Concepcion Parayno vs.

Jose Jovellanos
G.R. 148408 (495 SCRA 85) July 14, 2006
FACTS OF THE CASE

Petitioner was the owner of a gasoline filling station in Calasiao,

Pangasinan. In 1989, some residents of Calasiao petitioned the
Sangguniang Bayan (SB) of said municipality for the closure or transfer of
the station to another location. The matter was referred to the Municipal
Engineer, Chief of Police, Municipal Health Officer and the Bureau of Fire
Protection for investigation. Upon their advise, the Sangguniang Bayan
recommended to the Mayor the closure or transfer of location of
petitioner’s gasoline station. In Resolution No. 50, it declared that the
existing gasoline station is a blatant violation and disregard of existing
law.
FACTS OF THE CASE
According to the Resolution, 1) the gasoline filling station is in violation of The
Official Zoning Code of Calasiao, Art. 6, Section 44, the nearest school
building which is San Miguel Elementary School and church, the distances
are less than 100 meters. (No neighbors were called as witnesses when
actual measurements were done by HLURB Staff, Baguio City dated 22 June
1989); 2) it remains in thickly populated area with commercial/residential
buildings, houses closed (sic) to each other which still endangers the lives
and safety of the people in case of fire; 3) residents of our barangay always
complain of the irritating smell of gasoline most of the time especially during
gas filling which tend to expose residents to illness, and 4) It hampers the flow
of traffic.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The RTC ruled against petitioner by applying the virtue of ejusdem generis, saying
that a “gasoline filling station” fell within the ambit of Section 44.Petitioner moved
for the reconsideration of the resolution but was denied by the SB. Hence she filed
a case before the RTC claiming that the gasoline filling station was not covered
under Sec 44 of the mentioned law but is under Sec 21. Case was denied by the
court and by the CA. Hence this appeal.
ISSUE
Whether or not the closure/transfer of her gasoline filling station by respondent
municipality was an invalid exercise of the latter’s police powers
HELD

The respondent is barred from denying their previous claim that the
gasoline filling station is not under Sec 44. The Counsel in fact
admitted that : “That the business of the petitioner [was] one of a
gasoline filling station as defined in Article III, Section 21 of the zoning
code and not as a service station as differently defined under Article
42 of the said official zoning code;”
The foregoing were judicial admissions which were conclusive on the
municipality, the party making them. hence, because of the distinct and
definite meanings alluded to the two terms by the zoning ordinance,
respondents could not insist that “gasoline service station” under Section
44 necessarily included “gasoline filling station” under Section 21. Indeed,
the activities undertaken in a “gas service station” did not automatically
embrace those in a “gas filling station.”
As for the main issue, the court held that the respondent
municipality invalidly used its police powers in ordering the
closure/transfer of petitioner’s gasoline station. While it had, under
RA 7160, the power to take actions and enact measures to
promote the health and general welfare of its constituents, it should
have given due deference to the law and the rights of petitioner.
A local government is considered to have properly exercised its
police powers only when the following requisites are met: (1) the
interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a
particular class, require the interference of the State and (2) the
means employed are reasonably necessary for the attainment of
the object sought to be accomplished and not unduly oppressive.
The first requirement refers to the equal protection clause and the
second, to the due process clause of the Constitution.
Respondent municipality failed to comply with the due process clause
when it passed Resolution No. 50. While it maintained that the gasoline
filling station of petitioner was less than 100 meters from the nearest
public school and church, the records do not show that it even attempted
to measure the distance, notwithstanding that such distance was crucial in
determining whether there was an actual violation of Section 44. The
different local offices that respondent municipality tapped to conduct an
investigation never conducted such measurement either.
Moreover, petitioner’s business could not be considered a nuisance
which respondent municipality could summarily abate in the guise
of exercising its police powers. The abatement of a nuisance
without judicial proceedings is possible only if it is a nuisance per
se. A gas station is not a nuisance per se or one affecting the
immediate safety of persons and property, hence, it cannot be
closed down or transferred summarily to another location.
On the alleged hazardous effects of the gasoline station to the lives and
properties of the people of Calasiao, we again note: “Hence, the Board is
inclined to believe that the project being hazardous to life and property is
more perceived than factual. For, after all, even the Fire Station
Commander.. recommended “to build such buildings after conform (sic) all
the requirements of PP 1185.” It is further alleged by the complainants that
the proposed location is “in the heart of the thickly populated residential
area of Calasiao.” Again, findings of the [HLURB] staff negate the
allegations as the same is within a designated Business/Commercial Zone
per the Zoning Ordinance.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The assailed resolution of
the Court of the Appeals is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Respondent
Municipality of Calasiao is hereby directed to cease and desist from enforcing
Resolution No. 50 against petitioner insofar as it seeks to close down or
transfer her gasoline station to another location.