VIVENCIO ABANO
demolished.
The
Court
denied
respondents
argument
that
the
demolition
was
in
accordance
with
their
exercise of police power
(general welfare clause),
because
petitioners
structure is not a nuisance
Ordinance
No.
147.
o May 19,
1989
another
letter of the
same tenor.
o
Both
letters were
unheeded.
5 May 24, 1989
Mayor
Valencia
ordered demolition.
6 August 7, 1989
The
Trial
Court
denied
petitioners
Writ of Prohibition
with Injunction and
Damages
and
upheld the power of
respondent Mayor to
order the demolition
under the ordinance,
even without judicial
authority.
respondent Court.
1
2
ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED:
1. Whether or not Respondent Mayor could summarily,
without judicial process, order the demolition of
petitioners quonset building.
RESOLUTIONS AND ARGUMENTS
ISSUE 1 Whether or not Respondent Mayor could
summarily, without judicial process, order the demolition of
petitioners quonset building. NO. Even granting that
petitioner failed to apply for a Certificate of Nonconformance, the foregoing provision should not be
interpreted as authorizing the summary removal of a nonconforming building by the municipal government. For if it
does, it must be struck down for being in contravention of
the requirements of due process, as originally held by the
1 Section 16 of the
Ordinance
provides:
A certificate of
non-conformance
for
all
nonconforming
uses
shall be applied
for by the owner
or agent of the
property involved
within twelve (12)
months from the
approval of this
Ordinance,
otherwise
the
non-conforming
use
may
be
condemned
or
removed at the
owners expense.
2 Penal Provision of
the Ordinance:
Any person who
violates any of the
provisions of this
ordinance
shall,
upon
conviction,
be punished x x x
at the discretion
of the Court x x x.
3 The penal provision
of
the
ordinance
requires that the
Court be the one to
impose the penalty.
4 Furthermore,
the
Local
Government
Code imposes upon
thing as a nuisance
per se and order its
condemnation. The
nuisance can only be
so
adjudged
by
judicial
determination.
3 The storage of copra
in
the
quonset
building
is
a
legitimate business.
By its nature, it
cannot be said to be
injurious to rights of
property, of health
or of comfort of the
community. If it be a
nuisance
per
accidens it may be
so proven in a
hearing
conducted
for that purpose. It is
not
per
se
a
nuisance warranting
its
summary
abatement without
judicial intervention.
RACHELLE ANNE
GUTIERREZ