THIRD DIVISION
|
GUILLERMO M. TELMO, Petitioner, - versus - LUCIANO M. BUSTAMANTE, Respondent. |
G.R.
No. 182567
Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.,
Chairperson, CHICO-NAZARIO, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, and PERALTA, JJ. Promulgated: July 13,
2009 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
NACHURA, J.:
For our consideration is a Petition[1]
for Review on Certiorari under Rule
45 of the Rules of Court in relation to Section 27, paragraph 3 of the
Ombudsman Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6770).
Subject of the Petition is the Decision[2]
dated October 13, 2005 and the Order[3]
dated March 17, 2006 of the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for
This case arose from the Verified
Complaint[4]
filed by respondent Luciano M. Bustamante before the Office of the Deputy
Ombudsman for Luzon against petitioner Guillermo Telmo, Municipal Engineer of
Naic,
The complaint alleged that respondent
is a co-owner of a real property of 616 square meters in Brgy. Halang, Naic,
The complaint further alleged that,
on May 8, 2005, respondent caused the resurvey of
On May 10, 2005, respondent put up concrete
poles on his lot. However, around 7:00
p.m. of the same day, the Telmos and their men allegedly destroyed the concrete
poles. The following day, respondent’s
relatives went to Brgy. Chairman Consumo to report the destruction of the
concrete poles. Consumo told them that
he would not record the same, because he was present when the incident
occurred. Consumo never recorded the
incident in the barangay blotter.
Respondent complained that he and his
co-owners did not receive any just compensation
from the government when it took
a portion of their
property for the construction
of the Noveleta-Naic-Tagaytay Road.
Worse, they could not enjoy the use of the remaining part of their lot
due to the abusive, Illegal, and unjust acts of the Telmos and Consumo. Respondent charged the latter criminally—for violation of Article
312[5] of the Revised Penal Code and Section 3(e)[6] of
Republic Act No. 3019[7]— and administratively—for violation of Section 4 (a)[8], (b)[9], (c)[10], and (e)[11] of Republic Act No. 6713.[12]
In his Counter-Affidavit,[13]
petitioner denied having uttered the words attributed to him by respondent, and
claimed that he only performed his official duties in requiring an application
for a building permit before any structure can be erected on government
property. He said that respondent
insisted on enclosing with barbed wire and concrete posts the lot that already
belonged to the national government, which had now been converted into a
national road. He also alleged that if
he allowed the enclosures erected by the respondent, other residents would be
denied ingress to and egress from their own properties.
In his own counter-affidavit, Consumo
denied collusion with petitioner in not recording in the barangay blotter the subject incident. He explained that on May 10, 2005 at around
5:00 p.m., he was summoned by petitioner to intercede, because the respondent
and his men were fencing the subject property.
Consumo obliged, personally saw the fence being built, and observed that
even the trucks owned by petitioner were enclosed therein. When he asked respondent if he had the
necessary permit and the proper barangay
clearance to do so, respondent’s lawyer, Atty. San Gaspar, replied that there
was no need for the permit and clearance since respondent was just fencing his
own property. Thus, Consumo could not
prevent the ongoing fencing, but told respondent and company to wait for
petitioner to decide the matter.
Consumo further alleged that after
putting up the fence, respondent and his companions left without waiting for
the arrival of petitioner. When petitioner
arrived, he explained to the people present that the property enclosed by
respondent is owned by the government and that no one is allowed to construct
any fence without a permit from him, as the Municipal Engineer, or from any
building official of the local government of Naic,
In his Counter-Affidavit,[14]
Elizalde Telmo denied having encroached, occupied or taken possession of
respondent’s property. He claimed that,
on May 10, 2005, he was merely an onlooker to the altercation between petitioner
and respondent. He said that petitioner,
his brother, insisted that respondent could not enclose the property in
question unless the latter obtains a building permit from the Office of the
Municipal Engineer/Building Official, since it appeared that the subject
property was no longer a property of respondent but was converted into
government property by virtue of the 30-meter road set-back imposed by the
Zoning Ordinance of the Municipality of Naic, Cavite. Elizalde Telmo stated that he did not offer
any resistance to the fencing of the property in question. He observed, though, that when they learned
that petitioner was arriving at the place, respondent and his companions just
left the vicinity.
