ROBERT TAYABAN y CALIPLIP vs.

PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 150194, March 6, 2007
Facts:
The project proposal of then Mayor Tayaban of Tinoc Ifugao to the provincial governor for the
construction of the Tinoc Public Market was approved to be funded by the Cordillera Executive Board
(CEB). The contract was awarded to Lopez Pugong with the CEB as the project owner. Actual
construction commenced on June 1989 and on August 15, 1989, the Sangguniang Bayan of Tinoc
adopted Resolution No. 20 to demolish the erected structures for the purpose of erecting the Public
Market on the allegation that it was constructed on the wrong site. The said Resolution was passed only
in the afternoon of August 15, 1989, after the subject demolition was conducted in the morning of the
same day.

Issue:
Whether the Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 20 is valid and whether the demolition was a valid
exercise of police power.

Ruling:
The court ruled in the the negative. 

Petitioners acted in bad faith in passing Resolution No. 20 having been passed only after the
demolition and their memorandum addressed to the laborers of Pugong directing the stoppage of the
construction was not to be considered as an evidence of good faith because the project owner was the
CEB, thus, it should have been the latter who should be duly notified. No evidence would show that
petitioners informed the CEB or the Governor of the alleged mistake in the location. By causing undue
injury to the government in demolishing the structures and with evident bad faith, the court ruled that
the petitioners are guilty of violation of the provisions of Sec. 3(e) of RA No. 3019. Petitioner’s claim
that the adoption of Resolution No. was a valid exercise of police power because Pugong failed to
obtain the required building permit pursuant to PD 1076 and Letter of Instruction No. 19, is not
persuasive because the said resolution did not mention such violation. A careful reading of the
resolution shows that the only basis for the demolition was the alleged mistake in the location of the
building construction.

The exercise of police power by the local government is valid unless it contravenes the fundamental law
of the land, or an act of the legislature, or unless it is against public policy, or is unreasonable,
oppressive, partial, discriminating, or in derogation of a common right. In the present case, the acts of
petitioner have been established as a violation of law, particularly of the provisions of Section 3(e) of
R.A. No. 3019. Neither can petitioners seek cover under the general welfare clause authorizing the
abatement of nuisances without judicial proceedings. This principle applies to nuisances per se, or
those which affect the immediate safety of persons and property and may be summarily abated under
the undefined law of necessity. Petitioners should have made known their concerns to the CEB or to the
Governor.

The assailed decision was affirmed.