Authority to abate nuisances for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service (6 mos. 1 day suspension).
CRUZ & DELA CRUZ v. PANDACAN HIKERS CLUB, INC. Dela Cruz was reprimanded.
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
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.)
OTHER NOTES
LGC
Section 391. Powers, Duties, and Functions. –
(a) The sangguniang barangay, as the legislative body of the barangay, shall:
(1) Enact ordinances as may be necessary to discharge the responsibilities conferred upon
it by law or ordinance and to promote the general welfare of the inhabitants therein; x x x
Section 389. Chief Executive: Powers, Duties, and Functions. –
(a) The punong barangay, as the chief executive of the barangay government, shall
exercise such powers and perform such duties and functions, as provided by this Code
and other laws.
(b) For efficient, effective and economical governance, the purpose of which is the general
welfare of the barangay and its inhabitants pursuant to Section 16 of this Code, the punong
barangay shall:
(1) Enforce all laws and ordinances which are applicable within the barangay; x x x x
1
(3) Maintain public order in the barangay and, in pursuance thereof, assist the city or
municipal mayor and the sanggunian members in the performance of their duties and
functions; x x x x
(14) Promote the general welfare of the barangay;
(15) Exercise such other powers and perform such other duties and functions as may be
prescribed by law or ordinance.

NCC

Art. 700. The district health officer shall take care that one or all of the remedies against a
public nuisance are availed of.

Art. 702. The district health officer shall determine whether or not abatement, without
judicial proceedings, is the best remedy against a public nuisance.

Art. 704. Any private person may abate a public nuisance which is specially injurious to
him by removing, or if necessary, by destroying the thing which constitutes the same,
without committing a breach of the peace, or doing unnecessary injury. But it is necessary:
xxx
(3) That the abatement be approved by the district health officer and executed with the
assistance of the local police;
xxx

DIGESTER: Gabi Timbancaya