This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding a petition filed by the Knights of Rizal (KOR) seeking to stop the construction of the Torre de Manila condominium building near the Rizal Monument in Manila. The KOR argued that the building would block views of the monument, but the court dismissed the petition, finding that there were no laws prohibiting the construction. While guidelines aim to ensure monuments have visual dominance, these did not apply outside the boundaries of Rizal Park where the building was being constructed. The court also found no abuse of discretion by Manila in issuing the building permit.
This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding a petition filed by the Knights of Rizal (KOR) seeking to stop the construction of the Torre de Manila condominium building near the Rizal Monument in Manila. The KOR argued that the building would block views of the monument, but the court dismissed the petition, finding that there were no laws prohibiting the construction. While guidelines aim to ensure monuments have visual dominance, these did not apply outside the boundaries of Rizal Park where the building was being constructed. The court also found no abuse of discretion by Manila in issuing the building permit.
This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding a petition filed by the Knights of Rizal (KOR) seeking to stop the construction of the Torre de Manila condominium building near the Rizal Monument in Manila. The KOR argued that the building would block views of the monument, but the court dismissed the petition, finding that there were no laws prohibiting the construction. While guidelines aim to ensure monuments have visual dominance, these did not apply outside the boundaries of Rizal Park where the building was being constructed. The court also found no abuse of discretion by Manila in issuing the building permit.
This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding a petition filed by the Knights of Rizal (KOR) seeking to stop the construction of the Torre de Manila condominium building near the Rizal Monument in Manila. The KOR argued that the building would block views of the monument, but the court dismissed the petition, finding that there were no laws prohibiting the construction. While guidelines aim to ensure monuments have visual dominance, these did not apply outside the boundaries of Rizal Park where the building was being constructed. The court also found no abuse of discretion by Manila in issuing the building permit.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 1
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
CASTILLO, E.G.
GR NO. 213948
PETITIONER: KNIGHTS OF RIZAL
RESPONDENT: DMCI HOMES, INC., DMCI PROJECT DEVELOPERS, INC., CITY OF MANILA COMMISSION FOR CULTURE AND THE ARTS, NATIONAL MUSEUM, NATIONAL HISTORICAL COMMISSION OF THE PHILIPPINES CARPIO, J.:
I. FACTS DMCI-PDI acquired a &,761.6 sqm lot located at Taft Avenue, Ermita for the construction of a 49-storey condominium called Torre de Manila. A few months after starting construction, the City Council of Manila issued a resolution directing the Office of the Building Official to temporarily suspend the building permit issued to DMCI-PDI, citing among others, that Torre de Manila, upon completion will rise high above the back of Rizal Monument dwarfing the statue of our national hero and ruin its line of sight from Roxas Boulevard. DMCI-PDI then sought the opinion of Manila’s Legal Officer which stated that there is no legal justification for the suspension of the building permit, pointing that the construction lies outside Rizal Park and that the location of the property is not declared as a heritage zone or cultural property. NHCP also said the same thing.
The KOR filed a petition directly to the Supreme Court for a TRO and eventually a permanent injunction against the construction of Torre de Manila citing the following: That the condominium once complete will ruin the sightline of the Rizal Monument That the project is a nuisance per se and deserves to be abated without judicial proceeding. That it violates NHCP guideline that historic monuments should assert visual dominance over its surroundings That the project commenced in bad faith
DMCI-PDI then argued that:
That there are other tall buildings closer to the Rizal Monument That the SC has no original jurisdiction over the actions for injunction following the hierarchy of courts That the action for injunction is not a proper remedy for abatement of a nuisance That the KOR is not a party of interest and that it is not shown that it is threatened or suffered an actual injury That DMCI-PDI complied with the all the necessary requirements and cannot be attributed of bad faith for it is within the lawful exercise of its rights.
For its part, the City of Manila argues that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued since KOR has no property or substantive rights in its favor that would entitle it to judicial protection. That the issuance or revocation of a building permit is a discretionary act an not a ministerial function which can be compelled by a writ of mandamus. II. ISSUE Whether or not the Court can issue a writ of mandamus against the City of Manila to stop the construction of Torre de Manila. III. RULING – the petition for mandamus is DISMISSED for lack of merit. There is no law prohibiting the construction of Torre de Manila due to its effect on the sightline of the Rizal Monument Mandamus does not lie against the City of Manila and there is no legal duty to Consider the standards set under Ordinance 8119 since these cannot be applied outside the boundaries of Rizal Park. There is also no evidence that the City of Manila committed a grave abuse in discretion in issuing permit to DMCI-PDI that would permit the Court to exercise extraordinary certiorari power.
Stare Decisis The circumstances of this case warrant a pro hac vice conversion of the proceedings in the issuance of permits in a contested case. This means that the specific decision does not constitute a precedent because the decision is for the specific case only, not to be followed in other cases. This violates Art 8 of the NCC which states that “judicial decisions applying or interpreting the law or Constitution shall form part of the legal system of the Philippines.” A pro hac vice violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
