FIRST DIVISION
|
SPOUSES
NEREO and NIEVA DELFINO, Petitioners, - versus - ST. JAMES
HOSPITAL, INC. and HON. RONALDO B. ZAMORA, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE
PRESIDENT,
Respondents. |
|
G.R.
No. 166735 Present: PANGANIBAN, CJ Chairperson, YNARES-SANTIAGO, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CALLEJO, SR., and CHICO-NAZARIO, JJ. Promulgated: September
5, 2006 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
Before Us is a Petition for Review on
Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules
of Civil Procedure, assailing the Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 60495, dated 20 January 2003, which affirmed
the Decision[2] of the
Office of the President, dated 26 March 1999, and the Resolution[3]
dated 11 August 2000, reinstating the grant to respondent St. James Hospital,
Inc. of a Locational Clearance and a Certificate of Locational Viability (CLV) for its expansion as a
four-storey, forty-bed capacity hospital.
On
On the strength of said opinion, Mr. Pambid revoked the temporary clearance issued to
In the interim, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of
Laguna passed on
Oblivious of the approval of the 1991
Zoning Ordinance, Mr. Pambid issued on 1 February
1996 a Certificate of Zoning Compliance or Locational
Clearance for the two-storey, ten-bed St. James Hospital citing as basis the
provisions of the 1981 Santa Rosa Municipal Zoning Ordinance. On
These issuances of Mr. Pambid were, however, invalidated by HLURB Director Tan on
On
In reply to petitioners’ complaint,
Pursuant to HLURB Rules, the case was
elevated to the HLURB Legal Services Group (LSG), and was assigned to Arbiter
Erwin T. Daga.
During the course of the proceedings, Arbiter Daga
issued the following Orders:
1.
Order dated
2.
Order dated
3.
Order dated
4.
Order dated
On
On
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby
rendered, to wit:
1.
The Locational Clearance dated February 1, 1996 issued by
public respondent Reynaldo Pambid to the expansion
hospital building of private respondent St. James Hospital, Inc. is hereby
revoked and set aside;
2.
Ordering private
respondent to demolish its two-storey hospital expansion building within ONE
MONTH at its cost and upon failure to comply within the period given, pay
complainants P10,000.00 per day of delay;
3.
Ordering private
respondent to relocate its existing ten-bed capacity hospital within ONE YEAR
and thereafter to permanently cease and desist from operating a hospital/clinic
within a residential zone, particularly in Mariquita
Pueblo Subdivision, Dita, Sta. Rosa, Laguna and
failure to comply within the reglementary period given, pay complainants the
amount of P10,000.00 per day of delay;
4.
Ordering private
respondent to pay this Board administrative fine of P20,000.00, aside
from the other fines previously imposed;
5.
Ordering private
respondent to pay this Board P5,000.00 per day beginning
6.
Ordering private
respondent to pay complainants FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS as moral damages,
TWO MILLION PESOS exemplary damages, TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS as attorney’s
fees, and FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS cost of litigation;
The motion of private respondent dated
Without prejudice to the filing of criminal action
that may be filed with the proper court.[5]
Aggrieved by the aforecited
Decision,
WHEREFORE, the decision of the LSG dated
1.
Declaring the
original two-storey, ten-bed capacity St.
2.
Ordering
respondent St. James to set-up an efficient hospital waste disposal system in
conformity with the rules and regulations and standards of the Department of
Health, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and all other
concerned government agencies; and present a certification of compliance to the
Board from said agencies within ninety (90) days from finality hereof; and
3.
Revoking the Locational Clerance dated
The separate Motions for
Reconsideration of both parties having been denied by the HLURB, the parties elevated
the case to the Office of the President, which rendered a decision on
Without doubt, the establishment of a ten-bed capacity
hospital, like the existing
In construing words or phrases used in a law, the
general rule is that, in the absence of legislative intent to the contrary,
they should be given their plain, ordinary, and common usage meaning (Amadora vs. Court
of Appeals, 160 SCRA 315). For,
words are presumed to have been employed by the lawmaker in their ordinary and
common use and acceptation (People vs. Kottinger, 45 Phil. 352).
Under Section 2, Article VI of the 1991 Zoning Ordinance,
certain activities that are commercial and
institutional in character are allowed within the residential zone. St. James maintained the term “institutional”
includes hospitals and other medical establishments.
We agree. The
word “institutional” used as it is in
said ordinance without qualification should be understood in its plain and
ordinary meaning. In law, the word
“institution” is understood to mean an establishment or place, especially one
of public character or one affecting a community (Black’s Law Dictionary, Revised 4th edition, 1968, p. 940). It may be private in character, designed for
profit to those composing the organization, or public and charitable in its
purposes.
