Farrales vs City Mayor of Baguio

G.R. No. L-24245 April 11, 1972

MAKALINTAL, J.

SUMMARY:

After a proceeding for injunction to stop the police, the stall of Petitioner was demolished for obstructing
the movement of people in a passageway. Petitioner filed a complaint for damages arguing that the stall
could only be abated after the approval of Mayor and corresponding judicial proceeding.

The Court held that the abatement thereof was not even summary, but in fact through a judicial
proceeding since the Petitioner went to CFI and asked for an injunction. The denial of her petition for
injunction upon her failure to produce such a permit was in effect an authority for the police to carry out
the act which was sought to be enjoined. Furthermore, her stall was not the “building” contemplated in
the Charter of the City of Baguio which required the prior approval of the Mayor before abatement.

FACTS:

 Petitioner Farrales was the holder of a municipal license to sell liquor and sari-sari goods in a
public building.

 She was ordered to move her goods to another temporary place until the construction of the
permanent building was completed.

 She did not like the new location pointed to her.

o Instead, she built a temporary shack at a cement passageway at the end of Rice Section,
Baguio City Market without seeking prior permit or permission from any city official.

 When the police threatened to demolish this shack, Petitioner sought an injunction from the CFI.

o The lower court asked Petitioner to show proper permit.

o When she failed to show permit, the petition was denied.

o CFI denied Petitioner’s petition.

 Petitioner filed an action for damages

o This was dismissed by the CFI

 Petitioner appealed to CA.

o Petitioner insists that the proper procedure should have been for either the City Engineer
or the City Health Officer to commence legal proceedings for the abatement of this
 "nuisance".

 The complaint of Petitioner was dismissed

o CA held that the police officers properly demolished the shack for it had been built in
defiance of orders from City Hall officials.

 Hence this petition

 Petitioner argues that

o The shack or temporary stall was not a nuisance or if it was a nuisance at all it was
one per accidens and not per se and therefore could be abated only after the
corresponding judicial proceeding.

o (A nuisance per se is recognized as a nuisance under any and all circumstances because
it constitutes a direct menace to public health or safety. On the other hand, a nuisance
per accidens must be proven a nuisance in a hearing conducted for a purpose.)

ISSUE:

W/N the demolition of the shack was in order --- YES

 Stall can be rightly demolished even without hearing

o In the first place she had no permit to put up the temporary stall in question in the place
where she did so.

o In the second place, its location on the cement passageway at the end of the Rice Section
building was such that it constituted an obstruction to the free movement of people.

 Charter of the City of Baguio (Art. V, Section 2557 [d] Adm. Code), relied upon by the appellant,
gives the City Engineer the power "to cause buildings, dangerous to the public, to be made secure
or torn down, subject to the approval of the City Mayor.

o Judging by these photographs it cannot even be said that what the appellant constructed
was a temporary stall.

o It was nothing more than a lean-to, improvised with pieces of used scrap iron roofing
sheets.
 o It was obviously not a "building" within the meaning of the Charter of the City of Baguio
(Art. V, Section 2557 [d] Adm. Code)

 It is true that under Article 702 of the Civil Code "the District Officer shall determine whether or
not abatement, without judicial proceedings, is the best remedy against public nuisance;"

o But the failure to observe this provision is not in itself a ground for the award of damages
except in two cases:

 (1) if he causes unnecessary injury, or

 (2) if an alleged nuisance is later declared by the courts to be not a real nuisance.

o Here, no unnecessary injury was caused to the appellant, and the trial court found that it
was indeed a nuisance.

 The abatement thereof was not even summary, but in fact through a judicial proceeding.

o The appellant, after having been warned by the city police of Baguio, went to court and
asked for an injunction.

o The denial of her petition for injunction upon her failure to produce such a permit was in
effect an authority for the police to carry out the act which was sought to be enjoined.

 Under the circumstances there is absolutely no ground to award damages in favor of the
appellant.

RULING:

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, without pronouncement as to costs.