Republic of the
Supreme Court
SECOND DIVISION
|
Honesto V. Ferrer, Jr., and Romeo E.
Espera, Petitioners, - versus - Mayor Sulpicio S. Roco,
JR.,
in his
capacity as Mayor of Naga City, Sangguniang Panglungsod of the City of Respondents. |
|
G.R. NO.
174129 Present: CARPIO, J., Chairperson, NACHURA, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,* ABAD, and MENDOZA, JJ. Promulgated: July 5, 2010 |
x --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
MENDOZA, J.:
At bench is a petition for review under Rule
45 of the Rules of Court. filed by
petitioners Honesto V. Ferrer, Jr. and Romeo E. Espera against respondents
Mayor Sulpicio S. Roco, Jr., in his capacity as mayor of
The petition challenges (1) the April 21, 2006
Decision of the Court of Appeals[1] affirming in toto the April
17, 2001 Order[2] of the
Regional Trial Court, Naga City, Branch 24; and (2) its August 9,
2006 Resolution[3] denying
the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the petitioners.
THE RELEVANT ANTECEDENTS:
Wenceslao D. San Andres, Jose A.
Ocampo, Crisensana M. Vargas, Honesto V. Ferrer, Jr., Alfonso N. Peralta,
Otilla C. Sierra, Jovito A. delos Santos, William Tan, Felipe Sese, and Romeo
E. Espera filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief and/or Injunction with prayer
for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)[4]
questioning Resolution No. 2000-263,[5] Resolution
No. 2000-354[6] and
Ordinance No. 2000-059[7]
issued by the respondents, Mayor Sulpicio S. Roco, Jr. and the members of the
Sangguniang Panglungsod of Naga City.
The said resolutions and ordinance read:
RESOLUTION
NO. 2000-263
WHEREAS, received by the Sanggunian for appropriate
action was the application of Mr. Robert L. Obiedo of ARE Square Realty
Development Corporation for Preliminary Approval for Locational Clearance
(PALC) for a First Class Memorial Park located at Barangay Balatas, City of
Naga;
WHEREAS, the City Planning & Development Office
evaluated and reviewed the documents submitted by Mr. Robert L. Obiedo for the
purpose and found that the substantial requirements have been complied with;
x
x x x x x x x x
BE IT RESOLVED, as it is hereby resolved, to
approve the application of Mr. Robert L. Obiedo of ARE Square Realty
Development Corporation for Preliminary Approval for Locational Clearance
(PALC) for a
RESOLUTION NO.
2000-354
WHEREAS, received by the Sangguniang Panglungsod
for consideration was the letter dated September 4, 2000 of Mr. Robert L.
Obiedo through his official representative Mrs. Alice C. Enojado of the ARE
Square Realty Development Corporation applying for a Development Permit (DP)
for their proposed Eternal Gardens Memorial Park with a total area of 60, 781
sq. m. located at Barangay Balatas, this city;
WHEREAS, in the Technical Evaluation Report dated
x
x x x x x x x x
BE IT RESOLVED, as it is hereby resolved, to
approve the application for Development Permit (DP) of Mr. Robert L. Obiedo of
the ARE Square Realty Development Corporation to develop the Eternal Gardens
Memorial Park located at Barangay Balatas, this city, subject to the following
conditions and compliance of all existing laws, ordinances, rules and
regulations and further favorably endorsing the same to the Housing Land Use and Regulatory
Board (HLURB) for appropriate action, to wit:
x
x x x
x x x x x [Emphasis supplied]
ORDINANCE
NO. 2000-059
Be it ordained by the Sangguniang Panglungsod of
the City of
SECTION 1. -
Ordinance No. 401, s. 1972, entitled:
“An Ordinance Regulating the Establishment, Maintenance and Operation of
Private Memorial Park-Type Cemetery or Burial Ground within the Jurisdiction of
Naga City, and Providing Penalties for Violation Thereof”; specifically
sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph (c) under Section 3 and sub-paragraph (a) under
Section 5 thereof, on the minimum area of the proposed cemetery and Mayor’s
Permit and License Fees, respectively, is hereby amended, now to read follows:
‘SECTION 3. – the operation and maintenance of the
private memorial park-type cemetery established pursuant to this Ordinance
shall be subject to the provisions of the cemetery law and/or other pertinent
laws as well as rules and regulations promulgated or as may be promulgated by
the Municipal Board, subject further to the following conditions:
x
x x x x x x x x
(c) No application for the establishment of a
private cemetery shall be considered:
x
x x x x x x x x
(2) if the proposed private cemetery site is less
than five (5) hectares;
x
x x x x x x x x.’
Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss[8]
for lack of jurisdiction. Finding the
motion to be well-taken, the RTC dismissed the petition in an order dated
Apparently
not in conformity with the order of dismissal, the petitioners appealed to the
Court of Appeals premised on the following errors ---
“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT HLURB HAS
JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN
NOT GRANTING APPELLANTS’ PRAYER FOR TRO AND OR WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.”[10]
As earlier stated, the Court of
Appeals affirmed in toto the
“Indeed, the doctrine of
administrative remedies requires that resort be first made to the
administrative authorities in cases falling under their jurisdiction to allow
them to carry out their functions and discharge their liabilities within the
specialized areas of their competence.
