|
THE Petitioner, |
G.R. Nos. 170615-16
Present: Quisumbing,
J., Chairperson, CARPIO MORALES, CHICO-NAZARIO,* LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO,** and |
|
- versus - RUFINO V. MIJARES,
ROBERTO G. FERRERA, ALFREDO M. RUBA and ROMEO QUERUBIN, Respondents. |
BRION, JJ. Promulgated: July 9, 2009 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
QUISUMBING,
J.:
For review on certiorari are the Decision[1] dated
The administrative case against respondents stemmed from a controversy
involving a parcel of land owned by the Philippine Communications Satellite
Corporation (PHILCOMSAT) located in Barangay Pinugay, Baras, Rizal. Claiming that the subject land is covered by
the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program (CARP), members
of the Southern Pinugay Farmers Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc. (SPFMPCI)
occupied about 100 hectares thereof. They
introduced improvements such as houses, fruit-bearing trees, vegetables, palay
and other crops.
PHILCOMSAT filed a protest before the Department of Agrarian
Reform (DAR) claiming that the land was exempt from CARP coverage since it was
an integral part of the Philippine Space Communications Operation. The DAR denied the protest. PHILCOMSAT then filed a petition for review
with the Court of Appeals.
During the pendency of the petition, respondent Mayor Roberto
G. Ferrera issued an order[4] directing respondent
Engr. Romeo Querubin to demolish the said houses and improvements. Meanwhile, in a pending case between PHILCOMSAT
and SPFMPCI before the Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems,
respondent Commissioner Rufino V. Mijares issued an order[5] interposing no
objection to the order of demolition. Ferrera
then directed Querubin to implement the order. He also sought police
assistance.
On
In their Joint Counter-Affidavit,[6] respondents
argued that the SPFMPCI members were not in the list of occupants/potential
farmer-beneficiaries of PHILCOMSAT landholdings on file with the Municipal
Agrarian Reform Office (MARO) and Provincial Agrarian Reform Office (PARO). Thus, they were illegal entrants whose houses
and improvements constituted a nuisance that may be abated. More importantly, the houses and improvements were
constructed without the required building permits under Section 301[7]
of Presidential Decree No. 1096 or the National Building Code.[8] Thus, its summary demolition was justified
under Section 27,[9]
Article VII of Republic Act No. 7279 or the Urban Development and Housing Act
of 1992.[10]
In the meantime, on
Meanwhile on P15,000 and deemed exempted from the
payment of building permit fees. It
added that the fact that the same were constructed without the necessary
building permits do not automatically necessitate its demolition since only
dangerous or ruinous buildings or structures may be ordered repaired, vacated
or demolished under Section 215[13]
of P.D. No. 1096. In this case, the
demolished houses and improvements were neither dangerous nor ruinous. Further, the same cannot be summarily
demolished under Section 27, Article VII of Rep. Act No. 7279 since the law
does not apply to rural lands and lands under CARP coverage. In conclusion, the Office of the Ombudsman held
respondents guilty of grave misconduct for their flagrant disregard of
established rules, thus:
WHEREFORE, the
foregoing premises considered, this Office hereby find[s]:
(1) Respondents RUFINO V. MIJARES, Commissioner, Commission on the Settlement of
Land Problems with office address at Aries Bldg., 103 Quezon Avenue, Quezon
City; MAYOR ROBERT FERRERA, Municipal
Mayor, Baras, Rizal; ENGR. ROMEO
QUERUBIN, Municipal Engineer, Baras, Rizal, and ALFREDO RUBA, Barangay Chairman of Barangay Pinugay, Baras, Rizal GUILTY of the administrative offense of
GRAVE MISCONDUCT with the penalty of
DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE with FORFEITURE OF RETIREMENT BENEFITS,
CANCELLATION OF ELIGIBILITY, AND THE PERPETUAL DISQUALIFICATION FOR
REEMPLOYMENT IN THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE pursuant to Section 25 of Republic
Act No. 6770, otherwise known as the Ombudsman Act of 1989 and the pertinent provisions
of Civil Service Commission Resolution No. 991936 otherwise known as the “UNIFORM RULES ON ADMINISTRATIVE CASES IN
THE CIVIL SERVICE”.
(2)
Respondents LUIZO TICMAN, PNP
Superintendent, Provincial Director of the Rizal Provincial Office and ORLANDO PAZ, Police Inspector, Baras,
Rizal Police Station are hereby EXONERATED
and the case against them DISMISSED.
