The business of body building is not a nuisance per se; it becomes a nuisance only on the account of the location. To abate it, it is not necessary to remove the buildings and structure built in the place where it is presently located, as these, or parts thereof may be utilized for pursuits that are not forbidden by law or ordinance. FACTS: • Petitioner Ramcar, Inc. operates and maintains an auto repair and body building shop at No. 1241 (formerly No. 1377) General Luna Street, Ermita, Manila. • Ramcar Inc., has been granted a license and permit to operate a garage; and it claims that such license entitles it to conduct its body building business, and that Section 5 of Ordinance No. 2830, as amended by Ordinance No. 2906 of the City of Manila, allows it to conduct its business at the present site. The said ordinance restricts the kinds of business, buildings, and establishments that may be built in commercial zones, and the enumeration of permitted activities includes "6. Garage and gasoline service stations." FACTS: • Respondents Millar, et. al. reside near or around the shop. The respondents repeatedly complained to the city authorities for the closure of the shop, but to no avail because the city authorities were at loggerheads as to whether the immediate vicinity where the business of Ramcar is located in the residential zone. • Consequently, they brought an action to abate the establishment as a nuisance because of the activity of repairing and building bodies of motor vehicles which involves tools and machineries which gives rise to too much noise and annoyance during all hours of the day up to nighttime; and its employees oftentimes work on Sundays and holidays. FACTS: • The trial court dismissed the complaint. • On appeal, the CA reversed the trial court's ruling, declaring that the operation and maintenance of the establishment of Ramcar, Inc. is a public nuisance and violates the provisions of Zonification Ordinance No. 2830, as amended by Ordinance No. 2906, of the City of Manila; and ordering Ramcar, Inc. to remove the said establishment and all buildings and structures built therein within 30 days from the finality of the judgment. • Hence, this petition. ISSUE: • WON Ramcar, Inc.'s permit to operate as a garage entitles it to conduct its business (body building operations or activities) and that the said business is not a nuisance according to Ordinance No. 2906, as amended. RULING: • NO. • The business of body building is not a nuisance per se; it becomes a nuisance only on the account of the location. To abate it, it is not necessary to remove the buildings and structure built in the place where it is presently located, as these, or parts thereof may be utilized for pursuits that are not forbidden by law or ordinance. RULING: • A body building shop is not within the purview of garage which designates a shop for storing, repairing and servicing motor vehicles, being merely a modern substitute for the ancient livery stable. The term repair presupposes for decay, dilapidation, injury or partial destruction of repaired element, for example broken or damaged parts of a structural whole to their original condition cannot apply to building or remodelling of bodies or structures. RULING: • Whether a particular thing is or is not a nuisance is a question of fact and is properly within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals, whose findings of fact are conclusive on the Supreme Court. • While Section 18 of Republic Act No. 409 grants legislative powers to the municipal board to declare, prevent, and provide for the abatement of nuisances, inaction by the board does not preclude the ultimate power of courts to determine the existence of a nuisance in a particular case tried before them (Rutton vs. City of Camden, 23 Am. Rep. 203, 209; Iloilo Cold Storage Co. vs. Municipal Council, 24 Phil. 471). RULING:
• The Supreme Court permanently enjoined
Ramcar, Inc. only from operating its body building operations or activities in its present location, without requiring the demolition of the existing buildings.
ALEXANDER REYES, ALBERTO M. NERA, EDGARDO M. GECA and 138 others v. CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO, Officer-in-Charge, Bureau of Labor Relations, Med. Arbiter PATERNO ADAP, and TRI-UNION EMPLOYEES UNION, et al