People vs Fajardo Summary

The case involves an appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur convicting
defendants-appellants Juan F. Fajardo and Pedro Babilonia of violating a municipal ordinance by
constructing a building without a permit, which was claimed to obstruct the view of the public plaza.

The ordinance in question required individuals to obtain a permit from the municipal mayor before
constructing or repairing a building. It also imposed a penalty for violations, including fines and
imprisonment, as well as the removal of any building that obstructs the view of the public plaza.

Fajardo, who had previously served as mayor, and his son-in-law, Babilonia, requested a permit to
construct a building near their gasoline station but were denied due to the potential obstruction of the
public plaza's view. Despite the denial, they proceeded with the construction without a permit, citing
urgent need for a residence.

The defendants were charged, convicted, and fined by the lower courts. However, they appealed the
decision, arguing that the ordinance was unconstitutional because it granted the mayor unfettered
discretion in issuing permits, without providing any standards or guidelines.

The higher court agreed with the appellants, noting that the ordinance lacked standards or guidelines for
the mayor's decision-making process, making it unconstitutional. The court cited previous cases where
similar arbitrary delegation of power was deemed invalid.

Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the defendants, finding the ordinance unconstitutional due to its
lack of standards, thereby overturning the convictions. The argument presented is that the mayor's
refusal to issue a building permit based on the ordinance's provision that a building should not "destroy
the view of the public plaza" is unreasonable and oppressive. It is contended that this provision
effectively deprives the appellants of the right to use their property and amounts to a taking of their
property without just compensation, exceeding the bounds of police power.

While the beautification of neighborhoods is considered important, the argument asserts that the
ordinance goes too far by permanently restricting the use of appellants' property, regardless of the
beauty or purpose of the proposed structure. This, it is argued, constitutes a confiscation of property
rights without due process.

The argument cites cases and legal principles to support the contention that a regulation that
substantially deprives an owner of all beneficial use of their property constitutes confiscation and is a
deprivation within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. It is asserted that zoning or regulations that
limit property to a use that cannot reasonably be made of it amounts to a taking of property without just
compensation, which should be borne by the public if it is for public benefit.
The court ruled that the ordinance in question, Municipal Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1950, of the
Municipality of Baao, Camarines Sur, was invalid because it exceeded the authority of the municipality to
enact. The lower court had justified the ordinance under section 2243, par. (c), of the Revised
Administrative Code, which grants municipal councils the authority to establish fire limits, prescribe
allowable buildings, and issue permits for construction or repair within those limits.

However, the court found that the ordinance did not meet the requirements of this provision because
there was no evidence that the municipal council had established fire limits or set standards for
allowable buildings before passing the ordinance. Therefore, the court concluded that the ordinance was
not enacted under the authority of section 2243 (c) and was null and void.

As a result, the conviction of the appellants was reversed, and they were acquitted, with costs de oficio.