GR NO.

188213
CRUZ v. PANDACAN HIKER’S CLUB, INC.

FACTS
Punong Barangay Natividad Cruz allegedly confronted persons playing basketball
within the vicinity of her barangay and ordered other petitioner Benjamin dela Cruz
to destroy the basketball ring, which rendered the basketball court unusable. With
this, the Pandacan Hiker’s Club, Inc. (PHC), which alleged to be the group that
had donated, administered, and operated the subject court, filed a complaint. In
response, Cruz alleged that the basketball court affected the peace in the
barangay and that residents asked for its closure. Further, she alleged that the
court's users never heeded the barangay’s efforts to pacify them. The Office of the
Ombudsman dismissed PHC’s complaint, holding that petitioners were only
performing their sworn duty. Respondents then filed a petition for review before
the Court of Appeals, arguing that actions in furtherance of the community’s
welfare must be approved by ordinance and that unless a thing is a nuisance per
se, such a thing may not be abated via an ordinance and extrajudicially. The CA
reversed and set aside the Office of the Ombudsman’s decision and suspended
Cruz, declaring the basketball ring as not such a nuisance and thus not subject to
summary abatement. Petitioners moved for a motion for reconsideration
subsequently denied by the CA.

ISSUE
Whether or not the subject nuisance may be summarily abated

RULING
No. Nuisance per se may be summarily abated under the undefined law of
necessity, however, the Supreme Court held that based on the records, the playing
court was merely nuisance per accidens for it does not pose an immediate harm
that requires instantaneous action, thus it cannot be abated without due hearing
thereon in an authorized tribunal (Rana v. Wong).

Further, Articles 700 and 702 of the Civil Code provides that abatement, including
one without judicial proceedings, of a public nuisance falls under the responsibility
of the district health officer, and does not mention the authorization of the Punong
Barangay.

Further, the petitioner’s actions would still have been illegal had the petitioners
acted in their private capacities, for failing to comply with the requisites laid down
by Art. 704.

Hence, petition was denied and the CA decision affirmed.