From the above definition, it is clear that hospitals
fall within the pale of the term “institution”, a hospital being a public
establishment and that the nature of its business is for profit. The fact that hospitals are not categorized
as dwelling unit does not inevitably mean that it is already a non-conforming
establishment within a residential zone.
As provided under aforecited provision of the
1991 Zoning Ordinance, settlement activities that are “institutional in character” are allowed within the residential
zone. Even the HLURB recognized St.
James as a medical institution within the residential zone of the
As a conforming establishment within the residential
zone,
Foregoing considered, the locational
clearance and the complementary certificate of locational
viability may now be issued in favor of
WHEREFORE, the grant to St. James Hospital, Inc., of a
Locational Clearance
and a Certificate of Locational Viability
(CLV) relative to its expansion as a 4-storey, 40-bed capacity hospital dated
The Motion for Reconsideration of
herein petitioners having been denied in a Resolution dated
Petitioners’ Motion for
Reconsideration was subsequently denied in a Resolution dated
From the facts of the case, it is
undisputed that the Mariquita Pueblo Subdivision
located at Barangay Dita,
Nonetheless,
with the passage of the 1991 Zoning Ordinance, the proposed expansion of the
Section 2,
Article VI of the 1981 Zoning Ordinance states:
SECTION 2. REGULATIONS
FOR URBAN CORE ZONE. – This zone shall be devoted to various settlement
activities that are residential and commercial, or institutional in character,
subject to the following terms and conditions:
1.
In the
Residential Sector, only the following uses shall be allowed:
a)
All types of
dwelling units (one-family detached, two-family detached, one-family
semi-detached, two-family semi-detached and multi-family of not more than 5
doors)
b)
Home occupation,
or the practice of one’s profession or occupation, such as tailoring,
dressmaking, banking, and like provided that:
b.1. Not more
than five (5) outside assistants or helpers shall be employed;
b.2. The use of the dwelling unit for the home occupation shall be
clearly incidental and subordinate to its use for residential purpose by its
occupants;
b.3. As much as possible there shall be no change in the outside
appearance of the building or premises;
b.4. No equipment or process
shall be used in such home occupation which creates noise, vibration, glare,
fumes, odors, or electrical interference or outside the dwelling unit if
conducted in a place other than a single-family residence. In the case of electrical
interference, no equipment or process shall be used which creates visual or
audible interference in any radio or television receiver or causes fluctuation
in line voltage off the premises.
a)
Elementary schools
b)
High Schools and
vocational schools
c)
Chapels,
churches, and other place of worship
d)
Clinics,
hospitals with not more than ten (10) capacity
e)
Drugstores
f) Backyard
gardens and raising of pigs, poultry and other animals and fowls provided:
1. That they are
only for family consumption
2. No undue noise
shall be created
3. No foul
smell shall be emitted
4. Other
sanitary requirements enforced in the municipality
g) Boarding House
h) Parks and playground
i)
Barangay tanod stations
j)
Neighborhood
assembly hall
k) Recreation centers[8]
On the other
hand, Section 2, Article VI of the 1991 Zoning Ordinance reads:
SECTION 2. REGULATIONS
FOR RESIDENTIAL ZONE. – This zone shall be devoted to various settlements,
activities that are residential, commercial, and institutional in character and
other spaces designed for recreational pursuit and maintenance of ecological
balance of the municipality, subject to the following terms and conditions:
The following uses shall be allowed:
1. Single detached family dwellings
2. Semi-detached family dwelling
3. Two detached family dwelling
4. Two semi-detached family dwelling
5. Multi-family dwelling with not more than five (5)
families residing
6. Residential Subdivision Projects
7. Home occupation for the practice of one’s profession
or for engaging an in-house business such as dressmaking, tailoring, baking,
running a sari-sari store and the like, provided that:
7.1.
Only members of
the family residing within the premises shall be engaged in such home
occupation;
7.2.
Maximum of five
(5) outside helpers or assistants shall be employed;
7.3.
The use of the
dwelling unit for home occupation shall be clearly incidental and subordinate
to its use for residential purpose by its occupants and for the conduct of the
home occupation, not more than twenty-five (25%) percent of the floor area of
the dwelling unit shall be used;
7.4.
As much as
possible there shall be no change in the outside appearance of the building
premises;
7.5.
No home
occupation shall be conducted in any accessory building;
7.6.
No traffic shall
be generated by such home occupation in greater volume than would normally be
expected in a residential neighborhood and any need for parking generated by
the conduct of such home occupation shall be met off the street and in a place
other than in a required front yard;
7.7.