(3) The
Governor of the Province of Rizal, the Secretary of the Department of Interior
and Local Government and the Secretary of the Department of Justice are hereby
directed to immediately implement this Decision in accordance with law and to
inform this Office of their action within thirty (30) days upon receipt [hereof].
SO ORDERED.[14]
Mijares, Ferrera and Ruba filed a joint motion for reconsideration
while Querubin filed a separate motion for reconsideration. Both motions were denied. Thus, they filed petitions for review with the
Court of Appeals which were later consolidated.
On
The decretal portion of the Court of Appeals’ decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the petitions are GRANTED. The assailed decision of the Office of the
Ombudsman dated
SO ORDERED.[17]
Dissatisfied, the Office of the Ombudsman appealed to this
Court raising the following issues:
I.
WHETHER OR NOT THE SUMMARY
DEMOLITION OF THE HOUSES OWNED BY FARMER-MEMBERS OF THE SPFMPCI WAS VALID UNDER
R.A. 7279 AND P.D. 1096.
II.
WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENTS ARE
GUILTY OF GRAVE MISCONDUCT.
III.
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE
COURT OF APPEALS’ DECISION REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE OMBUDSMAN IS VALID.[18]
There are two issues for our resolution: first,
whether the summary demolition of the houses and improvements was justified
under Rep. Act No. 7279 and P.D. No. 1096; and second, whether respondents were guilty of grave misconduct.
The Office of the Ombudsman contends that respondents acted
in bad faith in proceeding with the demolition although they knew that Rep. Act
No. 7279 and P.D. No. 1096 were inapplicable. Rep. Act No. 7279 applies only to urbanized
areas and does not include the subject land which is under CARP coverage. Respondents also failed to follow the
prescribed guidelines in carrying out a demolition. On the other hand, P.D. No. 1096 exempts from
the payment of building permit fees traditional indigenous family dwellings
such as the demolished houses and improvements in this case. Likewise, only dangerous or ruinous buildings
or structures may be ordered repaired, vacated or demolished. The Office of the Ombudsman concludes that
respondents were guilty of grave misconduct.
Respondents Mijares, Ferrera and Ruba
counter that they were charged with violating Rep. Act No. 7279. If this law is inapplicable to the instant
case, then they have no liability at all. They add that in the criminal case against
them, the Office of the Ombudsman recognized that the SPFMPCI members were
professional squatters.[19]
They ratiocinate that as such, they
should be summarily abated whether the subject land was urbanized or not. They also argue that even if Rep. Act No. 7279
was inapplicable, they enforced the demolition in good faith. On the other hand, respondent Querubin reiterates
that the SPFMPCI members were professional squatters who are not entitled to
protection under either Rep. Act No. 7279 or P.D. No. 1096.
It bears stressing that in administrative
proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving, by substantial
evidence, the allegations in the complaint. Substantial evidence does not necessarily
import preponderance of evidence as is required in an ordinary civil case;
rather, it is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.[20]
A thorough examination of the records of
this case reveals that such quantum of proof was not met here.
Foremost, we find the reliance of both parties on the
provisions of Rep. Act No. 7279 and P.D. No. 1096 to determine the propriety of
the demolition implemented by respondents, misplaced.
Rep. Act No. 7279 covers lands in urban
and urbanizable areas, including existing areas for priority development, zonal
improvement sites, slum improvement and resettlement sites, and in other areas
that may be identified by the local government units as suitable for socialized
housing.[21] On
the other hand, P.D. No. 1096 applies to the design, location, sitting,
construction, alteration, repair, conversion, use, occupancy, maintenance,
moving, demolition of, and addition to public and private buildings and
structures, except traditional indigenous family dwellings as defined therein.[22]
The parcel of land involved in this case hosts the Philippine
Space Communications Center which consists of a satellite earth station that
serves as the communications gateway of the
Clearly, P.D. Nos. 1845 and 1848 should
govern notwithstanding the provisions of Rep. Act No. 7279 and P.D. No. 1096
since the former laws have specific reference to the use and occupation of the
parcel of land in this case.
Based on these laws, we find the demolition implemented by
respondents in order. The SPFMPCI
members occupied and introduced improvements in the parcel of land under no
right, title or vested interest whatsoever. They never secured the prior written
permission of the Secretary of National Defense as required by law. Although the land was initially placed under
CARP coverage and they claimed to be farmer-beneficiaries, they were not
included in the list of occupants/potential farmer-beneficiaries of PHILCOMSAT
landholdings on file with the MARO and PARO.[28] In short, the SPFMPCI members never
controverted the evidence presented by respondents that they (the SPFMPCI
members) were illegal occupants of the land. Interestingly, even the Office of the Ombudsman
recognized in the criminal case against respondents that the SPFMPCI members
were professional squatters.
