Iloilo City Zoning Board of Adjustment and Appeals v. Gegato-Abecia Funeral Homes, Inc.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Gegato-Abecia Funeral Homes, Inc. applied for a permit to operate a funeral establishment in a C2 zone in Iloilo City. The application invoked Section 46 of Zoning Ordinance No. 2001-072, which allows for exceptions to the ordinance's provisions, specifically the 25-meter radial distance requirement from food establishments, as respondent's business was Category II (without embalming facilities). Procedural History: The City Zoning Board of Adjustments and Appeals (CZBAA) denied the application in Resolution No. 7, citing Section 41(3)(d) of the ordinance and existing HLURB regulations. Respondent then filed a petition for mandamus with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo City, Branch 29, seeking to compel the CZBAA to grant the exception and issue the permit. The RTC granted the writ of mandamus, finding that the CZBAA gravely abused its discretion and that respondent's resort to judicial remedy was correct. The RTC did not pass upon the constitutionality of the ordinance but assessed the merits of the exception and ordered the issuance of the permit. The Petition: Petitioners, the Iloilo City Zoning Board of Adjustment and Appeals and the City Government of Iloilo, assailed the RTC's order, raising two issues: (1) whether respondent violated the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies, and (2) whether the trial court erred in issuing the writ of mandamus.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent violated the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies. Whether the trial court erred in issuing a writ of mandamus directing the CZBAA of Iloilo to issue a permit to operate a funeral establishment.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The December 19, 2002 Order of the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 29, which granted the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the City Government of Iloilo to issue a permit to operate a funeral establishment in favor of respondent is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The petition for mandamus filed by respondent in Civil Case No. 02-27308 is ordered DISMISSED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies: The Court held that respondent failed to exhaust available administrative remedies. The settled rule is that before seeking judicial intervention, all administrative processes must be availed of. Section 56(C) of Zoning Ordinance No. 2001-072, ratified by the HLURB, explicitly states that decisions of the Local Zoning Board of Adjustment and Appeals are appealable to the HLURB. The HLURB, under Executive Order No. 648 and Executive Order No. 72, retains its power to act as an appellate body over decisions of local zoning bodies, even with the devolution of certain powers to local government units. The HLURB's endorsement of the application to the city government was based on the devolution of the power to issue locational clearances for locally significant projects, not on the divestment of its appellate jurisdiction. Therefore, respondent should have appealed the CZBAA's denial to the HLURB before resorting to the courts. The premature invocation of judicial power is fatal to the cause of action. On the issuance of the writ of mandamus: The Court ruled that the issuance of a permit and the grant of an exception from zoning ordinances are discretionary acts of the CZBAA. Mandamus cannot be used to compel the exercise of judgment or discretion in a particular way, nor to reverse an action already taken. The trial court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the CZBAA by directing the issuance of the permit. While a writ of mandamus can compel an administrative body to act, it cannot prescribe the specific action to be taken, thereby controlling the discretion of the board or officer. Since respondent failed to exhaust administrative remedies, the RTC erred in issuing the writ of mandamus.
Main Doctrine
A petition for mandamus to compel the issuance of a permit will be dismissed if the petitioner failed to exhaust available administrative remedies, specifically by not appealing the decision of the local zoning board to the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) as mandated by law and ordinance, unless there is a waiver or estoppel. Furthermore, mandamus cannot be used to compel the exercise of discretion in a particular way.