Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 559 views

    Parayno V Jovellanos (Odsey)

    Uploaded by

    Charvan Chareng
    The Supreme Court ruled that the municipality of Calasiao did not have the authority to order the closure or transfer of petitioner Parayno's gasoline filling station. While municipalities have police power to promote public health and safety, this requires satisfying due process. The station was not a nuisance per se that could be summarily abated. Further, res judicata applied from a prior case that barred the grounds invoked by the municipality against petitioner's predecessor. The closure order violated petitioner's due process rights.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved

    Parayno V Jovellanos (Odsey)

    Uploaded by

    Charvan Chareng
    559 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the municipality of Calasiao did not have the authority to order the closure or transfer of petitioner Parayno's gasoline filling station. While municipalities have police power to promote public health and safety, this requires satisfying due process. The station was not a nuisance per se that could be summarily abated. Further, res judicata applied from a prior case that barred the grounds invoked by the municipality against petitioner's predecessor. The closure order violated petitioner's due process rights.

    Original Description:

    Parayno v Jovellanos digest

    Original Title

    Parayno v Jovellanos (Odsey)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the municipality of Calasiao did not have the authority to order the closure or transfer of petitioner Parayno's gasoline filling station. While municipalities have police power to promote public health and safety, this requires satisfying due process. The station was not a nuisance per se that could be summarily abated. Further, res judicata applied from a prior case that barred the grounds invoked by the municipality against petitioner's predecessor. The closure order violated petitioner's due process rights.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    559 views2 pages

    Parayno V Jovellanos (Odsey)

    Uploaded by

    Charvan Chareng
    The Supreme Court ruled that the municipality of Calasiao did not have the authority to order the closure or transfer of petitioner Parayno's gasoline filling station. While municipalities have police power to promote public health and safety, this requires satisfying due process. The station was not a nuisance per se that could be summarily abated. Further, res judicata applied from a prior case that barred the grounds invoked by the municipality against petitioner's predecessor. The closure order violated petitioner's due process rights.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    of 2

    PARAYNO v. JOVELLANOS | G.R. No. 148408 | July 14, 2006 | Corona, J.

    Petitioner: Concepcion Parayno


    Respondents: Jose Jovellanos; Municipality of Calasiao, Pangasinan

    SUMMARY: The Sangguniang Bayan of Calasiao issued a resolution recommending to the mayor the closure or transfer
    of location of the gasoline filling station owned by petitioner Parayno. The Court annulled said resolution. o
    Under the LGC, the municipality had the power to take actions and enact measures to promote the health
    and general welfare of its constituents, it may only be exercised if the following requisites are met: 1) the
    interests of the public generally require the interference of the State (equal protection clause) 2) the means
    employed are reasonably necessary for the attainment of the object sought to be accomplished and not
    unduly oppressive (due process clause). In the case at bar, the due process clause was violated. The gasoline
    filling station cannot be considered a nuisance which the municipality could summarily abate in the guise of
    exercising its police powers. The abatement of a nuisance without judicial proceedings is possible only if it is
    a nuisance per se, or one affecting the immediate safety of persons and property. Hence, it cannot be closed
    down or transferred summarily to another location.

    TOPIC: Abatement of Nuisance

    FACTS:

    ● Petitioner Parayno was the owner of a gasoline filing station in Calasiao, Pangasinan
    ● Residents of Calasiao petitioned the Sangguniang Bayan (SB) for the closure or transfer of the station to another
    location. Upon the advice of the Municipal Engineer, Chief of Police, Municipal Health Officer, and BFP, the SB
    recommended to the Mayor the closure or transfer of location of the gasoline filing station. Some of the grounds it
    enumerated were:
    o It endangers the lives and safety of the people in case of fire as it remained in a thickly populated area
    o Residents complained of irritating smell
    o Violated safety code because the station’s second floor storey had no firewalls
    o It hampers the flow of traffic as it was too small and narrow
    ● Petitioner Parayno filed a special civil action for prohibition and mandamus with the RTC, arguing that:
    o The gasoline station was not covered under Section 44 of the Official Zoning Code since it was not a
    “gasoline service station” but a “gasoline filing station,” governed by Section 21 thereof
    o A previous ruling of the HLURB in a case against her predecessor barred the grounds invoked by the
    respondent municipality
    ● RTC ruled against Parayno, ruling that although the Official Zoning Code does not mention a “gasoline filing
    station,” following the principle of ejusdem generis, a gasoline filling station falls within the ambit of Section 44
    which covers gasoline service stations
    ● CA affirmed RTC’s ruling

    ISSUE + RULING:

    ● WON the legal maxim of Ejusdem Generis applied to the case at bar—NO.

    o The Court ruled that the zoning ordinance of the municipality made a clear distinction between
    “gasoline service station” and “gasoline filing station”. It is eviden that the two terms were made to be
    separate and distinct from each other
    ▪ Section 2: Filing Station- A retail station servicing automobiles and other motor vehicles
    with gasoline and oil only
    ▪ Section 42: Service Station- A building and its premises where gasoline oil, grease,
    batteries, tired, and car accessories may be supplied and dispensed at retail and where,
    in addition, the following services may be rendered and sales and no other.
    o Even the counsel of the municipality admitted during the hearing that there was a dissimilarity between
    the two terms. These were judicial admissions which were conclusive on the municipality
    o Thus, the municipality cannot find maxim in the legal maxim of ejusdem generis, instead the applicable
    maxim is expression unius exclusion alterius.
    ▪ Ejusdem generis- “Of the same kind, class, or nature.” Under this maxim, where general words
    follow the enumeration of particular classes of things or persons, the general words will apply
    only to persons or things of the same general nature or class as those enumerated
    ▪ Expressio unius exclusion alterius- The express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of
    others
    o Because of the distinct and definite meanings alluded to the two terms by the zoning ordinance, the
    municipality cannot insist that the “gasoline service station” under Section 44 necessarily included
    “gasoline filling station” under Section 21

    ● WON the closure of the gasoline filling station was a valid exercise of police power—NO.

    o Under the LGC, the municipality had the power to take actions and enact measures to promote the
    health and general welfare of its constituents, it may only be exercised if the following requisites are
    met: 1) the interests of the public generally require the interference of the State (equal protection
    clause) 2) the means employed are reasonably necessary for the attainment of the object sought to be
    accomplished and not unduly oppressive (due process clause).
    ▪ In the case at bar, the municipality failed to comply with the second requisite when it
    passed the Resolution. While it maintained that the gasoline filling station of petitioner
    was less than 100 meters from the nearest public school and church, records show that
    there was no attempt to actually measure the distance
    ▪ Moreover, the gasoline filling station cannot be considered a nuisance which the
    municipality could summarily abate in the guise of exercising its police powers. The
    abatement of a nuisance without judicial proceedings is possible only if it is a nuisance
    per se, or one affecting the immediate safety of persons and property. Hence, it
    cannot be closed down or transferred summarily to another location.

    ● WON the principle of res judicata applied to the case at bar—YES.

    o Res judicata refers to the rule that a final judgment or decree on the merits by a court of competent
    jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies in all later suits on all points and
    matters determined in the former suit. Its requisites are: 1) the judgment must be final 2) the judgment
    must be on the merits 3) it must have been rendered by a court with jurisdiction 4) there must be an
    identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action
    ▪ All the requisites have been admitted by the respondent, except for identity of parties. The
    court ruled that for res judicata to apply, it is not necessary that there is an exact shared
    identity, as long as there is community of interests between the party in the first case and the
    one in the second case

    DISPOSITION: Petition is hereby granted. The assailed resolution of the CA is reversed and set aside.

    You might also like