If under Rep. Act No. 7279, demolition
and eviction are allowed when individuals have been identified as professional
squatters and squatting syndicates[29]
or when they occupy danger areas and other public places,[30]
and under P.D. No. 1096, they construct dangerous and ruinous buildings or
structures, [31] then with more reason the SPFMPCI members should be summarily evicted
and their structures and dwellings demolished. The parcel of land involved in this case is a
security zone whose operations must be protected from any form of disruption.
It must be protected from all types of squatters, including the SPFMPCI
members, who might create danger to a very important national telecommunications
facility.
Having said that, we do not find respondents guilty of grave
misconduct. Misconduct is a
transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more
particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer. And when the elements of corruption, clear
intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rule are
manifest, the public officer shall be liable for grave misconduct.[32]
Respondents rightfully determined the occupation by the
SPFMPCI members unauthorized (albeit on a different basis). As the Court of Appeals observed, respondents
also presented a list of settlers who were affected by the demolition. The production of such list was made to
support their claim that they notified the SPFMPCI members of the demolition
and that a conference was held prior thereto.[33] Had respondents been impelled by ill motive,
they would not have taken measures to properly identify who were legal
occupants and who were squatters in the parcel of land in this case. Clearly, respondents acted within the limits
of the law when they implemented the demolition.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated
SO ORDERED.
|
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice |
WE CONCUR: CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
|
|
MINITA V.
CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
TERESITA LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO Associate Justice |
|
ARTURO D.
BRION Associate Justice |
|
A T T E S T A T I O N
I
attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
LEONARDO
A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
* Designated member of the Second Division per Special Order No. 658.
** Designated member of the Second Division per Special Order No. 635.
[1] Rollo, pp. 46-65. Penned by Associate Justice Delilah Vidallon-Magtolis, with Associate Justices Perlita J. Tria Tirona and Jose C. Reyes, Jr. concurring.
[2]
[3] CA rollo (CA-G.R. SP No. 76484), pp. 48-64.
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7] SECTION 301. Building Permits
No person, firm or corporation, including any agency or instrumentality of the government shall erect, construct, alter, repair, move, convert or demolish any building or structure or cause the same to be done without first obtaining a building permit therefor from the Building Official assigned in the place where the subject building is located or the building work is to be done.
[8] Promulgated on
[9] Sec. 27. Action Against Professional Squatters and Squatting Syndicates.—The local government units, in cooperation with the Philippine National Police, the Presidential Commission for the Urban Poor (PCUP), and the PCUP-accredited urban poor organization in the area, shall adopt measures to identify and effectively curtail the nefarious and illegal activities of professional squatters and squatting syndicates, as herein defined.
Any person or group identified as such shall be summarily evicted and their dwellings or structures demolished, and shall be disqualified to avail of the benefits of the Program. A public official who tolerates or abets the commission of the abovementioned acts shall be dealt with in accordance with existing laws.
For purposes of this Act, professional squatters or members of squatting
syndicates shall be imposed the penalty of six (6) years imprisonment or a fine
of not less than Sixty thousand pesos (P60,000) but not more than One
hundred thousand pesos (P100,000), or both, at the discretion of the
court.
[10] An
Act to Provide for a Comprehensive and Continuing Urban Development and Housing
Program, Establish the Mechanism for its Implementation, and for Other Purposes,
approved on
[11] Rollo, p. 59; CA rollo (CA-G.R. SP No. 76484), p. 71.
[12] Department of Agrarian Reform v. Philippine Communications Satellite Corp., G.R. No. 152640, June 15, 2006, 490 SCRA 729.
[13] Section 215. Abatement of Dangerous Buildings
When
any building or structure is found or declared to be dangerous or ruinous, the
Building Official shall order its repair, vacation or demolition depending upon
the degree of danger to life, health, or safety. This is without prejudice to further action
that may be taken under the provisions of Articles 482 and 694 to 707 of the
Civil Code of the
[14] CA rollo (CA-G.R. SP No. 76484), pp. 62-63.
[15] Sec. 28. Eviction and Demolition.—Eviction or demolition as a practice shall be discouraged. Eviction or demolition, however, may be allowed under the following situations:
(a)
When persons
or entities occupy danger areas such as esteros,
railroad tracks, garbage dumps, riverbanks, shorelines, waterways, and other
public places such as sidewalks, roads, parks, and playgrounds;
(b)
When
government infrastructure projects with available funding are about to be
implemented; or
(c) When there is a court order for eviction and demolition.