No equipment or
process shall be used in such home occupation which created noise, vibration,
glare, fumes, odors, or electrical interference detectable to the normal sense
off the lot, if the occupation is conducted in a single family residence or
outside the dwelling unit if conducted in a place other than a single-family-residence.
In the case of electrical interference, no equipment or process shall be used
which created visual or audible interference in any radio or television
receiver or causes fluctuation in line voltage off the premises.
8. Backyard gardens and raising of pigs, poultry and
other animals and fowls provided:
8.1.
That they are
only for family consumption;
8.2.
No undue noise
shall be created;
8.3.
No foul smell
shall be emitted; and
8.4.
Other sanitary
requirements enforced in the municipality are complied with.
9. Barangay Tanod Stations.
10. Police outposts.[9]
The
enactment of the 1991 Zoning Ordinance effectively repealed the 1981 Zoning
Ordinance. This intent to repeal is
manifested in the very wordings of the 1991 Zoning Ordinance. The complete title of said Ordinance, “An
Ordinance Adopting a Comprehensive Zoning Regulation for the
This is what
is known as an implied repeal. Repeal by
implication proceeds on the premise that where a statute of later date clearly
reveals an intention on the part of the legislature to abrogate a prior act on
the subject, that intention must be given effect.[12] There are two categories of implied
repeal. The first is where the
provisions in the two acts on the same subject matter are in an irreconcilable
conflict, the latter act to the extent of the conflict constitutes an implied repeal
of the earlier one.[13] The second is if the later act covers the
whole subject of the earlier one and is clearly intended as a substitute, it
will operate to repeal the earlier law.[14] The second category of repeal is only
possible if the revised statute was intended to cover the whole subject matter
and as a complete and perfect system in itself.
It is the rule that a subsequent statute is deemed to repeal a prior law
if the former revises the whole subject matter of the former statute.[15]
In the case at
bar, there is no doubt that the 1991 Zoning Ordinance not only covers the same,
but embraces the whole subject matter contained in the 1981 Zoning Ordinance,
and was enacted to substitute the latter.
A perusal of the two pieces of legislation will reveal that both
Ordinances were enacted to guide, control, and regulate the future growth and
development of the Municipality of Santa Rosa, Laguna, in accordance with the
municipality’s development plan, as well as to promote the general welfare of
the residents of the community by regulating the location and use of all
buildings and land within the municipality.
However, unlike the 1981 Zoning Ordinance, the 1991 Zoning Ordinance
clearly identifies the development plan to which it is patterned after, specifically
the development plan adopted by the Sangguniang Bayan through Kapasiyahan Blg. 20-91, dated 20 February 1991. Considering that the 1981 Zoning Ordinance
was not in furtherance of the later development plan, consequently, there was
the necessity to adopt a new statute to effect the changes contained therein,
hence, the adoption of the 1991 Zoning Ordinance.
Since it is
presumed that the Sangguniang Bayan
knew of the existence of the older Ordinance, by enacting the later law
embracing the complete subject matter of the 1981 Zoning Ordinance, it must be
concluded that the legislative body had intended to repeal the former
Ordinance. With respect to the omission
of the phrase “hospitals with not more than ten capacity” from the 1991 Zoning
Ordinance, we conclude that the Sangguniang Bayan did intend to remove such building use from those
allowed within a residential zone. As
ruled by this Court, when both intent and scope clearly evince the idea of a
repeal, then all parts and provisions of the prior act that are omitted from
the revised act are deemed repealed.[16]
Likewise, it
must be stressed at this juncture that a comprehensive scrutiny of both Ordinances
will disclose that the uses formerly allowed within a residential zone under
the 1981 Zoning Ordinance such as schools, religious facilities and places of
worship, and clinics and hospitals have now been transferred to the
institutional zone under the 1991 Zoning Ordinance.[17] This clearly demonstrates the intention of
the Sangguniang Bayan to
delimit the allowable uses in the residential zone only to those expressly
enumerated under Section 2, Article VI of the 1991 Zoning Ordinance, which no
longer includes hospitals.
It is
lamentable that both the Office of the President and the Court of Appeals gave
undue emphasis to the word “institutional” as mentioned in Section 2, Article
VI of the 1991 Zoning Ordinance and even went through great lengths to define
said term in order to include hospitals under the ambit of said provision. However, they neglected the fact that under
Section 4, Article VI of said Ordinance[18],
there is now another zone, separate and distinct from a residential zone, which
is classified as “institutional”, wherein health facilities, such as hospitals,
are expressly enumerated among those structures allowed within said zone.
