View full case

JAIME S. PEREZ v. SPS. FORTUNITO L. MADRONA

FACTS:

The case involves a petition for review on certiorari seeking to set aside the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) affirming the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) granting respondents' prayer for injunction against petitioner. The respondents are the registered owners of a residential property located in Marikina City.

In 1999, the petitioner, Chief of the Marikina Demolition Office, sent a letter to the respondents accusing them of constructing a structure in violation of certain laws and programs. The respondents responded to the letter, stating that it contained false accusations and lacked legal basis.

The petitioner sent another letter in 2001 giving respondents ten days to remove the alleged structure. In response, respondents filed a complaint for injunction, alleging that petitioner's threat of demolition was damaging, unlawful, and malicious. They sought the issuance of a temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction.

The RTC issued a TRO and petitioner was later declared in default for failing to file an answer. Petitioner filed a motion to lift the order of default, but it was denied. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the CA, which was dismissed.

The RTC initially dismissed the injunction complaint but it was later reinstated. The RTC eventually rendered a decision in favor of respondents, permanently enjoining petitioner from demolishing the respondents' property.

ISSUES:

  1. Did the trial court err in reinstating the complaint of the respondents?

  2. Are the requisites for the issuance of a writ of injunction present?

  3. Is the petitioner liable to pay attorney's fees and costs of suit?

  4. Whether the summary demolition of the respondents' concrete fence violated their right to due process.

  5. Whether the respondents' fence is a nuisance that may be summarily abated without judicial intervention.

  6. Whether the petitioner can be held liable for attorney's fees and costs of suit.

  7. Whether or not the trial court erred in granting the petition for declaratory relief and declaring the sections of Republic Act No. 9165 unconstitutional and void.

RULING:

  1. The trial court did not err in reinstating the complaint of the respondents. The respondents did not expressly or impliedly admit negligence, and there was no evidence to suggest that they lost interest in prosecuting their case or that their counsel was negligent. Therefore, the dismissal order was unjustified, and the reinstatement of the complaint was justified.

  2. The requisites for the issuance of a writ of injunction are present. There is a right to be protected, which is the respondents' right over their concrete fence. The acts against which the injunction is to be directed, the threatened demolition of their fence, are violative of that right.

  3. The petitioner is liable to pay attorney's fees and costs of suit. The trial court has the discretion to award attorney's fees to the prevailing party, and respondent’s reimbursement of costs of suit is granted under Section 1 of Rule 142 of the Rules of Court.

  4. The summary demolition of the respondents' concrete fence violated their right to due process. If the petitioner believed that the respondents' fence encroached on the sidewalk, he should have gone to court to prove their supposed violations instead of summarily demolishing it.

  5. The respondents' fence is not a nuisance per se and therefore cannot be summarily abated without judicial intervention. It was built primarily to secure the property of the respondents and prevent intruders from entering it. Its alleged encroachment on the sidewalk can be proven in a hearing conducted for that purpose.

  6. The petitioner can be held liable for attorney's fees and costs of suit. The respondents were forced to file a case against the petitioner to enjoin the impending demolition of their property due to the petitioner's insistence on demolition despite being informed of the unlawfulness of his actions. The respondents are also entitled to moral damages for anxiety and sleepless nights suffered and exemplary damages to serve as an example to other public officials.

  7. No, the trial court did not err in granting the petition for declaratory relief and declaring the sections of Republic Act No. 9165 unconstitutional and void.

PRINCIPLES:

  • An implied or express admission of negligence is required before a dismissed complaint can be reinstated.

  • To issue a writ of injunction, there must be a right to be protected and the acts against which the injunction is directed must be violative of that right.

  • The trial court has the discretion to award attorney's fees and the reimbursement of costs of suit to the prevailing party.

  • Unless a thing is a nuisance per se, it may not be abated summarily without judicial intervention.

  • The provisions of the Civil Code must be observed and followed in the abatement of nuisances.

  • Public officials should be circumspect in the performance of their duties to avoid liability for damages.

  • The court has the power to declare a statute unconstitutional and void (citing Article VIII, Section 4 of the Constitution).

  • A law may be declared unconstitutional if it is found to violate any provision of the Constitution.

  • In declaring a law unconstitutional and void, the court's decision has the effect of a final judgment, binding on all courts and tribunals within the land.

  • A law that infringes on a person's fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution may be declared unconstitutional and void.