You are on page 1of 3

Asilo v. Bombasi issued by Asst.

Provincial Prosecutor
Marianito Sasondoncillo of Laguna.
Article 1431 of the New Civil Code provides
that, through estoppel, an admission or Visitacion wrote a reply letter to
representation is rendered conclusive upon the Mayor Comendador saying that:
person making it, and cannot be denied or
disproved as against the person relying (1) the lease contract was still existing
thereon and legally binding;

On 15 March 1978, Private Respondent (2) she was willing to vacate the store as
Visitacions late mother Marciana Vda. De long as same place and area would be
Coronado (Vda. De Coronado) and the given to her in the new public
Municipality of Nagcarlan, Laguna market; and
(represented by the then Municipal Mayor
Crisostomo P. Manalang) entered into a lease (3) in case her proposals are not acceptable
contract whereby the Municipality allowed to Mayor Comendador, for the latter to just file
the use and enjoyment of property an unlawful detainer case against her
comprising of a lot and a store located at pursuant to Sangguniang Bayan Resolution
the corner of Coronado and E. Fernandez Sts. No. 156.
at Poblacion, Nagcarlan, Laguna, in favor of
the respondents mother for a period of twenty Once again, the Respondent Visitacion was
(20) years beginning on 15 March 1978 until sent a letter by the Asst. Provincial Prosecutor
15 March 1998, extendible for another 20 ordering her to vacate the portion of the public
years.; market she was occupying. In connection to
this, the Sangguniang Bayan of Nagcarlan
Visitacion took over the store when her issued Resolution No. 183 authorizing
mother died sometime in 1984. From then
9 Mayor Comendador to demolish the store
on up to January 1993, Visitacion being occupied by Visitacion using legal
secured the yearly Mayors permits. means.

A fire occurred in the market of Nagcarlan and The PetitionerMunicipal Administrator

upon the finding of the District Engineer Asilo sent another letter to Visitacion
Gorospe the said building of Visitacion stood informing her of the impending demolition of
strong and remained intact. This finding of her store the next day.
Engineer Gorospe was contested by the
Municipality of Nagcarlan. Visitacion wrote a reply letter17 to Asilo,
alleging the following:
On 1 September 1993, Visitacion received a
letter12 from Mayor Comendador directing her a. that there is no legal right to
to demolish her store within five (5) days from demolish the store in the absence of
notice. Attached to the letter were copies a court order; and
of Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 156
dated 30 August 1993 and a Memorandum
b. that the Resolutions did not sanction (e)Causing any undue injury to any party,
the demolition of her store but only including the Government, or giving any
the filing of an appropriate private party any unwarranted benefits,
unlawful detainer case against advantage or preference in the discharge of his
her. official, administrative or judicial
functions through manifest partiality,
evident bad faith or gross inexcusable
On 15 October 1993, Mayor Comendador negligence. This provision shall apply to
relying on the strength of Sangguniang officers and employees of offices or government
Bayan Resolution Nos. 183 and 156 authorized corporations charged with the grant of
the demolition of the store with Asilo and licenses or permits or other concessions.
Angeles supervising the work.
The elements of the offense are as follows:
In relation to this the Spouses Bombasi filed (1) that the accused are public officers or
with the RTC a civil case for damages with private persons charged in conspiracy with
preliminary injunction against the them;
Municipality of Nagcarlan Laguna, Mayor (2) that said public officers commit the
Comenador, Asilo and Angeles. Also, they filed prohibited acts during the performance of
a criminal complaint against Mayor their official duties or in relation to their
Comenador, Asilo, Angeles for the violation public positions;
of RA 3019 Section 3 (e) (3) that they caused undue injury to any party,
whether the Government or a private party;
(4) OR that such injury is caused by giving
unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference
to the other party; and
WON Mayor Comenador and Asilo are liable
(5) that the public officers have acted with
for the violation of RA 3019 Section 3(e)
manifest partiality, evident bad
faith or gross inexcusable negligence
All the elements are present in the case at bar.
Mayor Comenador and Petitioner Asilo are
found guilty of violation of RA 3019 Section 3 It is proven that the defendants acted in
(e) evident bad faith when they proceeded with
the demolition.
Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019
provides: First
In addition to acts or omissions of public The market stall is not a public nuisance as
officers already penalized by existing law, the found out by the Court. The finding was
following shall constitute corrupt practices of certified by Supervising Civil Engineer
any public officer and are hereby declared to Wilfredo A. Sambrano of the Laguna District
be unlawful: Engineer Office.
The accused public officials were devoid of Art. 1431 of the New Civil Code provides that,
power to demolish the store. A closer look at through estoppel, an admission or
the contested resolutions reveals that Mayor representation is rendered conclusive upon the
Comendador was only authorized to file an person making it, and cannot be denied or
unlawful detainer case in case of resistance to disproved as against the person relying
obey the order or to demolish the building thereon.
using legal means.
The representation made by the
Third municipality that the Spouses Bombasi had
the right to continuously operate its store
The Municipality of Nagcarlan, Laguna, as binds the municipality. It is utterly unjust for
represented by the then Mayor Comendador, the Municipality to receive the benefits of the
was placed in estoppel after it granted yearly store operation and later on claim the
business permits45 in favor of the Spouses illegality of the business.