Parayno vs Jovellanos

Parayno vs Jovellanos G.R. No. 148408 Subject: Public Corporation Doctrine: Police power Facts: Petitioner was the own owner of a gasoline filling station inCalasiao, Pangasinan. In 1989, some residents of Calasiao petitioned the Sangguniang Bayan SB! of said municipali tyfor the closure or transfer of the station to another location."he matter was referred to the #unicipal $ngineer, Chief of Police, #unicipal %ealth &fficer an d the Bureau of 'ireProtection for in(estigation. )pon their a d(ise, theSangguniang Bayan recommended to the #ayor the closure or transfer transfer of locatio location n of petition petitioner er s gasoline gasoline station. station. In *eso *esolu luti tion on +o. +o. -, -, it decl declar ared ed that that the the eis eisti ting ng gaso gasoli line ne stationis a blatant ant (iol iolation and disregard of eist isting law./ccording law./ccording to the *esolution, *esolution, 1! the gasoline filling station isin isin (iola (iolati tion on of "he "he &ffi &ffici cial al 0onin 0oning g Code Code of Calas Calasia iao, o, /rt. /rt. ,Section 22, the nearest school building which is San #iguel$lementary School and church, the distances are less than 1--meters. +o neighbors were called as witnesses when actualmeasure actualmeasurements ments were done by %3)*B Staff, Baguio City dated44 5une 1989!6 4! it remains in thic7ly populated area with withco comm mmer ercia cial lre resi side dent ntia ial l build buildin ings gs, , hous houses es clos closed ed sic! sic! to each eachot othe her r whic which h stil still l enda endang nger ers s the li(e li(es s and safe safety ty of the the peop people lein in case case of fire fire6 6 ! resi reside dent nts s of our our bara barang ngay ay alwa always ys comp compla lain inof of the the irrit irritat atin ing g smell smell of gaso gasoli line ne most most of the the time time especiallyduring gas filling which tend to epose residents to illness, and2! It hampers the flow of traffic.Petitioner mo(ed for the reconsideration of the resolution butwas denied by the SB. SB. %enc %ence e she she file filed d a case case befo before re the the *"Cc *"Ccla laim imin ing g that that the the gaso gasoli line ne fill fillin ing g stat statio ion n was was not not co(e co(ere red d under under Sec 22 of the the mentioned law but is under Sec 41. Case wasdenied by the court and by the C/. %ence this appeal. ISS!: :het :hethe her r or not not the the clos closur ure etr tran ansf sfer er of her her gaso gasoli line nefi fill llin ing g station by respondent municipality was an in(alid eerci eercise se of the the latter latter s police police powers powers ‟

‟

"!#D:  "he respondent is barred from denying their pre(ious claimthat the gasoline filling station is not under Sec 22. "he

Counsel in fact admitted that ;