated it was a "l sty residence," which is too vague and makes it impossible to identify the house in question. Such vagueness prevents the accused from fully understanding the charge against them and hinders the court from rendering a valid judgment. The Court noted that an information can be quashed if it is impossible on its face to identify the subject of the alleged offense. On Issue 2: The Court found that the order for demolition was issued with grave abuse of discretion and lacked legal basis. Firstly, the order for demolition was not a direct accessory penalty for the conviction of Fernando Santos, who pleaded guilty. Secondly, Section 9 of Ordinance No. 1530, s. 1952, clearly provides that demolition is a last resort. The ordinance requires the property owner to first secure the necessary building permit and pay fees, or make corrections if the construction is non-conforming. Demolition by the owner is only required within fifteen (15) days upon receipt of the order if corrections are not possible, and demolition by the city only occurs upon the owner's failure to do so. The respondent judge's order for immediate demolition, especially against a lessee and without adherence to the procedural steps outlined in the ordinance, was therefore improper and violative of due process. The Court also questioned why a mere lessee, not the owner, was primarily charged with illegal construction.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari, setting aside the orders of the respondent judge for lack of legal basis. The Court found the information fatally defective for its failure to specifically describe and locate the building allegedly constructed without a permit, making it impossible to identify the subject of the charge. Moreover, the order for demolition was deemed premature and issued without due process, as it was directed at a lessee and was not a direct accessory penalty for the conviction of the owner, contrary to the provisions of Ordinance No. 1530, s. 1952, which mandates demolition as a last resort.