Office of the Ombudsman v. Duterte
G.R. No. 19820 & 198334
March 15, 2023
FACTS:
The
controversy in this case arose from a Canal-Cover Project by then
Representative of the First District of Davao City, Prospero C. Nograles
(Representative Nograles). The project in Quezon Boulevard, Davao City was
allegedly made "to secure the residents and children from any untoward
accident, prevent disposal of garbage and clogging of canal and prevent
emission of foul odors." In their defense, the concerned city officials
alleged that the Canal Cover Project was constructed by the Department of
Public Works and Highways on top of a main drainage artery/canal, which
receives water from Uyanguren, Gempesaw, Ponce, and Sauzo Streets, the
Mini-Forest, Magsaysay Park, and a portion of Quezon Boulevard before flowing
to the sea. They likewise alleged that the concrete cover was named
"Nograles Park" in violation of the Local Government Code, which
requires the approval of the Sangguniang Panlungsod for the naming and
construction of public parks. The Office of the Ombudsman rendered its Decision
finding Mayor Duterte, City Administrator Avisado, City Engineer Gestuveo, City
Legal Officers Atty. Raño and Atty. Quitain, and Chief Jimlani guilty of simple
neglect of duty and imposed the penalty of suspension from office for six
months.
ISSUE:
Whether
or not the local government of Davao City, in demolishing the Canal-Cover
Project, followed the legal procedure to abate such a nuisance.
HELD:
YES.
The law provides that the building official, in this instance the respondent
City Engineer Gestuveo, may order the demolition or abatement of dangerous
buildings and structures. Article 694 of the Civil Code defines a nuisance as
"any act, omission, establishment, business, condition of property, or
anything else which: (1) injures or endangers the health or safety of others;
or (2) annoys or offends the senses; or (3) shocks, defies or disregards decency
or morality; or (4) obstructs or interferes with the free passage of any public
highway or street, or any body of water; or (5) hinders or impairs the use of
property." It further defines a public nuisance as a nuisance which
"affects a community or neighborhood or any considerable number of
persons, although the extent of the annoyance, danger or damage upon
individuals may be unequal." Nuisances are further defined by the method
by which they could be abated. In Monteverde v. Generoso: Nuisances are of two
classes: Nuisances per se and per accidens. As to the first, since they affect
the immediate safety of persons and property, they may be summarily abated
under the undefined law of necessity. But if the nuisance be of the second
class, even the municipal authorities, under their power to declare and abate
nuisances, would not have the right to compel the abatement of a particular
thing or act as a nuisance without reasonable notice to the person alleged to
be maintaining or doing the same of the time and place of hearing before a
tribunal authorized to decide whether such a thing or act does in law
constitute a nuisance. Both the Office of the Ombudsman and the Court of
Appeals concluded that the Canal-Cover Project was not a nuisance per se, since
it "did not affect the immediate safety of persons and property as an open
canal would." While the local government of Davao City may have the power
to declare and abate nuisances within their territory, it cannot unilaterally
state as a fact that the Canal-Cover Project is a nuisance that must be abated
if it is not a nuisance per se: It is clear that municipal councils have, under
the code, the power to declare and abate nuisances, but it is equally clear
that they do not have the power to find as a fact that a particular thing is a
nuisance when such thing is not a nuisance per se; nor can they authorize the
extrajudicial condemnation and destruction of that as a nuisance which in its
nature, situation, or use is not such. These things must be determined in the
ordinary courts of law.
No comments:
Post a Comment