Natividad C. Cruz and Benjamin Dela Cruz Vs. Pandacan Hiker's Club, Inc.
G.R. No. 188213. January 11, 2016

Petitioner Natividad C. Cruz (Cruz) was Punong Barangay or Chairperson of Barangay 848, Zone 92, City of Manila.2 On November 10, 2006, around five o'clock in the afternoon, and along Central Street, Pandacan, Manila, within the vicinity of her barangay, she allegedly confronted persons playing basketball with the following statements:

Bakit nakabukas ang (basketball) court? Wala kayong karapatang maglaro sa court na 'to, barangay namin ito! xxx xxx xxx Wala kayong magagawa. Ako ang chairman dito. Mga walanghiya kayo, patay gutom! Hindi ako natatakot! Kaya kong panagutan lahat!

Then, she allegedly gave an order to the other petitioner, Barangay Tanod Benjamin dela Cruz (Dela Cruz), to destroy the basketball ring by cutting it up with a hacksaw which Dela Cruz promptly complied with, thus, rendering the said basketball court unusable.

Petitioners maintain that they acted merely with the intention to regain free passage of people and vehicles over the street and restore the peace, health and sanitation of those affected by the basketball court. Cruz, in particular, asserts that she merely abated a public nuisance which she claimed was within her power as barangay chief executive to perform and was part of her duty to maintain peace and order.

1.    May the Petitioners summarily destroy the basketball ring?


No. Prevailing jurisprudence holds that unless a nuisance is a nuisance per se, it may not be summarily abated.

In the case at bar, the basketball ring can be held, at most, as a mere nuisance per accidens, for it does not pose an immediate effect upon the safety of persons and property. A basketball ring, by itself, poses no immediate harm or danger to anyone but is merely an object of recreation. Neither is it, by its nature, injurious to rights of property, of health or of comfort of the community and, thus, it may not be abated as a nuisance without the benefit of a judicial hearing.


2.    Explain the police power of the local government units under the general welfare clause to abate nuisance.


The general welfare clause provides for the exercise of police power for the attainment or maintenance of the general welfare of the community. The power, however, is exercised by the government through its legislative branch by the enactment of laws regulating those and other constitutional and civil rights.

Flowing from this delegated police power of local governments, a local government unit exercises police power through its legislative body, in this case, its Sangguniang Barangay


3.    How may a private individual abate a public nuisance?


Art. 704. Any private person may abate a public nuisance which is specially injurious to him by removing, or if necessary, by destroying the thing which constitutes the same, without committing a breach of the peace, or doing unnecessary injury. But it is necessary:

a)    That demand be first made upon the owner or possessor of the property to abate the nuisance;

b)    That such demand has been rejected;

c)    That the abatement be approved by the district health officer and executed with the assistance of the local police; and

d)    That the value of the destruction does not exceed three thousand pesos.


4.    Assuming that the basketball ring was a nuisance per se, but without posing any immediate harm or threat that required instantaneous action, may the petitioners summarily destroy the basketball ring?


No.

Under Article 700 of the Civil Code, the abatement, including one without judicial proceedings, of a public nuisance is the responsibility of the district health officer. Under Article 702 of the Code, the district health officer is also the official who shall determine whether or not abatement, without judicial proceedings, is the best remedy against a public nuisance. The two articles do not mention that the chief executive of the local government, like the Punong Barangay, is authorized as the official who can determine the propriety of a summary abatement.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ricardo Del Poso y Dela Cerna Vs. People of the Philippines G.R No. 210810. December 7, 2016 The victim, VVV was given by her biological mother to the petitioner when she was 7 years old and the latter then acted as her guardian. On September 10, 2005, when VVV was 9 years old, petitioner ordered her to attend to petitioner's photocopying          business. While attending the business, VVV fell asleep. When petitioner saw VVV asleep, the former became furious and laid VVV on top of an ironing board and placed a heated flat iron on her. When VVV tried to evade the heat emanating from the flat iron, her forehead, right elbow, left cheek, left buttock and back got burned. Thereafter, petitioner got her down from the ironing board and ordered her to sleep. The following morning, petitioner's wife saw the burns on VVV and told petitioner not to do it again. Later on, VVV went to her Lola Ma. Luisa to watch TV and the latter, and several other...
Read more

JR HAULING SERVICES AND OSCAR MAPUE, PETITIONERS, VS. GAVINO L. SOLAMO, RAMIL JERUSALEM, ARMANDO PARUNGAO, RAFAEL CAPAROS, JR., NORIEL SOLAMO, ALFREDO SALANGSANG, MARK PARUNGAO AND DEAN V. CALVO, RESPONDENTS.

Image
G.R. No. 214294 I What is the quantum of proof required in illegal dismissal cases? The quantum of proof required is merely substantial evidence - which only entails evidence to support a conclusion, "even if other minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably opine otherwise." II Are affidavits sufficient to establish substantial evidence in labor cases? Explain.  Yes, in labor cases, affidavits may be sufficient to establish substantial evidence. The rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law do not control proceedings before the labor tribunals where decisions may be reached on the basis of position papers, accompanied by supporting documents, including affidavits of witnesses, and other allied pleadings. III What is the weight of an affidavit of witness in labor case? A notarized document carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution. It has in its favor the presumption of regularity, which may only be rebutted by evidence so clear, ...
Read more

Marcelo G. Saluday Vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 215305. April 3, 2018

Marcelo G. Saluday Vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 215305. April 3, 2018 On 5 May 2009. Bus No. 66 of Davao Metro Shuttle was flagged down by Task Force Davao of the Philippine Army at a checkpoint near the Tefasco Wharf in Ilang, Davao City. SCAA Junbert M. Buco (Buco), a member of the Task Force, requested all male passengers to disembark from the vehicle while allowing the female passengers to remain inside. He then boarded the bus to check the presence and intercept the entry of any contraband, illegal firearms or explosives, and suspicious individuals. SCAA Buco checked all the baggage and personal effects of the passengers, but a small, gray-black pack bag on the seat at the rear of the bus caught his attention. He lifted the bag and found it too heavy for its small size. SCAA Buco then looked at the male passengers lined outside and noticed that a man in a white shirt (later identified as petitioner) kept peeping through the window towards the direction of the b...
Read more