Later, petitioner and respondent
filed their respective position papers[15]
upon the directive of the Graft Investigating and Prosecuting Officer. Their position papers reiterated the
allegations made in their respective affidavits earlier submitted.
In the Decision[16]
dated October 13, 2005, the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the
undersigned investigator respectfully recommends the following, to wit:
(1)
That the
administrative complaint against respondent Elizalde Telmo be DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction;
(2)
That
respondent Guillermo Telmo be meted the PENALTY
OF FINE EQUIVALENT TO SIX (6) MONTHS SALARY for violation of Section 4 of
Republic Act No. 6713; and
(3)
That
respondent Danilo Consumo be meted the PENALTY
OF FINE EQUIVALENT TO THREE (3) MONTHS HONORARIA for violation of Section 4
of Republic Act No. 6713.
SO
DECIDED.[17]
Petitioner filed a Motion for
Reconsideration,[18] wherein
he elaborated that he just performed his official duties when he summarily
removed the concrete posts erected by respondent to enclose the property.
In the Order[19] dated
March 17, 2006, the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for
Hence, this petition anchored on the
following grounds:
A.
THE HONORABLE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR LUZON SERIOUSLY ERRED WHEN HE DECLARED
THAT THERE WAS NO VALID TAKING OF RESPONDENT’S
B.
THE HONORABLE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR LUZON SERIOUSLY ERRED WHEN HE
DECLARED THAT PETITIONER SHOULD BE AUTHORIZED BY THE MUNICIPAL MAYOR OR BY THE
COURT TO ABATE PUBLIC NUISANCE OR NUISANCE PER SE.
C.
THE HONORABLE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR LUZON ERRED WHEN HE METED THE PENALTY
OF FINE EQUIVALENT TO SIX (6) MONTHS SALARY FOR VIOLATION OF SECTION 4 OF
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6713.[20]
In
essence, petitioner contends that the property claimed and enclosed with
concrete posts by respondent was validly taken by the National Government
through its power of eminent domain, pursuant to Executive Order No. 113, as
amended by Executive Order No. 253, creating the
Instead of filing his comment on the
petition, respondent manifested through counsel that he is no longer interested
in pursuing this case, submitting therewith his Affidavit of Desistance[24]
dated December 5, 2007. Respondent alleged in the affidavit that the
administrative charges he lodged against petitioner were brought about by a
misunderstanding between them, which differences have already been settled. Consequently, this case should now be
dismissed.
We disagree.
The desistance of the complainant
does not necessarily result in the dismissal of the administrative complaint
because the Court attaches no persuasive value to a desistance, especially when
executed as an afterthought.[25] It should be remembered that the issue in an administrative case is not
whether the complaint states a cause of action against the respondent, but
whether the public officials have breached the norms and standards of the public
service.[26] Considering that petitioner admitted in his
pleadings that he summarily removed the concrete posts erected by respondent,
allegedly within the parameters of his authority as Municipal Engineer of Naic,
Cavite, it is only proper that this case be decided on its merits rather than
on the basis of the desistance of respondent.
It cannot be denied that respondent’s
property was taken by the National Government thru the Department of Public
Works and Highways when it constructed the
While it is settled that respondent
does not have the legal right to enclose the property, we should now determine
whether petitioner indeed performed his official functions properly.
First. Petitioner claims that his act of summarily
removing respondent’s concrete posts was authorized under the National Building
Code (Presidential Decree No. 1096). The
provision he cites correctly pertains to Section 215, which reads—
Sec. 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 decree 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
To better understand this provision,
we refer to Section 214 of the same law, which defines what are dangerous and
ruinous buildings or structures susceptible of abatement. It provides—
Sec. 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.
