New Sun Valley Homeowners' Association, Inc. vs. Sangguniang Barangay
Short Description
New Sun Valley Homeowners' Association, Inc. vs. Sangguniang Barangay...
Description
P a g e | 1
NEW SUN VALLEY HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC. vs. SANGGUNIANG BARANGAY, Barangay Sun Valley, Paraa!ue C"#y, G.R. N$. %&(. )uly *+, *%% This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court against the Decision1 dated October 16, !! in C"#$.R. C% &o. 6555' and the Resolution dated (anuar) 1*, !!+, both of the Court of "ppeals. The facts are as follows The -angguniang aranga) of aranga) -un %alle) /the 0-% -angguniang aranga)0 issued -% Resolution &o. '2#!'6+ on October 1+, 1''2, entitled 0Directing the &ew -un %alle) 3oeowners "ssociation to Open Roseallow and "ster -treets to %ehicular and edestrian Traffic,0 the pertinent portions of which read as follows &O, T37R78OR7, be it resolved as it is hereb) resolved b) the -angguniang aranga) in session assebled that 9 1. ursuant to its power and authorit) under the :ocal $overnent Code of 1''1 /Rep. "ct &o. *16!, the &ew -un %alle) 3oeowners "ssociation /&-%3" is hereb) directed to open Roseallow and "ster -ts. to vehicular /private cars onl) and pedestrian traffic at all hours dail) e;cept fro 11 p.. to 5 a.. at which tie the said streets a) be closed for the saotion for Reconsideration of the above#uoted Order but this was denied b) the RTC for lac< of erit in an Order+ dated -epteber 1, 1'''. &-%3"= raised the atter to the Court of "ppeals and the case was docotion to Disiss or that of subitting said >otion for resolution, (udge autista#Ricafort issued an Order which, to &-%3"=Hs coplete surprise, granted the >otion. &-%3"= argued that the RTC gravel) erred in taotion and refusing to e;ercise @urisdiction over the sub@ect atter of Civil Case &o. '2#!4!. etitioner li=&=-TR"T=%7 R7>7D=7-. "- &OT7D K T37 COGRT, &O OO-=T=O& TO T37 >OT=O& TO D=->=-"- 7%7R 8=:7D K "7::"&T.
R=$3T TO ROT7CT.6 Respondents claied that aranga) Resolution &o. '2#!'6 was sipl) a directive to petitioner, 0a private aggrupation of soe self#seea)or could have chosen, as it was within his power to do so, to cause the deolition of the gates, which were illegall) built b) petitioner and therefore were obstructions on the road, even without a aranga) resolution. Respondents liunicipal "ttorne), of this unicipalit) the herein attached 0Original Copies of Transfer Certificate of Title for -un %alle) Open -pace and Road :ots0 with TCT &os. 1++55, 11'2+6, and 144+ for )our appropriate actions. . :etter+ dated Deceber *, 1''! fro 8rancisco . (ose, (r., >unicipal "ttorne) of araBaue, addressed to the >unicipal Council -ecretar), which reads
== T37 TR=": COGRTH- D=->=--": O8 T37 "CT=O& "--"=:=&$ =T- -G(7CT#>"TT7R, "R"&$"K R7-O:GT=O& &O. '2#!'6, CO&-=-T=&$ O8 " D=R7CT=%7 O8 "& :$G TO " D78="&T R=%"T7 OR$"&=L"T=O& =T3=& =T- (GR=-D=CT=O&, =- (GD=C=": R7CO$&=T=O& O8 T37 -O:7 CO>7T7&C7 "&D =-7 D=-CR7T=O& O8 T37 "R"&$"K O%7R " :OC": TR"88=C RO:7>.
This has reference to )our reuest dated Deceber 12, 1''! relative to the letter of inuir) of the aranga) Captain of aranga) -un %alle) dated Deceber 1+, 1''!. e wish to infor )ou that based on the available records of our office the open space and road lots of -un %alle) -ubdivision is alread) owned b) the >unicipal $overnent of araBaue as evidenced b) TCT &O-. 1++55, 11'2+6, and 144+. Copies of which are hereto attached for )our read) reference.
