Delfino v. St. James Hospital
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners Sps. Nereo & Nieva Delfino sought the reversal of a Decision dated 5 September 2006. Respondent St. James Hospital, Inc. filed a Motion for Reconsideration, assailing the Decision which ruled that the hospital was a non-conforming structure under the 1991 Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) or Zoning Ordinance of Santa Rosa, Laguna, and that its expansion into a four-storey, forty-bed capacity medical institution within the Mariquita Pueblo Subdivision was prohibited. Procedural History: The case involved an application for a permit by St. James Hospital, Inc. in 1994 to expand its hospital. The zoning ordinance in effect at that time was the 1991 Zoning Ordinance. The Office of the President and the Court of Appeals had previously ruled on the matter, with the Supreme Court's Decision dated 5 September 2006 reversing their findings. The Petition: Respondent St. James Hospital, Inc. sought reconsideration of the Supreme Court's Decision, arguing that the Court erroneously interpreted the 1991 Zoning Ordinance and that the case should be decided under the 1999 Zoning Ordinance. Respondent also contended that hospitals were implicitly allowed under the 1991 Zoning Ordinance.
Issue(s)
Whether St. James Hospital is a non-conforming structure under the 1991 Zoning Ordinance. Whether the expansion of St. James Hospital into a four-storey, forty-bed capacity medical institution is prohibited under the 1991 Zoning Ordinance. Whether the case should be decided based on the 1999 Zoning Ordinance instead of the 1991 Zoning Ordinance.
Ruling
The Motion for Reconsideration of respondent St. James Hospital, Inc. is DENIED. The expansion of St. James Hospital into a four-storey, forty-bed capacity medical institution within the Mariquita Pueblo Subdivision is prohibited under the provisions of the 1991 Zoning Ordinance. The case is to be decided based on the 1991 Zoning Ordinance, which was in effect at the time of the application for expansion.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether St. James Hospital is a non-conforming structure under the 1991 Zoning Ordinance: The Court reiterated that a comprehensive scrutiny of both the 1981 and 1991 Zoning Ordinances reveals that uses formerly allowed within a residential zone under the 1981 Ordinance, such as hospitals, were transferred to the institutional zone under the 1991 Ordinance. This clearly indicates the intention of the Sangguniang Bayan to delimit allowable uses in the residential zone only to those expressly enumerated in Section 2, Article VI of the 1991 Ordinance, which no longer includes hospitals. The Court emphasized that any interpretation of the term "institutional" in Section 2, Article VI must be limited by the explicit enumeration of allowable uses in the same section. Applying the legal maxim expression unius est exclusion alterius, the express mention of certain uses implies the exclusion of others not mentioned. Therefore, since hospitals are not enumerated as allowable uses within the residential zone, they are deemed excluded. Furthermore, under the rule of casus omissus, a thing omitted is considered intentionally omitted. The omission of "hospital with not more than ten capacity" in the new Zoning Ordinance and the transfer of such usage to another zone classification logically means the legislative body intended to remove it from residential zones. On whether the expansion of St. James Hospital is prohibited under the 1991 Zoning Ordinance: The Court affirmed that St. James Hospital is considered a non-conforming structure under the 1991 Zoning Ordinance. The legality of the proposed expansion is governed by Section 1 of Article X of the 1991 Zoning Ordinance, which states that "no non-conforming use shall be enlarged or increased or extended to occupy a greater area of land that has already been occupied by such use at the time of the adoption of this Ordinance." This provision clearly prohibits the expansion of a non-conforming building. Therefore, the expansion of St. James Hospital into a four-storey, forty-bed capacity medical institution is prohibited. On whether the case should be decided based on the 1999 Zoning Ordinance: The Court held that the present case arose in 1994 when St. James Hospital, Inc. applied for a permit to expand, at which time the 1991 Zoning Ordinance was in effect. It is a well-settled rule that the law in force at the time of the occurrence of the cause of action is the applicable law, notwithstanding its subsequent amendment or repeal. Hence, the 1991 Zoning Ordinance is the applicable law for interpreting the legality of the expansion. Moreover, the 1999 Zoning Ordinance was only raised by the respondent in its Motion for Reconsideration before the Supreme Court. Points of law, theories, issues, and arguments not adequately brought to the attention of the lower courts cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, especially when belatedly raised in a motion for reconsideration, as this would violate basic rules of fair play, justice, and due process.
Main Doctrine
The expansion of a non-conforming use is prohibited under a zoning ordinance if the ordinance explicitly states that no non-conforming use shall be enlarged, increased, or extended. Furthermore, the law in force at the time of the occurrence of the cause of action is the applicable law, notwithstanding its subsequent amendment or repeal.