Aquino v. Municipality of Malay
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner, Crisostomo B. Aquino, president of Boracay Island West Cove Management Philippines, Inc. (Boracay West Cove), applied for a zoning compliance and building permit for a three-storey hotel on a 998 sqm lot in Boracay Island, covered by a Forest Land Use Agreement for Tourism Purposes (FLAgT) from the DENR. The Municipal Zoning Administrator denied the application, citing Municipal Ordinance 2000-131 which prohibits construction within a 25-meter no-build zone from the mean high water mark. Petitioner appealed to the Mayor, but no action was taken. Subsequently, a Notice of Assessment for unpaid taxes was issued, followed by a Cease and Desist Order enjoining expansion. On June 7, 2011, Executive Order No. 10 (EO 10) was issued, ordering the closure and demolition of the hotel. Partial demolition occurred on June 10, 2011, with further demolitions in subsequent instances. Procedural History: Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging grave abuse of discretion in the issuance and implementation of EO 10. The CA dismissed the petition on procedural grounds, stating that certiorari is not the proper remedy for executive functions and that declaratory relief should have been filed. The CA denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing that certiorari was the proper remedy, that the Mayor committed grave abuse of discretion, that his right to due process was violated, that the LGU's refusal to issue permits was unjustified, that his FLAgT rights prevail over the municipal ordinance, and that the DENR has primary jurisdiction.
Issue(s)
1. Whether or not certiorari is the proper remedy instead of declaratory relief. 2. Whether or not respondent mayor committed grave abuse of discretion when he issued EO 10. 3. Whether or not petitioner’s right to due process was violated when the respondent mayor ordered the closure and demolition of Boracay West Cove’s hotel without first conducting judicial proceedings. 4. Whether or not the LGU’s refusal to issue petitioner the necessary building permit and clearances was justified; and whether or not petitioner’s rights under the FLAgT prevail over the municipal ordinance providing for a no-build zone. 5. Whether or not the DENR has primary jurisdiction over the controversy, not the LGU. 6. Whether or not the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the respondent mayor was performing neither a judicial nor quasi-judicial function when he ordered the closure and demolition of Boracay West Cove’s hotel. 7. Whether the hotel was classified as a nuisance per se or a nuisance per accidens.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
1. On the propriety of certiorari: The Court ruled that certiorari, not declaratory relief, was the proper remedy. Declaratory relief is unavailable when there has already been an actual breach or violation of rights, as in this case where the hotel was already ordered closed and demolished. Certiorari under Rule 65 is appropriate when a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion. The Court clarified that the nature of the act, not the office, determines if it is judicial or quasi-judicial. The Mayor's act of determining the illegality of a construction and ordering its demolition requires the exercise of quasi-judicial powers, thus satisfying the first requisite for certiorari. Furthermore, the remedy of appeal to the provincial governor was deemed inadequate given the urgency and the ongoing demolition, satisfying the third requisite of no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. 2. On grave abuse of discretion: The Court found that the respondent mayor did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Local Government Code (LGC) grants the mayor the power to order the closure and removal of illegally constructed establishments under Section 444(b)(3)(vi). The petitioner admittedly failed to secure the necessary permits and clearances, openly violating the ordinance and Section 301 of PD 1096 (National Building Code). 3. On due process: The Court held that the due process requirement was sufficiently complied with. Public officers are presumed to act regularly. The petitioner failed to attach copies of the Cease and Desist Order and EO 10, which could have clarified whether the 10-day grace period under the ordinance was observed. However, the petition itself mentioned notices from the municipality in March 2011 requiring compliance, and EO 10 was issued in June 2011, suggesting that the grace period might have been observed. The petitioner's primary arguments for due process violation were the absence of a court order and the LGU's jurisdiction, not the lack of a grace period. Therefore, the demolition was based on the illegality of the construction due to non-compliance with permits and ordinances, not solely on the hotel being a nuisance per se. The requirement for a court order was dispensed with under the LGC provision for illegally constructed buildings. 4. On the LGU's refusal to issue permits and the FLAgT and municipal ordinance: The LGU's refusal to issue permits was justified because the construction violated the no-build zone ordinance. The Court ruled that the rights granted under the FLAgT do not prevail over the municipal ordinance and PD 1096. Forestlands under DENR administration are not exempt from municipal laws. The FLAgT and the ordinance are cumulative, not mutually exclusive. Sections 6 and 8 of the ordinance, which petitioner cited as exceptions, pertain to constructions on slopes and swamps, not the no-build zone. The FLAgT also does not excuse compliance with PD 1096, as a contractual agreement cannot amend a legislative act. Therefore, petitioner's failure to secure a building permit was a violation. 5. On DENR's primary jurisdiction: The Court disagreed that the DENR has primary jurisdiction. The core issue was not environmental protection but the legality of the construction due to non-compliance with permit, clearance, and zoning requirements under national and municipal laws. The Mayor's power under the LGC to order demolition of illegal structures is distinct from the powers devolved to LGUs under DENR supervision. While the DENR may have issued an opinion favorable to the petitioner, such an opinion is not conclusive on the courts and should be taken with caution. The legality of the structure, not its environmental impact, was the primary concern. 6. On the Court of Appeals ruling on the mayor's function: The Mayor's act of determining the illegality of a construction and ordering its demolition requires the exercise of quasi-judicial powers, thus satisfying the first requisite for certiorari. 7. On the classification of the hotel as a nuisance: The Court found that the hotel was classified not as a nuisance per se, but as a nuisance per accidens because of its location within the prohibited no-build zone established by Municipal Ordinance 2000-131. While a nuisance per accidens generally requires a hearing, the Local Government Code (LGC) grants the mayor the power to order the closure and removal of illegally constructed establishments under Section 444(b)(3)(vi).
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari is the proper remedy to assail an executive order issued by a mayor for alleged grave abuse of discretion, even if the act appears executive in nature, if it involves the exercise of quasi-judicial functions, such as determining the legality of a construction and ordering its demolition. A Forest Land Use Agreement for Tourism Purposes (FLAgT) does not exempt a party from complying with municipal ordinances and national building codes, particularly those establishing no-build zones.