Moreover, both
the Office of the President and the appellate court failed to consider that any
meaning or interpretation to be given to the term “institutional” as used in
Section 2, Article VI must be correspondingly limited by the explicit
enumeration of allowable uses contained in the same section. Whatever meaning the legislative body had
intended in employing the word “institutional” must be discerned in light of
the restrictive enumeration in the said article. Under the legal maxim expressio
unius est exclusio alterius, the
express mention of one thing in a law, means the exclusion of others not
expressly mentioned.[19] Thus, in interpreting the whole of Section 2,
Article VI, it must be understood that in expressly enumerating the allowable
uses within a residential zone, those not included in the enumeration are
deemed excluded. Hence, since hospitals,
among other things, are not among those enumerated as allowable uses within the
residential zone, the only inference to be deduced from said exclusion is that
said hospitals have been deliberately eliminated from those structures
permitted to be constructed within a residential area in
Furthermore,
according to the rule of casus omissus in statutory construction, a thing omitted must
be considered to have been omitted intentionally. Therefore, with the omission of the phrase
“hospital with not more than ten capacity” in the new Zoning Ordinance, and the
corresponding transfer of said allowable usage to another zone classification,
the only logical conclusion is that the legislative body had intended that said
use be removed from those allowed within a residential zone. Thus, the construction of medical
institutions, such as
Be that as
it may, even if the
Having
concluded that the St. James Hospital is now considered a non-conforming
structure under the 1991 Zoning Ordinance, we now come to the issue of the
legality of the proposed expansion of said hospital into a four-storey,
forty-bed medical institution. We shall
decide this said issue in accordance with the provisions of the 1991 Zoning
Ordinance relating to non-conforming buildings, the applicable law at the time
of the proposal. As stated in Section 1
of Article X of the 1991 Zoning Ordinance:
Section 1. EXISTING NON-CONFORMING USES AND
BUILDINGS. The lawful uses of any
building, structure or land at the point of adoption or amendment of this
Ordinance may be continued, although such does not conform with the provisions
of this Ordinance.
1. That no non-conforming use shall [be] enlarge[d]
or increased or exten[ded]
to occupy a greater area or land that has already been occupied by such use at
the time of the adoption of this Ordinance, or moved in whole or in part to
any other portion of the lot parcel of land where such [non]-conforming use
exist at the time of the adoption of this Ordinance.[20] (Emphasis ours.)
It is clear
from the abovequoted provision of the 1991 Zoning
Ordinance that the expansion of a non-conforming building is prohibited. Hence, we accordingly resolve that the
expansion of the
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant
Petition is hereby GRANTED. The Decision
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 60495, dated
1.
Sustaining
that the original two-storey, ten-bed capacity St. James Hospital is allowable within
the Mariquita Pueblo Subdivision, Sta. Rosa, Laguna
as long as it shall comply with the provisions on existing non-conforming
buildings under the 1991 Zoning Ordinance, as well as the rules and regulations
and standards of the Department of Health, Department of Environment and
Natural Resources and all other concerned government agencies; and
2.
Prohibiting
the proposed expansion of the
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
WE
CONCUR:
Chief Justice
Chairperson
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ROMEO J.
CALLEJO, SR. Associate Justice |
|
Pursuant to Article VIII,
Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in
the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
|
|
ARTEMIO V.
PANGANIBAN Chief Justice |
[1] Penned by Associate Justice
Salvador J. Valdez, Jr. with Associate Justices Eduardo P. Cruz and Mario L. Guarińa III, concurring.
Rollo,
pp. 9-19.
[2] O.P. Case No. 98-J-8560. CA rollo, pp. 27-35.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9] CA rollo, p. 50 and 52.
[10] Section
5, Article XIII.
[11] CA
rollo, p. 81.
[12] Mecano v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 103982,
[13]
[14]
[15] People
v. Almuete , 161 Phil. 534, 541 (1976).
[16] People
v. Binuya, 61 Phil. 208, 210 (1935).
[17] Article
VI, Section 4. USE REGULATIONS IN
INSTITUTIONAL ZONE – In the Institutional Zone, only the following shall be
allowed:
1.
Government
center to move all national, regional, or local
offices in the area;
2.
Schools;
2.1.
Public/Private elementary schools.
2.2.
Municipal/Barangay/Private high schools
3.
Health
facilities;
3.1.
Emergency hospital
3.2 health centers
3.3.
Multi-purpose clinics
3.4
Day-care centers
4.
Religious
Facilities such as churches, chapels and other places of worships.
5.
Scientific,
cultural and academic centers and research
facilities. (CA rollo, pp. 51 and 54)
[18]
[19] Republic
v. Estenzo, G.R. No. L-35376,
[20] CA
rollo, p. 69.