Altarejos v. Bautista
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Spouses Edilberto and Dolores Palispis, registered owners of a property at 39-C North Diversion Road, Camachile, Balintawak, Quezon City, requested the removal of structures and occupants from their land. The occupants, Cesar A. Altarejos et al., had been in possession of the property for approximately 20 to 30 years. The Spouses Palispis had previously filed an ejectment case which was dismissed. The occupants contested the authority of the Quezon City Mayor's office to order demolition, asserting that such power rests with the building official under the National Building Code. Procedural History: The Quezon City Task Force COPRISS inspected the property and found various residential and commercial structures. After failed settlement dialogues, the Task Force recommended demolition to the City Mayor's office, citing Republic Act No. 7279. The Office of the Secretary to the Mayor issued a Memorandum on March 17, 2014, ordering the demolition of the structures, citing violations of Republic Act No. 7279, the Local Government Code, and Quezon City Ordinance No. SP-1800. A Notice of Demolition followed on April 11, 2014. The occupants filed a Petition for Prohibition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which denied the petition, ruling that administrative remedies were not exhausted and the Mayor's office acted within its authority. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's decision. Aggrieved, the occupants filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court. The Petition: Petitioners, Cesar A. Altarejos et al., seek a reversal of the Court of Appeals' decision, arguing that the Quezon City Mayor and his officials lack the legal authority to summarily evict them and demolish their structures. They contend that the demolition order usurped the judicial power of the courts and violated the principle of separation of powers, as the Spouses Palispis' request effectively constituted an ejectment case. Petitioners assert that the authority to declare structures illegal and order demolition rests with the Building Official, not the Mayor. They further argue that the grounds for summary eviction under Republic Act No. 7279 are not met, and that the demolition order was issued without due process and in excess of statutory authority, constituting grave abuse of discretion. Petitioners specifically challenge the reliance on DILG Opinion No. 16 and Quezon City Ordinance No. SP-1800, arguing they cannot supersede national laws and the Constitution.
Issue(s)
Whether the Petition for Prohibition was the proper remedy. Whether city mayors have the legal authority to order demolitions and evictions without court intervention and summarily. Whether respondents, in issuing the demolition order, acted with grave abuse of discretion.
Ruling
The Petition is GRANTED. The September 7, 2018 Decision and April 25, 2019 Resolution of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The March 17, 2014 Memorandum ordering the demolition of petitioners' structures is declared VOID for being issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the Petition for Prohibition: The Court held that a Petition for Prohibition was a proper remedy. While mayors exercise executive functions, they perform quasi-judicial functions when issuing demolition notices or orders, which involves factual inquiries and the exercise of discretion. The RTC's conclusion that petitioners failed to exhaust administrative remedies was found to be hasty, as petitioners had actively sought administrative relief through dialogues and meetings. Furthermore, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is not absolute and admits exceptions, including urgent need for judicial intervention and irreparable damage, both present in this case due to the imminent demolition. The Court found that further administrative relief would have been futile, and the filing of the Petition for Prohibition was the only plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. On the legal authority of city mayors to order demolitions and evictions: The Court affirmed that city mayors possess the legal authority to order demolitions and evictions without court intervention under specific provisions of law, namely Section 28(a) and (b) of Republic Act No. 7279, and summarily under Section 27 of the same law. This power is distinct from the judicial action for ejectment, which solely concerns the right of possession. Section 455(b)(3)(vi) of the Local Government Code also empowers mayors to require owners of illegally constructed structures to obtain permits or make necessary changes, or to order demolition or removal. However, this authority is not unbridled and is circumscribed by statutory grounds and procedural requirements. On whether respondents acted with grave abuse of discretion: The Court found that respondents acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction. The demolition order was based on alleged violations of R.A. 7279 and Quezon City Ordinance No. SP-1800. However, the Court found no legal basis for summary eviction under Section 27 of R.A. 7279, as petitioners were neither new squatter families nor identified as professional squatters or members of squatting syndicates; their structures were built long before R.A. 7279's effectivity. The claim of violation of Section 28(a) was also unfounded, as the structures were not located in danger areas, and being fire hazards does not automatically equate to being in a danger area for demolition purposes under R.A. 7279. Furthermore, under Quezon City Ordinance No. SP-1800 and the National Building Code, it is the Building Official, not the City Mayor, who has the authority to declare a structure dangerous or ruinous and order its demolition. The Building Official had only declared the structures as 'illegal' for lack of a permit, but the law and ordinance require a specific procedure: the owner must first be ordered to secure a permit within 30 days, and only upon failure or refusal can the Mayor order demolition. This procedure was not followed. The Court concluded that the Mayor transgressed the bounds of the law and the ordinance, rendering the demolition order void.
Main Doctrine
City mayors do not possess unbridled discretion to issue demolition and eviction orders; their power is limited by law, and its exercise must comply with statutory grounds and procedural due process. Issuance of such orders outside the scope of legal authority constitutes grave abuse of discretion.