A careful reading of the foregoing
provisions would readily show that they do not apply to the respondent’s
situation. Nowhere was it shown that the
concrete posts put up by respondent in what he believed was his and his
co-owners’ property were ever declared dangerous or ruinous, such that they can
be summarily demolished by petitioner.
What is more, it appears that the
concrete posts do not even fall within the scope of the provisions of the
National Building Code. The Code does
not expressly define the word “building.”
However, we find helpful the dictionary definition of the word
“building,” viz:
[A] constructed edifice designed usually
covered by a roof and more or less completely enclosed by walls, and serving as
a dwelling, storehouse, factory, shelter for animals, or other useful structure
– distinguished from structures not designed for occupancy (as fences or
monuments) and from structures not intended for use in one place (as boats or
trailers) even though subject to occupancy.[29]
The provisions of the National
Building Code would confirm that “building” as used therein conforms to this
definition. Thus, applying the statutory
construction principle of ejusdem generic,[30]
the word “structure” should be construed in the context of the definition of the
word “building.” The concrete posts put
up by respondent on the property are not properly covered by the definition of
the word “building” nor is it embraced in the corresponding interpretation of
the word “structure.”
Second. Petitioner contends that respondent’s
concrete posts were in the nature of a nuisance per se, which may be the subject of summary abatement sans any judicial proceedings. Again, we disagree.
A nuisance per se is that which affects the immediate safety of persons and
property and may be summarily abated under the undefined law of necessity.[31] Evidently, the concrete posts summarily
removed by petitioner did not at all pose a hazard to the safety of persons and
properties, which would have necessitated immediate and summary abatement. What they did, at most, was to pose an
inconvenience to the public by blocking the free passage of people to and from
the national road.
Third. Petitioner likewise maintains that his
authority to perform the assailed official act sprang from Section 23 of the
Revised Philippine Highway Act. He
posits that this provision is particularly implemented by Department Order No.
52,[32]
Series of 2003 of the Department of Public Works and Highways for the Removal
of Obstructions and Prohibited Uses within the Right-of-Way of National Roads.
Department Order No. 52 directs all
District Engineers to immediately remove or cause the removal of all
obstructions and prohibited uses within the right-of-way of all national roads
in their respective jurisdictions. These
obstructions and prohibited uses include, among others, all kinds of private,
temporary and permanent structures, such as buildings, houses, shanties,
stores, shops, stalls, sheds, posts,
canopies, billboards, signages, advertisements, fences, walls, railings, basketball courts, garbage receptacles,
and the like. The Department Order
requires the District Engineers to issue notices to the concerned persons to
remove the obstructions and prohibited uses within the right-of-way, and shall
follow through prompt compliance with these notices and full implementation of
the Order. It further provides that
appropriate sanctions will be taken against those who fail to comply with its
provisions.
Gauging the action of petitioner based
on the guidelines set by Department Order No. 52, from which he claims his
authority, we cannot but conclude that petitioner went beyond the scope of his official
power because it is the concerned District Engineer of the Department of Public
Works and Highways who should have ordered respondent to remove the concrete
posts. The petitioner failed to show
that he was duly authorized by the District Engineer to implement the
Department Order in Naic,
The Revised Philippine Highway Act
and Department Order No. 52 do not expressly provide for the administrative
sanction to be taken against public officials violating their provisions. Hence, we must refer to the Uniform Rules on
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.
We believe that the administrative offense committed by petitioner through
the questioned act was only Discourtesy in the Course of Official Duties, which
is a light offense under Rule IV, Section 52 of the said Rules. The penalties imposable for such an offense are
a reprimand for the first offense, a suspension from 1 day to 30 days for the
second offense, and dismissal from public service for the third offense. Since this appears to be petitioner’s first
offense, his action warrants only a REPRIMAND.
WHEREFORE, the
Decision dated October 13, 2005 and the Order dated March 17, 2006 of the
Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon finding petitioner Guillermo M. Telmo,
Municipal Engineer of Naic,
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate
Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate
Justice |
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate
Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest 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.
