Parayno v. Jovellanos
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Concepcion Parayno owned a gasoline filling station in Calasiao, Pangasinan. In 1989, residents petitioned the Sangguniang Bayan (SB) for its closure or transfer. Investigations were conducted, and the SB recommended closure or transfer, citing violations of the Official Zoning Code, proximity to a school and church (less than 100 meters), location in a thickly populated area, storage of LPG tanks, irritating gasoline smell, violation of Building and Fire Safety Codes, and obstruction of traffic. Procedural History: Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied by the SB. She filed a special civil action for prohibition and mandamus with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), arguing her station was a "gasoline filling station" governed by Section 21, not a "gasoline service station" under Section 44 of the Zoning Code, and that a previous HLURB decision barred the grounds raised. The RTC denied her prayer for a preliminary injunction, applying the principle of ejusdem generis and stating the station endangered lives and property. The RTC later denied her motion for reconsideration. Petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) via certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC. The CA dismissed her petition, and her subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court, insisting that ejusdem generis did not apply, the municipality's exercise of police powers was invalid, and res judicata applied.
Issue(s)
Whether the principle of ejusdem generis applies to include a "gasoline filling station" under a zoning ordinance provision specifically mentioning "gasoline service station," and if the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius is more applicable. Whether the municipality validly exercised its police powers in ordering the closure or transfer of the petitioner's gasoline filling station, considering due process requirements and whether a gasoline station is a nuisance per se. Whether the principle of res judicata bars the municipality from raising issues already settled by a prior HLURB decision, considering the elements of res judicata and the community of interest between the municipality and a party in the prior case.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the Court of Appeals' resolution, and set it aside. The Municipality of Calasiao was directed to cease and desist from enforcing Resolution No. 50 against the petitioner insofar as it sought to close down or transfer her gasoline station.
Ratio Decidendi
On the applicability of ejusdem generis and expressio unius est exclusio alterius: The Court held that the zoning ordinance clearly distinguished between a "gasoline service station" and a "gasoline filling station." Section 21 defined a "filling station" as a retail station servicing automobiles with gasoline and oil only, while Section 42 defined a "service station" as a place where gasoline, oil, and other car accessories are supplied and dispensed, and various services are rendered. The Court noted the judicial admission by the municipality's counsel that these were distinct and that the term "filling station" did not appear in Section 44. Therefore, the principle of ejusdem generis (of the same kind, class, or nature), which applies when general words follow specific enumerations, was inapplicable. Instead, the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius (the express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of others) was deemed more appropriate, meaning the specific mention of "gasoline service station" in Section 44 excluded "gasoline filling station." On the exercise of police powers and nuisance per se: The Court found that the municipality invalidly exercised its police powers. For police powers to be properly exercised, the interference must be necessary for the public interest and the means employed must be reasonably necessary and not unduly oppressive. The municipality failed to comply with due process because the records did not show any attempt to measure the distance between the station and the school/church, a crucial factor for violation. Furthermore, a gasoline station is not a nuisance per se; it cannot be summarily abated without judicial proceedings. The Court also cited the HLURB's findings that the station was not a fire hazard, complied with requirements, and was located within a designated Business/Commercial Zone, suggesting the perceived hazards were more perception than fact. On the principle of res judicata: The Court agreed that res judicata applied. This principle bars relitigation of issues already decided by a final judgment from a court of competent jurisdiction. The elements of res judicata (final judgment on the merits by a competent court, identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action) were substantially met. Although the municipality was not a direct party in the HLURB case, it shared a community of interest with respondent Jovellanos, who was a party. The municipality raised the same grounds (violation of Section 44 and public hazard) that were already settled by the HLURB. The Court emphasized the public interest in ending litigation and preventing individuals from being vexed twice for the same cause.
Main Doctrine
A gasoline filling station, as distinct from a gasoline service station, is not covered by a zoning ordinance provision specifically enumerating "gasoline service station" if the ordinance does not expressly include "gasoline filling station" within its ambit, applying the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius. Furthermore, a gasoline station is not a nuisance per se and cannot be summarily abated under the guise of police power without due process.