This is because the administrative agency concerned is in the best position
to correct any previous error committed in its forum. Clearly, the filing of the petition for
declaratory relief with the trial court had no basis, as there can be no issue
ripe for judicial determination when the matter is within the primary jurisdiction
of an administrative agency, the HLURB.
Consequently, inasmuch as
the filing of the petition below was premature, appellant’s application for
temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction, which is
merely ancillary to the petition, has no leg to stand on.”
Petitioners filed a Motion for
Reconsideration but it was denied by the Court of Appeals in its
Hence, this Petition (filed by Honesto V. Ferrer and Romeo
“THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN
HOLDING THAT THE PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF FILED WITH THE TRIAL COURT AS
PREMATURE AND HAVING NO BASIS, ON THE PRETEXT THAT THE ISSUE RAISED THEREIN IS
NOT YET RIPE FOR ADJUDICATION.
THE
COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT APPLYING THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE GENERAL
RULE ON THE EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES BEFORE RESORT TO COURTS.
THE
COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT RECONSIDERING ITS DECISION.”[14]
On June 23, 2008, after the
submission of the separate comments by the private respondent PMC[15] and
the public respondents,[16] and
of the reply[17] by the
petitioners, the petition was given due course and the parties were directed to
submit their respective memoranda.[18]
After a thorough study of the
respective positions of the parties on the issue at hand, the Court has reached
the conclusion that the petition lacks merit.
Declaratory relief is defined as an action by any
person interested in a deed, will, contract or other written instrument,
executive order or resolution, to determine any question of construction or
validity arising from the instrument, executive order or regulation, or statute,
and for a declaration of his rights and duties thereunder. The only issue that may be raised in such a
petition is the question of construction or validity of the provisions in an
instrument or statute.
It is settled that the requisites of
an action for declaratory relief are: 1] the subject matter of the controversy must be
a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, statute, executive order or
regulation, or ordinance; 2] the terms
of said documents and the validity thereof are doubtful and require judicial
construction; 3] there must have been no
breach of the documents in question; 4] there must be an actual justiciable
controversy or the “ripening seeds” of one between persons whose interests are
adverse; 5] the issue must be ripe for
judicial determination; and 6] adequate relief is not available through
other means or other forms of action or proceeding.[19] [emphasis
supplied]
In this case, the issue raised by
petitioners is clearly not yet ripe for judicial determination. Nowhere in the assailed resolutions and ordinance
does it show that the public respondents acted on private respondent’s
application with finality. What
appears therefrom is that the application of private respondent for development
permit has been endorsed to the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB)
for appropriate action, the latter being the sole regulatory body for housing
and land development.
Under the doctrine of primary administrative
jurisdiction, courts cannot or will not determine a controversy where the
issues for resolution demand the exercise of sound administrative discretion
requiring the special knowledge, experience, and services of the administrative
tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact. In other words, if a case is such that its
determination requires the expertise, specialized training and knowledge of an
administrative body, relief must first be obtained in an administrative
proceeding before resort to the courts is had even if the matter may well be
within their proper jurisdiction.[20]
WHEREFORE, the
SO ORDERED.
JOSE CATRAL
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice Associate
Justice
ROBERTO A.
ABAD
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.
ANTONIO T.
CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second 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.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief Justice
* Designated as additional member in lieu of Justice Diosdado M. Peralta per raffle dated June 22, 2009.
[1] Rollo, pp.35-43.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5] Resolution Approving the Application of Mr. Robert L. Obiedo of ARE Square Realty Development Corporation for Preliminary Approval for Locational Clearance (PALC) for a First Class Memorial Park located at Barangay Balagtas, City of Naga; Id. at 60-61.
[6] Resolution Approving the Application for Development Permit (DP) of Mr. Robert L. Obiedo of the ARE Square Realty Development Corporation to develop the Eternal Gardens Memorial Park located at Barangay Balagtas, this city, subject to certain conditions, and compliance of all existing Laws, Ordinances, Rules and Regulations and further favorably Endorsing the same to the Housing Land Use and Regulatory Board (HLURB) for appropriate action; Id. at 62-63.
[7] An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 401, S. 1972, entitled: “An Ordiannce Regulating the Establishment, Maintenance and Operation of Private Memorial Park-Type Cemetery or Burial Ground within the jurisdiction of Naga City, and Providing Penalties for Violation thereof”, specifically subparagraph (2) of paragraph (c) under Section 3 and subparagraph (A) under Section 5 thereof on the Minimum Area of the Proposed Cemetery and Mayor’s Permit and License Fees, respectively; Id. at 64-65.
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13] Id. at 9; Appellants Wenceslao D. San Andres, Jose A. Ocampo, Cresensana M. Vargas, Alfonso N. Peralta, Otilla C. Sierra, Jovito A. Delos Santos, William Tan and Felipe Sese are not included as petitioners due to their failure to signify their interest in pursuing the case with the Supreme Court or that their present whereabouts cannot be located.
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]Almeda v. Bathala Marketing Industries, Inc., G.R. No. 150806, January 28, 2008, 542 SCRA 470.
[20] Euro-Med Laboratories, Phil., Inc. v. The