Perez v. Madrona
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondents, Spouses Fortunito L. Madrona and Yolanda B. Pante, are the registered owners of a residential property in Marikina City, where they constructed a house enclosed by a concrete fence and steel gate. In 1999, petitioner Jaime S. Perez, Chief of the Marikina Demolition Office, sent a letter to the respondents alleging that their fence protruded onto the sidewalk and violated certain laws, including the National Building Code and ordinances related to cleanliness and discipline on sidewalks, and illegally occupied road right-of-way. The letter demanded the removal of the structure within seven days, threatening legal action if not complied with. Procedural History: Respondents replied to petitioner's letter, asserting their property rights and disputing the encroachment claim. Petitioner subsequently requested a relocation survey, which respondents did not provide. Over a year later, petitioner sent another letter with similar demands. This prompted respondents to file a complaint for injunction with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Marikina City, seeking to prevent the demolition of their fence. The RTC issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). Petitioner was declared in default for failing to file an answer, and subsequent motions to lift the default order were denied. The Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed petitioner's certiorari petition against the default order. After a period of suspended proceedings, the RTC eventually dismissed the injunction complaint for failure to prosecute, but this dismissal was later set aside upon respondents' motion. The RTC then rendered a decision in favor of respondents, permanently enjoining petitioner from demolishing the fence and ordering him to pay attorney's fees and costs. Petitioner appealed to the CA, which affirmed the RTC's decision. This led to the present petition before the Supreme Court. The Petition: Petitioner seeks a review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, assailing the CA's decision that affirmed the RTC's reinstatement of the respondents' complaint and the issuance of a permanent injunction. The petition raises three main grounds: (1) the alleged error in reinstating the complaint, (2) the propriety of the permanent injunction, and (3) the award of attorney's fees and costs. Petitioner argues that respondents admitted negligence, that the requisites for injunction were not met as the fence was an encroachment, and that PD 1818 protected government infrastructure projects. The core arguments revolve around whether the RTC erred in reinstating the case, whether the fence constituted a nuisance per se justifying summary abatement, and whether petitioner, as a public officer, acted within his authority and in good faith.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in reinstating the respondents' dismissed complaint. Whether the requisites for the issuance of a writ of injunction were present. Whether the petitioner is liable to pay attorney's fees and costs of suit.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision with modification. Petitioner Jaime S. Perez was ordered to pay respondent Spouses Fortunito L. Madrona and Yolanda B. Pante moral damages in the amount of ₱10,000.00 and exemplary damages in the amount of ₱5,000.00. The permanent injunction against the demolition of the respondents' perimeter fence and steel gate was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi
On the reinstatement of the complaint: The Court found no error in the trial court's reinstatement of the respondents' complaint. The respondents' motion for reconsideration of the dismissal order did not contain an admission of negligence. Their contention was that they were under the impression that the RTC would issue an order to continue proceedings once the CA petition was finally disposed of, and their counsel's records did not show an entry of judgment from the CA at the time of dismissal. Both the RTC and CA correctly found that respondents did not lose interest in prosecuting their case, nor was their counsel negligent. Therefore, the dismissal order lacked basis, and reinstatement was justified. On the propriety of the writ of injunction: The Court held that the requisites for injunction were present. Firstly, respondents had a right to be protected, which is their right over their concrete fence that cannot be removed without due process. Secondly, the act against which the injunction was directed, the summary demolition of the fence, would violate this right. The Court emphasized that if the petitioner believed the fence encroached on the sidewalk, his remedy was not summary demolition but to file a court case to prove the violation. A structure that is not a nuisance per se cannot be abated summarily without judicial intervention. The respondents' fence, built to secure their property, is not a nuisance per se, and any encroachment would be a nuisance per accidens, requiring a hearing to prove. On liability for attorney's fees and costs: The Court agreed with the respondents that the award of attorney's fees and costs was justified. The respondents were forced to file the injunction case because petitioner, despite being notified by their reply letter that his actions were potentially ultra vires, reiterated his demand and threat of demolition. Instead of considering the points raised, petitioner demanded proof of non-encroachment, leaving respondents no choice but to file suit to protect their rights. Furthermore, the Court awarded moral damages of ₱10,000.00 and exemplary damages of ₱5,000.00, finding that respondents suffered anxiety and sleepless nights due to petitioner's actions, and to serve as an example to other public officials to be more circumspect in their duties.
Main Doctrine
A fence is not a nuisance per se and cannot be summarily abated without judicial intervention. If a structure is believed to encroach on public property, the proper remedy is to file a court case to prove the violation, not to demolish it summarily.