=== T37 TR=": COGRT D=D &OT CO>>=T "&K -7R=OG- 7RROR, ROC7DGR": OR -G-T"&T=%7, "- 8OG&D K T37 COGRT " MGO. =T =- "7::"&T T3"T 3"CO>>=TT7D T37 7RROR O8 &OT 7J3"G-T=&$ "D>=&=-TR"T=%7 R7>7D=7-. 37&C7, &O $R"%7 OR =RR7"R":7 =&(GRK C"& 7 C"G-7D TO "7::"&T 8OR =T 3"- &O
Considering that the >unicipalit) of araBaue is the registered owner of the road lots of -un %alle) -ubdivision, we are of the opinion that the roads becoe public in use and ownership, and therefore, use of the roads b) persons other than residents of the -ubdivision can no longer be curtailed. 3owever, should the >unicipal $overnent decides to delegate its right to regulate the use of the said roads to the -un %alle) 3oeownerHs "ssociation or -un %alle) aranga)
P a g e | 4 Council, such right a) be e;ercisedE b) said association or council. +. Certification++ dated October 2, 1''! issued b) 8rancisco . (ose, (r. under the letterhead of the Office of the >unicipal "ttorne) of araBaue, which reads
"ppeals lir. >ario Corte?, resident of -un %alle) 3oeowners "ssociation.
etitioner alleges that the decision of the Court of "ppeals was based on 0facts that wereE outside of the original etition and "ended etition and on supposed findings of facts that are not even evidence offered before the court a uo.0+* etitioner liarch , 1''5 issued b) Rodolfo O. "lora, O=C, "sst. >unicipal :egal Officer, which reads
"
This is to certif) that based on the available records of this Office, the open space within -un %alle) -ubdivision has alread) been donated to the >unicipalit) as evidenced b) Transfer Certificate of Title &o. 11'2+6, cop) of which is hereto attached. This certification is being issued upon the reuest of "tt). Re; $. Rico. 6. Certification+6 dated October 6, 1''2 issued b) >a. Ri?a ure?a >analese, :egal Researcher, Office of the >unicipal "ttorne), araBaue Cit), which reads This is to certif) that based on the available records of this Office, road lots of -un %alle) -ubdivision have alread) been donated to the >unicipalit) of aranaue as evidenced b) TCT &O. 1++55, 11'2+6, and 144+. This certification is being issued upon the reuest of >R. =::="> GK. The Court of "ppeals issued a Decision dated October 16, !! den)ing the appeal and affiring the Orders of the RTC dated "ugust 1*, 1''' and -epteber 1, 1'''. The Court of
hether or not the issuance of the Resolution proulgated (anuar) 1*, !!+ and the Decision proulgated October 16, !! b) the 8orer 4th Division and the 4th Division of the Court of "ppeals sustaining the validit) of disissal of Civil Case &o. '2#!4! is not in accord with law or with the applicable decisions of this 3onorable -upree Court C hether or not the 3onorable Court of "ppeals, with due respect, departed fro the accepted and usual course of @udicial proceedings b) aotion to Disiss was set on &oveber !, 1''2, without indication as to tie and that during the hearing on such date, counsel for respondents oved that their >otion to Disiss be heard over the ob@ection of counsel for petitioner, who e;plained that there was an urgenc) in ruling on the pra)er for the issuance of a writ of preliinar) in@unction in view of the e;piration of the teporar) restraining order /TRO.+'
P a g e | 5 etitioner uotes the transcript of stenographic notes /T-& fro the &oveber !, 1''2 hearing before the RTC in the following anner "tt). 3errera Then, Kour 3onor, = files sicE a otion petitioning to disiss this instant case, which should be resolved first before hearing this case. "tt). &uBe? Kour 3onor, please, with due respect to the opposing counsel, the hearing toda) is supposed to be on the presentation of petitionerHs evidence in support of its pra)er for preliinar) in@unction. =n connection with the aended coplaint, = guess it is a atter of right to aend its pleading. hat happened here, the aended petition was filed before this 3onorable Court on &oveber 1+ at 111! a.. but = thin< the otion to disiss was filed b) the respondent on &oveber 1+ at 11! a... Therefore, it is the right of the petitioner insofar as the case is concerned. "nd therefore, this Court should proceed with the hearing on the