Authority to abate nuisances

CRUZ & DELA CRUZ v. PANDACAN HIKERS CLUB, INC.

PERALTA

Several people complained that the basketball court of Pandacan Hikers* caused heavy traffic
in the area and was the site of several brawls. Punong Barangay Cruz padlocked the court but
Pandacan Hikers (which owned and operated the basketball court) forced it open and refused
to give the lock back. Incensed, she ordered Barangay Tanod Dela Cruz to cut a basketball ring
in half to render the basketball court useless. When Pandacan Hikers complained to the
Ombudsman, Cruz and Dela Cruz responded that they were merely acting in pursuit of the
general welfare clause by abating a nuisance. Although the Ombudsman dismissed the
complaint, the CA found Cruz and Dela Cruz liable for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of
the service. The SC affirmed, holding that the basketball court was not a nuisance, and even if it
were, it would be a nuisance per accidens which could not be abated extrajudicially. Even
assuming it had been a nuisance per se, Cruz, as an executive officer, had no authority to order
the destruction of the basketball ring without an ordinance from the local legislative body.

Pandacan Hikers had donated it to the community, but continued to operate it.

DOCTRINE
The prevailing jurisprudence is that local government units such as the provinces, cities,
municipalities and barangays exercise police power through their respective legislative bodies.
Police power is plenary power vested in the legislature.

FACTS
1. Natividad Cruz is the punong barangay of Brgy. 848, Zone 92, Manila.
2. One afternoon, Cruz allegedly confronted persons playing basketball. She then gave an
order to barangay tanod Benjamin Dela Cruz to destroy the basketball ring by cutting it up
with a hacksaw. He complied, so the basketball court became unusable.
3. Pandacan Hikers’ Club (PHC), claiming to be the owners of the court, filed a complaint
before the Ombudsman against Cruz and Dela Cruz for malicious mischief, grave
misconduct, conduct prejudicial to the best intersest of the service, and abuse of authority.
PHC alleged that it donated, administered, and operated the court for the Pandacan
community (that is, until Cruz and Dela Cruz destroyed it).
4. The complaint averred damage amounting to P2,000. Cruz also allegedly uttered abusive
language.
5. Cruz answered that the basketball court disrupted the peace in the barangay, alleging that
several residents had already complained and asked for its closure.
a. It blocked jeepneys from passing through.
b. A lot of fights happened there, some of which hurt innocent bystanders.
c. The noise kept people from sleeping.
 d. The people frequenting the area would urinate on the community’s fences.
e. Once, she (Cruz) tried to padlock the bball court, but PHC just removed the lock,
continued playing, and refused to return the lock.
f. She denied shouting invectives at PHC members.
6. The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint, holding that Cruz and Dela Cruz were merely
performing their duties by responding to the clamor of their constituents.
7. CA set aside the dismissal of the complaint. Held: It was not a nuisance, but even if it were a
nuisance per accidens, it could not be abated extrajudicially. Cruz was liable for conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service (6 mos. 1 day suspension). Dela Cruz was
reprimanded.
8. Cruz and Dela Cruz appealed to the SC. They argue that they merely acted to regain free
passage of traffic and to restore peace, health, and sanitation. It is within the power of the
barangay chief to do what Cruz did to maintain peace and order.

ISSUE with HOLDING

1. W/N Cruz and Dela Cruz acted within their authority in cutting the basketball ring in half –
NO
There is no contention that petitioners cut the basketball ring in half, rendering the
basketball court completely unusable. They also did not deliberate or consult with the
Sangguniang Barangay or involve any law enforcement agent.
Unless a nuisance is a nuisance per se, it may not be summarily abated.
The basketball ring was not found by the lower tribunals to be a nuisance per se. At most, it
could be a nuisance per accidens as it does not pose an immediate effect upon public safety. It
is not by nature injurious to property rights or community health or safety. Therefore, it could
not be abated as a nuisance without the benefit of a judicial hearing.
Even assuming it was a nuisance per se (but without posing immediate harm or threat
requiring instantaneous action), the abatement failed to observe proper procedure.
Under Art. 700 of the NCC, even extrajudicial abatement of a public nuisance is the
responsibility of the district health officer, who under Art. 702 shall determine whether or not
abatement is the best remedy. The two articles do not mention that the chief executive of the
local government (like the punong barangay) is authorized as the official who can determine
the propriety of a summary abatement.
Also, NCC Art. 704(3) states as a requirement “[t]hat the abatement be approved by the
district health officer and executed with the assistance of the local police.”
Although Cruz and Dela Cruz claim to have acted in their official capacities under the
general welfare clause, neither cited an ordinance that would have justified the abatement. The
prevailing jurisprudence is that local government units such as the provinces, cities,
municipalities and barangays exercise police power through their respective legislative bodies.
The powers granted to the punong barangay consist mainly of executing only those laws
and ordinances already enacted by the legislative bodies.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION
CA affirmed. (Cruz suspended for 6 months and 1 day, Dela Cruz reprimanded.)