Bautista v. Angeles
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Isidro Bautista obtained a license to build a fish trap in Manila Bay off Navotas, Rizal, at a depth of 4 meters. The municipality had a schedule of fees based on depth. Bautista was charged and convicted for building his trap without the consent of the fish warden and at a location other than specified in his license. He was fined P10 and ordered to pay costs, which he paid. Procedural History: Subsequently, Bautista filed an action for damages against Angelo Angeles, the municipal president, and others, demanding P4,800 for the value of the trap's materials and lost earnings, alleging that the municipal president ordered the trap torn down without a new judicial decree. The Court of First Instance of Rizal absolved the defendants, citing Mumar vs. Dieparine. The Petition: Bautista appealed, arguing that the municipal president acted arbitrarily by ordering the removal of the trap without a new judicial judgment, leading to the loss of his property and damages. The defense presented a municipal ordinance authorizing the fish warden, with the president's consent, to remove a trap after the owner's conviction for violation. The municipal president testified that the trap was already damaged by winds, that Bautista was notified to remove it, and that it was necessary to remove it to accommodate another concessionary with a license for a 5-meter depth trap. Bautista had not removed or changed the trap's position since his conviction.
Issue(s)
Whether the municipal president acted arbitrarily and unlawfully in ordering the removal of the fish trap without a new judicial decree. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages for the removal of the fish trap. Whether the trial court erred in absolving the defendants from the complaint.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance, absolving the defendants from the complaint. The costs of the instance were against the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the municipal president acted arbitrarily and unlawfully in ordering the removal of the fish trap without a new judicial decree: The Court held that the municipal president did not act arbitrarily. A municipal ordinance authorized the removal of a trap upon the owner's conviction for violating the ordinance. Bautista had already been convicted by the justice of the peace court for building his trap illegally. The Court reasoned that requiring a new judicial complaint for every enforcement of an ordinance would lead to the absurdity of allowing individuals to continue transgressing the law after conviction, simply by paying fines. The municipal president, in ordering the removal, was merely enforcing a valid ordinance after the condition for its enforcement (conviction of the offender) had been met. This was an administrative act within his executive powers, not requiring a new judicial intervention. On the issue of whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages for the removal of the fish trap: The Court ruled that Bautista was not entitled to damages. The removal of the trap was a lawful consequence of his own unlawful act of violating the municipal ordinance. The Court cited the principle that a person cannot obtain damages for harm resulting from his own improper and unlawful acts. Furthermore, the municipal president had notified Bautista to remove the trap and advised him to gather the materials, but the materials were abandoned. The Court also noted that the trap was already damaged by winds, and its removal was necessary to accommodate another concessionary. On the issue of whether the trial court erred in absolving the defendants from the complaint: The Court found no error in the trial court's decision. The trial court correctly applied the principle that the violation of a municipal ordinance, when punished by a competent court, constitutes a lawful cause for the enforcement of that ordinance. The act of causing the removal of the trap was not malicious, culpable, or negligent, as it was done in fulfillment of the president's duty to enforce the ordinance. The plaintiff's claim for damages was based on his own illegal act, which barred him from recovery.
Main Doctrine
A municipal president, acting in accordance with a valid municipal ordinance and after the owner of an illegally constructed fish trap has been convicted for violating said ordinance, may lawfully order the removal of the trap without the necessity of a new judicial proceeding. The owner cannot claim damages for the removal of the trap if such removal is a consequence of his own unlawful acts.