Association v. Casanova
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the impending demolition of structures occupied by residents of the Diplomatic and Consular Area of Fort Bonifacio, Taguig City. The Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA), established by Republic Act No. 7227, was authorized to develop and dispose of military camps, including Fort Bonifacio, to raise funds. The JUSMAG Area within Fort Bonifacio, where military personnel and their families had occupied housing units, was slated for development by Megaworld Corporation as McKinley West. The Diplomatic and Consular Area was declared alienable and disposable land and its administration transferred to the BCDA. 2. Procedural History: The Local Housing Board of Taguig City issued a Certificate of Compliance on Demolition on July 18, 2012, indicating the BCDA's compliance with the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992 for the demolition of structures within the JUSMAG Area. Subsequently, the BCDA President informed the residents to coordinate for relocation or voluntary dismantling. The petitioner filed the present case seeking to enjoin the demolition, claiming their structures were in the Diplomatic and Consular Area, not the JUSMAG Area. Respondents argued that the clearing operations were confined to the JUSMAG Area and that demolition is permissible under RA 7279 for government infrastructure projects, even without a court order. They also contended that the petition should have been filed with the Regional Trial Court and that the case was moot as the demolition was completed. 3. The Petition: The petitioners filed a petition denominated as one for Prohibition with a plea for a Temporary Restraining Order and Injunction. They sought to enjoin the BCDA from demolishing structures they claimed were within the Diplomatic and Consular Area, asserting these were occupied with consent and could not be demolished without a court order. They also questioned the authority of the BCDA President due to an allegedly irregular appointment. The petition argued that a court order was necessary for demolition and that the notice provided was insufficient. The Supreme Court, however, characterized the petition as essentially one for injunction, permissible under Section 21 of RA 7227, and found that the petitioners failed to prove their structures were outside the JUSMAG Area. The Court also ruled that demolition was permissible under Section 28(b) of RA 7279 for government infrastructure projects and that the demolition had already been completed, rendering the injunctive relief moot.
Issue(s)
Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the petition for prohibition and injunction. Whether the petition constitutes a collateral attack on the appointment of respondent Casanova. Whether the structures sought to be demolished are located within the JUSMAG Area or the Diplomatic and Consular Area. Whether a court order is necessary for the demolition of structures for government infrastructure projects under RA 7279. Whether the demolition conducted complied with the requirements of just and humane eviction or demolition under RA 7279.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The demolition activities were already completed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court: The Court clarified that while the petition was denominated as one for prohibition, its allegations and prayer ultimately sought an injunction. Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, which dictates filing with the Regional Trial Court for actions involving corporations or officers, was deemed inapplicable. Instead, Section 21 of Republic Act No. 7227, which exclusively authorizes the Supreme Court to issue injunctions to restrain the implementation of conversion projects of military reservations, governed the case. Therefore, the petition was properly filed before the Supreme Court. On the collateral attack on Casanova's appointment: The Court held that the challenge to respondent Casanova's title as President and Chief Executive Officer of the BCDA constituted a collateral attack on a public office. Such matters can only be contested directly through a quo warranto proceeding. Prohibition does not lie to inquire into the validity of a public officer's appointment. Therefore, this issue could not be resolved in the present petition. On the location of the structures: The Court found that the petitioner failed to prove their claim that the structures were located within the Diplomatic and Consular Area. The evidence presented by the petitioner, such as a website posting and a map, did not substantiate their claim. Conversely, the BCDA presented evidence, including a Relocation Survey Plan and ground surveys, supported by the Urban Poor Affairs Office of Taguig City, which indicated that the structures were indeed within the JUSMAG Area. The Court gave credence to the BCDA's evidence, finding the petitioner's arguments to be flimsy. On the necessity of a court order for demolition: The Court reiterated its ruling in Kalipunan ng Damay ang Mahihirap, Inc. v. Robredo that demolitions and evictions may be validly carried out without a judicial order when government infrastructure projects with available funding are about to be implemented, pursuant to Section 28(b) of RA 7279. The demolition in this case was a precursory step to the conversion of the JUSMAG area into a residential and mixed-use development under a Joint Venture Agreement, thus falling under this exception. On compliance with just and humane demolition requirements: The Court found that the demolition substantially complied with the parameters of just and humane eviction or demolition under Section 28 of RA 7279. Records showed that a Local Inter-Agency Committee conducted consultations, offered financial compensation and relocation packages, and provided numerous 30-day notices. The Certificate of Compliance on Demolition issued by the Local Housing Board of Taguig City was accorded the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties, as it was not rebutted by clear and convincing evidence of irregularity.
Main Doctrine
A writ of prohibition does not lie to inquire into the validity of the appointment of a public officer, and injunctions to restrain demolitions for government infrastructure projects may be validly carried out without a court order under Section 28(b) of RA 7279, provided just and humane demolition parameters are met.