Parayno vs Jovellanos

G.R. No. 148408

Subject:
Public Corporation
Doctrine:
Police power
Facts:
Petitioner was the owner of a gasoline filling station
inCalasiao,
Pangasinan.
In
1989,
some
residents
of
Calasiao petitioned the Sangguniang Bayan (SB) of said municipali
tyfor the closure or transfer of the station to another
location.The matter was referred to the Municipal Engineer, Chief
of Police,
Municipal
Health
Officer
and
the
Bureau
of
FireProtection
for
investigation.
Upon
their
advise,
theSangguniang Bayan recommended to the Mayor the closure or
transfer of location of petitioners gasoline station. In
Resolution No. 50, it declared that the existing gasoline
stationis a blatant violation and disregard of existing
law.According to the Resolution, 1) the gasoline filling station
isin violation of The Official Zoning Code of Calasiao, Art.
6,Section 44, the nearest school building which is San
MiguelElementary School and church, the distances are less than
100meters.
(No
neighbors
were
called
as
witnesses
when
actualmeasurements were done by HLURB Staff, Baguio City dated22
June
1989);
2)
it
remains
in
thickly
populated
area
withcommercial/residential buildings, houses closed (sic) to
eachother which still endangers the lives and safety of the
peoplein case of fire; 3) residents of our barangay always
complainof the irritating smell of gasoline most of the time
especiallyduring gas filling which tend to expose residents to
illness, and4) It hampers the flow of traffic.Petitioner moved
for the reconsideration of the resolution butwas denied by the
SB. Hence she filed a case before the RTCclaiming that the
gasoline filling station was not covered under Sec 44 of the
mentioned law but is under Sec 21. Case wasdenied by the court
and by the CA. Hence this appeal.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the closure/transfer of her gasolinefilling
station by respondent municipality was an invalid
exercise of the latters police powers
HELD:
The respondent is barred from denying their previous claimthat
the gasoline filling station is not under Sec 44. The

Counsel in fact admitted that : That the business of the

petitioner [was] one of a gasoline filling station as defined in
Article III, Section 21 of the zoning code and not as a
servicestation as differently defined under Article 42 of the
said
official zoning code;
The foregoing were judicial admissions which wereconclusive on
the
municipality,
the
party
making
them.
hence, because of the distinct and definite meanings alluded to t
hetwo terms by the zoning ordinance, respondents could not
insist
that
gasoline
service
station
under
Section
44necessarily
included
gasoline
filling
station
under
Section21. Indeed, the activities undertaken in a gas service
station
did not automatically embrace thos
e in a gas filling station.
As
for
the
main
issue,
the
court
held
that
the
respondentmunicipality invalidly used its police powers in
ordering the closure/transfer of petitioners gasoline station.
While it had,
under RA 7160, the power to take actions and enact measuresto
promote the health and general welfare of its constituents,
itshould have given due deference to the law and the rights
of petitioner.A local government is considered to have properly
exercisedits police powers only when the following requisites are
met:(1) the interests of the public generally, as distinguished
fromthose of a particular class, require the interference of the
Stateand (2) the means employed are reasonably necessary for
theattainment of the object sought to be accomplished and
notunduly oppressive. The first requirement refers to the
equal protection clause and the second, to the due process clause
of the Constitution.Respondent municipality failed to comply with
the
due process clause when it passed Resolution No. 50. While itmain
tained that the gasoline filling station of petitioner wasless
than 100 meters from the nearest public school andchurch, the
records do not show that it even attempted tomeasure the
distance, notwithstanding that such distance wascrucial in
determining whether there was an actual violation of Section 44.
The different local offices that respondentmunicipality tapped to
conduct an investigation never conducted such measurement either.
Moreover, petitioners business could not be con
sidered
anuisance
which
respondent
municipality
could
summarilyabate in the guise of exercising its police powers.
Theabatement
of
a
nuisance
without
judicial
proceedings
is possible only if it is a nuisance per se. A gas station is not

anuisance per se or one affecting the immediate safety

of persons and property, hence, it cannot be closed down or tran
sferred summarily to another location.On the alleged hazardous
effects of the gasoline station to thelives and properties of the
people of Calasiao, we again note:
Hence, the Board is inclined to believe that the project being
hazardous to life and property is more perceived than
factual.For, after all, even the Fire Station Commander..
recommended to build such buildings after conform (sic) all
the
requirements
of
PP
1185.
It
is
further
alleged
by
thecomplainants that the proposed location is in the heart of
thethickly populated residential area of Calasiao. Again,
findings of the [HLURB] staff negate the allegations as thesame
is within a designated Business/Commercial Zone per the Zoning
Ordinance.
WHEREFORE
, the petition is hereby GRANTED. Theassailed resolution of the
Court of the Appeals is REVERSEDand SET ASIDE. Respondent
Municipality of Calasiao ishereby directed to cease and desist
from
enforcing
Resolution No. 50 against
petitioner insofar as it seeks to close down or transfer
her
gasoline station to another location.