preliinar) in@unction instead of entertaining this atter. The teporar) restraining order will e;pire toda) and we have the right to be heard. Court e will proceed first with the hearing /referring to the scheduled hearing of the pra)er for the issuance of the writ of preliinar) in@unction. /Transcript of -tenographic &otes, &oveber !, 1''2 /Gnderscoring and e;planation petitionerHs.4! etitioner clais that the RTC proceeded to hear the pra)er for the issuance of a preliinar) in@unction and no hearing was conducted on the >otion to Disiss. etitioner reiterates its earlier clai that it did not receive an order reuiring it to subit its CoentAOpposition to the >otion to Disiss or inforing it that said >otion had been subitted for resolution.41 etitioner alleges that the disissal of Civil Case &o. '2#!4! arose fro the grant of respondentsH >otion to Disiss. etitioner clais that it filed its "ended etition on &oveber 1+, 1''2 at 111! a.., or before respondents served an) responsive pleading, or before the) had filed their >otion to Disiss on the sae date at about 11! a..4 etitioner avers that the filing of said "ended etition was a atter of right under -ection , Rule 1! of the 1''* Rules of Civil rocedure, and had the effect o f superseding the original petition dated October 2, 1''2. etitioner concludes that the >otion to Disiss was therefore directed against a non#e;isting etition.4+ etitioner argues that the RTCHs ruling on the >otion to Disiss is contrar) to procedural law
because no hearing was conducted on said >otion to DisissF that said otion violated -ection 5, Rule 1! of the 1''* Rules of Civil rocedure for failing to set the tie of hearing thereofF and that instead of being resolved, said otion should have been declared as a ere scrap of worthless paper.44 etitioner clais that during the proceedings before the RTC on &oveber !, 1''2, both parties anifested that the >otion to Disiss was never set for hearing, and that when (udge autista#Ricafort said, 0e will proceed first with the hearing,045 she was referring to the scheduled hearing of the pra)er for the issuance of the writ of preliinar) in@unction. etitioner clais that it is cr)stal clear that it was deprived due process when a ruling was had on the >otion to Disiss despite the clear absence of a hearing. etitioner concludes that the Court of "ppeals was anifestl) istaotion to Disiss and the lac< of issuance of an order subitting said otion for resolution. etitioner alleges that the Court of "ppeals sanctioned the ruling of the RTC that violated both substantial and procedural law. 46 >oreover, petitioner avers that contrar) to the ruling of the Court of "ppeals, the RTC had @urisdiction to hear and decide the "ended etition, and the doctrine of e;haustion of adinistrative reedies was not applicable. This is because, according to petitioner, such doctrine 0reuires that were a reed) before an adinistrative agenc) is provided, relief ust first be sought fro the adinistrative agencies prior to bringing an action before courts of @ustice.04* etitioner clais that when it filed Civil Case &o. '2#!24!, it did not have the lu;ur) of tie to elevate the atter to the higher authorities under -ections + and 5* of the :ocal $overnent Code. etitioner alleges that the tenor of -% Resolution &o. '2#!'6 necessitated the iediate filing of the in@unction case on October ', 1''2, to forestall the pre@udicial effect of said resolution that was to taa)or (oe) >arue? dated (anuar) *, !!+, addressed to >r. Roberto $uevara, Office of the aranga) Captain, aranga) -un %alle), which reads in part
1. The roads sub@ect of )our resolution is a unicipal road and not a baranga) roadF . The opening or closure of an) local road a) be undertaa)or (oe) >arue?, signed b) counsel for respondents, wherein the latter wrote
Respondents clai that since the sub@ect atter of the case is a directive of the aranga) to the petitioner, the reuireent for an ordinance would not be necessar), as there was no legislative deterination in the aranga) resolution regarding what class of roads to open or what to close b) wa) of general polic). 6!
