Bad faith

A nuisance is any act, omission, establishment, condition of property or anything else which injures or endangers health or safety of others, or annoys or offends the senses, or shocks, defies or disregards decency or morality or obstructs or interferes the free passage of any public highway or street or any body of water, or hinders or impairs the use of property (Art. 694 Civil Code).

Nuisance may either be public or private. Public nuisance affects a community or neighborhood or any considerable number of persons; otherwise, it is a private nuisance (Art. 695). A public nuisance may be abated without judicial proceedings (Art. 699). This is the rule which the Mayor of a Municipality (Mayor Domeng) and his Administrator Lino tried to use in their case.

The case involved a lot and a store erected thereon located at a street corner which was part of the municipal public market leased to Marcia by the municipality for 20 years beginning 15 March 1978 up to 15 March 1998 extendible for another 20 years. The lease contract allowed Marcia to build a firewall as high as the store and in case of modification of the public market, she or her heirs would be given preferential rights.

When Marcia died in 1984, her daughter, Virginia took over the operation of the store. Sometime in 1986 however, a fire razed the public market. Upon request for inspection by Virginia, the District Engineer of the DPWH found that the store has not been affected by the fire and the concrete firewalls did not even show signs of being exposed to fire. So Virginia continued to operate the store, securing the required annual Mayor’s permit for this purpose.

But in September 1993, Virginia received a letter from Mayor Domeng directing her to demolish her store within five days attaching thereto a Sangguniang Bayan Resolution and a memo issued by the Asst. Provincial Prosecutor authorizing Mayor Domeng to enforce and order Virginia to demolish the building on the space rented to them and to file a case for Unlawful Detainer if Virginia continuously resist the order.

In reply Virginia wrote the Mayor saying that the lease contract was still existing and legally binding; that she was willing to vacate the store as long as the same place and area would be given to her in the new public market; and if not then the Mayor should just file the unlawful detainer case against her.

Mayor Domeng however still authorized the demolition on the strength of the Sangguniang Bayan Resolution authorizing him to do so, using legal means. So the store with an estimated cost of P437,900 was demolished with Lino and Alex, the town’s planning and development coordinator supervising the work.

As a result, Virginia and her husband filed, among others, a criminal complaint against Mayor Domeng, Lino and Alex for violation of Section 3 (e) of the Anti-Graft Law for causing undue injury to them amounting to P437,900 without legal or justifiable ground.

During the pendency of the case, Alex died so the case against him was dismissed. Mayor Domeng and Lino on the other hand, contended that they are not liable because they did not commit bad faith in performing the demolition since Virginia’s structure is a public nuisance and could therefore be abated without any judicial proceeding. In fact, the Sangguniang Bayan authorized them to do so. Were they correct?

No. The abatement of a public nuisance without judicial proceedings is possible if it is a nuisance per se. Nuisance per se is a nuisance at all times and under all circumstance, regardless of location and surroundings. In this case, the market stall cannot be considered as a nuisance per se because as found by the District Engineer of the DPWH the building had not been affected by the 1986 fire.

Even assuming that the power to abate nuisance is provided for by the Local Government Code, Mayor Domeng and Lino were still devoid of any power to demolish the store. The Sanggunian Bayan Resolutions only authorized them to file an unlawful detainer case if Virginia resisted in obeying the order to demolish the building by using legal means. Clearly the act of demolition without a legal order in this case was not among those contemplated by the resolutions.

Thus it is quite evident that the accused public officials in this case committed bad faith in performing the demolition. Evident bad faith connotes not only bad judgment but also palpably and patently fraudulent and dishonest purpose to do moral obliquity or conscious wrongdoing for some perverse motive or ill will (Asilo Jr. vs. People et. al., G.R. 159017, March 9, 2011, 645 SCRA, 41).

For more articles, visit our website at www.ipaglabanmo.com Books containing compilation of articles on Criminal Law (Vols I and II and Labor law are available at 403 Sunrise Condominium, Ortigas Ave. Greenhills, San Juan, tel. no. 7249445. Our email address is [email protected].