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson,
Third Division
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
[1] Rollo, pp. 3-13.
[2]
[3]
[4] Ombudsman Records, pp. 1-5.
[5] Art. 312. Occupation of real property or usurpation of real rights in property. – Any person who, by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, shall take possession of any real property or shall usurp any real rights in property belonging to another, in addition to the penalty incurred for the acts of violence executed by him, shall be punished by a fine from 50 to 100 per centum of the gain which he shall have obtained, but not less than 75 pesos.
If the value of the gain cannot be ascertained, a fine of from 200 to 500 pesos shall be imposed.
[6] Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers – In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
x x x
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official, administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licences or permits or other concessions.
[7] Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
[8] Section 4. Norms of Conduct of Public Officials and Employees. – (A) Every public official and employee shall observe the following as standards of personal conduct in the discharge and execution of official duties:
(a) Commitment to public interest. – Public officials and employees shall always uphold the public interest over and above personal interest. All government resources and powers of their respective offices must be employed and used efficiently, effectively, honestly and economically, particularly to avoid wastage in public funds and revenues.
[9] (b) Professionalism. – Public officials and employees shall perform and discharge their duties with the highest degree of excellence, professionalism, intelligence and skill. They shall enter public service with utmost devotion and dedication to duty. They shall endeavor to discourage wrong perceptions of their roles as dispensers or peddlers of undue patronage.
[10] (c) Justness and sincerity. – Public officials and employees shall remain true to the people at all times. They must act with justness and sincerity and shall not discriminate against anyone, especially the poor and the underprivileged. They shall at all times respect the rights of others, and shall refrain from doing acts contrary to law, good morals, good customs, public policy, public order, public safety and public interest. They shall not dispense or extend undue favors on account of their office to their relatives whether by consanguinity or affinity except with respect to appointments of such relatives to positions considered strictly confidential or as members of their personal staff whose terms are coterminous with theirs.
[11] (e) Responsiveness to the public. – Public officials and employees shall extend prompt, courteous, and adequate service to the public. Unless otherwise provided by law or when required by the public interest, public officials and employees shall provide information of their policies and procedures in clear and understandable language, ensure openness of information, public consultations and hearings whenever appropriate, encourage suggestions, simplify and systematize policy, rules and procedures, avoid red tape and develop an understanding and appreciation of the socio-economic conditions prevailing in the country, especially in the depressed rural and urban areas.
[12] Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.
[13] Ombudsman Records, pp. 16-17.
[14]
[15] For the respondents, id. at 30-33; for the complainant, id. at 38-45.
[16] Rollo, pp. 22-27.
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21] Art. 694. A nuisance is any act, omission, establishment, business, condition of property, or anything else which:
x x x
(4) Obstructs or interferes with the free passage of any public highway or street, or any body of water; x x x.
[22] Art. 699. The remedies against a public nuisance are:
x x x
(3) Abatement, without judicial proceedings.
[23] “It shall be unlawful for any person to usurp any portion of a right of way, to convert any part of any public highway, bridge, wharf or trail to his own private use or to obstruct the same in any manner.”
[24] Rollo, p. 68.
[25] People v. Dimaano, G.R. No. 168168, September, 14, 2005, 469 SCRA 647, 663.
[26] Vilar v. Angeles, A.M. No. P-06-2276, February 5, 2007, 514 SCRA 147, 156.
[27] Ombudsman Records, p. 8.
[28] Rollo, p. 28.
[29] Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (Unabridged), 1993, p. 292.
[30] Under the principle of ejusdem generis, where a statute describes a thing of a particular class or kind accompanied by words of a generic character, the generic word will usually be limited to things of a similar nature as those particularly enumerated, unless there be something in the context of the statute that would repel such inference.
[31] Tayaban v. People, G.R. No. 150194, March 6, 2007, 517 SCRA 488, 507.
[32] Ombudsman Records, pp. 69-70.