e regret to observe that all the reasons that )ou have cited in )our letter as grounds for )our order of non#ipleentation of the aranga) Resolution have been passed upon and decided b) the Court of "ppeals, which latel) denied the &-%3" >otion for Reconsideration ; ; ;. ;;;; The Decision of the Court of "ppeals is now the sub@ect of an appeal taotion to Disiss, as well as the grounds therefore predicated on lac< of cause of action and @urisdiction, could ver) well be considered as lianila Developent "uthorit) v. el#"ir %illage "ssociation, =nc., 64 wherein the Court discussed the power of :$Gs to open and close roads, is substantiall) in point.65 "fter the subission of the partiesH respective eoranda,66 this case was subitted for decision. The issues before us are 1. hether or not petitioner has a right to the protection of the law that would entitle it to in@unctive relief against the ipleentation of -% Resolution &o. '2#!'6F and . hether or not petitioner failed to e;haust adinistrative reedies. The Ruling of the Court The Court of "ppeals passed upon petitionerHs clais as to the validit) of the disissal in this wise e do not agree. "lthough the >otion to Disiss was filed on the sae da), but after, the "ended etition was filed, the sae cannot be considered as directed erel) against the original petition which "ppellant alread) considers as non#e;isting. The records will show that "ppellantHs "ended etition contained no aterial aendents to the original petition. oth allege the sae factual circustances or events that constitute the "ppellantHs cause of action
=t bears stressing that due process sipl) eans giving ever) contending part) the opportunit) to be heard and the court to consider ever) piece of evidence presented in their favor /atangas :aguna Ta)abas us Copan) versus en@ain itanga, $.R. &os. 1+*'+4 N 1+*'+6E. =n the instant case, "ppellant cannot be said to have been denied of due process. "s borne b) the records, while "ppelleesH >otion to Disiss did not set the tie for the hearing of the otion, the da) set therefore was the sae date set for the hearing of "ppellantHs pra)er for the issuance of a writ of preliinar) in@unction 9 that is, &oveber !, 1''2, with the precise purpose of presenting evidence in support of the otion to disiss on the sae said scheduled hearing date and tie when "ppellant and its counsel would be present. >oreover, "ppellantHs predication of lac< of due hearing is belied b) the fact that the hearing held on &oveber !, 1''' too< up not onl) the atter of whether or not to grant the in@unction, but also taca)or of araBaue Cit), as clearl) stated in -ection + of the :ocal $overnent Code, which provides -ection +. Cit) and >unicipal -upervision over Their Respective aranga)s. # The cit) or unicipalit), through the cit) or unicipal a)or concerned, shall e;ercise general supervision over coponent baranga)s to ensure that said baranga)s act within the scope of their prescribed powers and functions. e do not see how petitionerHs act could ualif) as an e;ception to the doctrine of e;haustion of adinistrative reedies. e have ephasi?ed the iportance of appl)ing this doctrine in a recent case, wherein we held The doctrine of e;haustion of adinistrative reedies is a cornerstone of our @udicial s)ste. The thrust of the rule is that courts ust allow adinistrative agencies to carr) out their functions and discharge their responsibilities within the speciali?ed areas of their respective copetence. The rationale for this doctrine is obvious. =t entails lesser e;penses and provides for the speedier resolution of controversies. Coit) and convenience also ipel courts of @ustice to sh) awa) fro a dispute until the s)ste of adinistrative redress has been copleted. 62 =t is the >a)or who can best review the -angguniang aranga)Hs actions to see if it acted within the scope of its prescribed powers and functions. =ndeed, this is a local proble to be resolved
P a g e | 9 within the local governent. Thus, the Court of "ppeals correctl) found that the trial court coitted no reversible error in disissing the case for petitionerHs failure to e;haust adinistrative reedies, as the reuireent under the :ocal $overnent Code that the closure and opening of roads be ade pursuant to an ordinance, instead of a resolution, is not applicable in this case because the sub@ect roads belong to the Cit) $overnent of araBaue. >oreover, being the part) as7D.
View more...
Comments