In the execution of eviction or demolition orders involving underprivileged and homeless citizens, the following shall be mandatory:
(1) Notice upon the affected persons or entities at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of eviction or demolition;
(2) Adequate
consultations on the matter of resettlement with the duly designated
representatives of the families to be resettled and the affected communities in
the areas where they are to be relocated;
(3) Presence of local government officials or their representatives during eviction or demolition;
(4) Proper identification of all persons taking part in the demolition;
(5) Execution of eviction or demolition only during regular office hours from Mondays to Fridays and during good weather, unless the affected families consent otherwise;
(6) No use of heavy equipment for demolition except for structures that are permanent and of concrete materials;
(7) Proper uniforms for members of the Philippine National Police who shall occupy the first line of law enforcement and observe proper disturbance control procedures; and
(8) Adequate relocation, whether temporary or permanent: Provided, however, That in cases of eviction and demolition pursuant to a court order involving underprivileged and homeless citizens, relocation shall be undertaken by the local government unit concerned and the National Housing Authority with the assistance of other government agencies within forty-five (45) days from service of notice of final judgment by the court, after which period the said order shall be executed: Provided, further, That should relocation not be possible within the said period, financial assistance in the amount equivalent to the prevailing minimum daily wage multiplied by sixty (60) days shall be extended to the affected families by the local government unit concerned.
The Department of the Interior
and Local Government and the Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council
shall jointly promulgate the necessary rules and regulations to carry out the
above provision.
[16] Records show that at the time the Office of
the Ombudsman rendered its decision on
[17] Rollo, pp. 64-65.
[18]
[19] CA rollo (CA-G.R. SP No. 76700), pp. 132-141.
[20] Tapiador
v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 129124,
[21] Section 4, Article II.
[22] Section 103(a).
[23] Department of Agrarian Reform v. Philippine Communications Satellite Corp., supra at 731.
[24] Declaring the Area within a Radius of Three
Kilometers Surrounding the Satellite Earth Station in Baras, Rizal, a Security
Zone. Done on
[25] Revising Presidential Decree No. 1845, Declaring
the Surrounding Area of the Satellite Earth Station in Baras,
[26] Department of Agrarian Reform v. Philippine Communications Satellite Corp., supra at 735-736.
[27]
[28] CA rollo (CA-G.R. SP No. 76700), pp. 104-107.
[29] Sec. 27. Action Against Professional Squatters and Squatting Syndicates. — The local government units, in cooperation with the Philippine National Police, the Presidential Commission for the Urban Poor (PCUP), and the PCUP-accredited urban poor organization in the area, shall adopt measures to identify and effectively curtail the nefarious and illegal activities of professional squatters and squatting syndicates, as herein defined.
Any person or group identified as such shall be summarily evicted and their dwellings or structures demolished, and shall be disqualified to avail of the benefits of the Program. A public official who tolerates or abets the commission of the abovementioned acts shall be dealt with in accordance with existing laws.
xxxx
[30] Sec. 28. Eviction and Demolition. — Eviction or demolition as a practice shall be discouraged. Eviction or demolition, however, may be allowed under the following situations:
(a) When persons or
entities occupy danger areas such as esteros, railroad tracks, garbage dumps,
riverbanks, shorelines, waterways, and other public places such as sidewalks,
roads, parks, and playgrounds;
(b) When government infrastructure projects with available funding are about to be implemented; or
(c) When there is a court order for eviction and demolition.
xxxx
[31] Section 214. Dangerous and Ruinous Buildings or Structures. — Dangerous buildings are those which are herein declared as such or are structurally unsafe or not provided with safe egress, or which constitute a fire hazard, or are otherwise dangerous to human life, or which in relation to existing use, constitute a hazard to safety or health or public welfare because of inadequate maintenance, dilapidation, obsolescence, or abandonment; or which otherwise contribute to the pollution of the site or the community to an intolerable degree.
Section 215. Abatement of Dangerous Buildings. — When
any building or structure is found or declared to be dangerous or ruinous, the
Building Official shall order its repair, vacation or demolition depending upon
the degree of danger to life, health, or safety. This is without prejudice to
further action that may be taken under the provisions of Articles 482 and 694
to 707 of the Civil Code of the
[32] Estarija v. Ranada, G.R. No. 159314, June 26, 2006, 492 SCRA 652, 663; Bureau of Internal Revenue v. Organo, G.R. No. 149549, February 26, 2004, 424 SCRA 9, 16.
[33] CA rollo, (CA-G.R. SP No. 76700), pp. 108-110.