Telmo v. Bustamante
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Luciano M. Bustamante filed a complaint against petitioner Guillermo M. Telmo (Municipal Engineer of Naic, Cavite), Danilo Consumo (Barangay Chairman), and Elizalde Telmo (private individual). Respondent alleged that his property (Lot 952-A) was encroached upon by the construction of the Noveleta-Naic-Tagaytay Road. He offered to sell the remaining portion to the Telmos, who refused. A resurvey showed the Telmos encroached on respondent's lot. Petitioner allegedly told respondent he would not issue a building permit. On May 10, 2005, respondent erected concrete poles on his lot, which were allegedly destroyed by the Telmos and their men. Brgy. Chairman Consumo refused to record the incident. Respondent claimed he and co-owners received no just compensation for the road construction and were denied use of the remaining lot due to the acts of the Telmos and Consumo. He charged them criminally and administratively. Procedural History: The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon found petitioner Guillermo M. Telmo and Danilo Consumo administratively liable for violation of Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6713, imposing a fine equivalent to six months' salary on Telmo and three months' honoraria on Consumo. The charge against Elizalde Telmo was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari, arguing that the Deputy Ombudsman erred in declaring no valid taking of respondent's lot by expropriation, in requiring authorization to abate public nuisance, and in imposing the penalty. Petitioner contended the property was validly taken by the National Government, the posts constituted a public nuisance per se, and his removal of the posts was within his authority as Municipal Engineer/Building Official under the National Building Code and the Revised Philippine Highway Act.
Issue(s)
Whether the Deputy Ombudsman erred in declaring that there was no valid taking of respondent's lot by means of expropriation. Whether the Deputy Ombudsman erred in declaring that petitioner should be authorized by the Municipal Mayor or by the Court to abate public nuisance or nuisance per se; and whether the petitioner acted within the scope of his authority under the Revised Philippine Highway Act and Department Order No. 52. Whether the Deputy Ombudsman erred in meting the penalty of fine equivalent to six (6) months salary for violation of Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6713.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the decision of the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon. Petitioner Guillermo M. Telmo was found administratively guilty of Discourtesy in the Course of Official Duties and was reprimanded, instead of being fined equivalent to six months' salary for violation of Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6713.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of valid taking of respondent's lot by expropriation: The Court acknowledged that respondent's property was taken by the National Government for the construction of the Noveleta-Naic-Tagaytay Road. However, it was unclear from the records whether the property was taken as part of the national road itself or only as part of the right-of-way easement. Regardless, the Court stated that any claim for just compensation for the taking of the property should be lodged against the National Government. While respondent did not have the legal right to enclose the property, the Court proceeded to determine if petitioner performed his official functions properly. On the issue of petitioner's authority to abate public nuisance or nuisance per se; and whether the petitioner acted within the scope of his authority under the Revised Philippine Highway Act and Department Order No. 52: The Court disagreed with petitioner's claim that his act of summarily removing respondent's concrete posts was authorized under the National Building Code (P.D. 1096). The cited provisions (Sections 214 and 215) pertain to dangerous or ruinous buildings or structures, which the concrete posts were not shown to be. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the National Building Code's definition of 'building' and 'structure' does not encompass mere concrete posts. Petitioner's contention that the posts constituted a nuisance per se, subject to summary abatement, was also rejected. The Court found that the concrete posts did not pose an immediate hazard to the safety of persons and properties, but at most, caused inconvenience by blocking passage to the national road. The Court found that petitioner acted beyond the scope of his official power because the concerned District Engineer of the Department of Public Works and Highways should have ordered the removal, not the Municipal Engineer. Petitioner failed to show he was authorized by the District Engineer and, more importantly, failed to prove he issued the required notice to respondent to remove the structures before summarily removing them. The Court noted that petitioner admitted to the summary removal. On the issue of petitioner's authority under the Revised Philippine Highway Act and Department Order No. 52: The Court concluded that the administrative offense committed was Discourtesy in the Course of Official Duties, a light offense under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, warranting only a reprimand for a first offense.
Main Doctrine
A municipal engineer, in summarily removing concrete posts erected by a property owner, cannot claim authority under provisions pertaining to dangerous or ruinous buildings or nuisance per se if the posts did not pose an immediate hazard to safety and if proper notice and procedure were not followed as mandated by relevant laws and department orders. Such an act may constitute discourtesy in the course of official duties.