Philippine Economic Zone Authority v. Carantes
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondents, holders of a Certificate of Ancestral Land Claim (CALC) over a 30,368-square meter parcel of land in Baguio City, obtained permits to fence the premises and construct a residential building. The Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA) subsequently notified them that their construction overlapped PEZA's territorial boundary and demanded demolition within sixty days. Procedural History: Instead of responding to PEZA's demand, the respondents filed a petition for injunction with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baguio City. The RTC issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and later a writ of preliminary injunction, enjoining PEZA from dispossessing or disturbing the respondents' possession. The RTC granted the permanent injunction, ruling that the respondents' CALC entitled them to possess the land, which was deemed segregated from public domain and thus not subject to PEZA's proclamation. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision. The Petition: PEZA, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking to reverse the CA's decision. The OSG cited inadvertence and a shortage of personnel for the delay in filing the petition. PEZA argued that it has exclusive authority to issue building and fencing permits within ecozones and the concurrent authority to require demolition of structures built without such permits. The respondents countered by relying on their CALC and asserting that the City Mayor and Building Official of Baguio City, not PEZA, have the authority to issue such permits. They also challenged the petition's timeliness.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for review on certiorari was filed within the reglementary period. Whether PEZA or the City Engineer of Baguio City has the legal authority to issue building and fencing permits for constructions within the PEZA-BCEZ. Whether respondents' CALC is sufficient to disregard the provisions of the National Building Code of the Philippines.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals, and directed respondents to demolish the residential building within sixty (60) days from notice.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness of the petition: The Court acknowledged that the petition was filed late, almost three months after receipt of the CA decision. However, it chose to overlook this procedural lapse in the interest of substantial justice, citing that a departure from the rule on counsel's mistakes is warranted when it results in serious injustice to the client, especially when allowing the assailed decision to go unchecked would sanction a violation of substantive law. The Court noted the OSG's explanation regarding the scarcity of lawyers and inadvertence, but emphasized the need for promptness and diligence in representing the government. On the authority to issue permits: The Court ruled in the negative, holding that PEZA, not the City Building Official of Baguio City, has the exclusive authority to issue building and fencing permits within the areas owned or administered by it. This authority stems from Section 6 of P.D. No. 1716, which vested the administration and enforcement of the National Building Code within EPZA zones (now PEZA) in the Administrator or his duly authorized representative. This power subsists and is complementary to Section 14(i) of R.A. No. 7916, which grants the PEZA Director General the power to require the removal or demolition of structures built without the necessary permits within ecozones. The Court cited the parallel case of PEZA v. Borreta, where a similar CALC was deemed insufficient to exclude land from PEZA's jurisdiction. On the sufficiency of the CALC: The Court held that a Certificate of Ancestral Land Claim (CALC) does not grant respondents the right to build permanent structures on the land. The rights of CALC holders are limited to peaceful occupation and cultivation, as enumerated in DENR Department Administrative Order (DAO) No. 02, Series of 1993. Unlike ancestral domain claimants who may reside within the domain, CALC holders are not granted the right to construct permanent structures, which is an act of ownership requiring a recognized right, such as a Certificate of Ancestral Land Title. Furthermore, even if ownership were established, respondents would still need to comply with applicable laws, rules, and regulations, including securing permits from PEZA, as mandated by Section 301 of P.D. No. 1096 (National Building Code). The Court concluded that respondents failed to satisfy the second requisite for injunction, as PEZA acted within its functions in demanding demolition.
Main Doctrine
The Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA) has exclusive authority to issue building and fencing permits within ecozones it administers, and structures built without PEZA permits are subject to summary demolition, notwithstanding the existence of a Certificate of Ancestral Land Claim (CALC) or permits issued by local building officials.