Cruz v. PHC

CRUZ V. PANDACAN HIKERS CLUB, INC.
GR No. 188213
January 11, 2016
FACTS:
Herein petitioner, Natividad Cruz, was the Punong Barangay or Chairperson of Barangay
848, Zone 2, City of Manila. In one occasion, she approached person playing basketball in the basketball
court, saying:
Bakit nakabukas ang (basketball) court? Wala kayong karapatang maglaro sa court
na 'to, barangay namin ito! xxx xxx xxx Wala kayong magagawa. Ako ang chairman
dito. Mga walanghiya kayo, patay gutom! Hindi ako natatakot! Kaya kong panagutan
lahat!
She gave an order to the other petitioner, Barangay Tanod Benjamin dela Cruz, to destroy the basketball
ring by cutting it up with a hacksaw which Dela Cruz promptly complied with. The acts of petitioners
prompted the filing of a Complaint (for Malicious Mischief, Grave Misconduct, Conduct Prejudicial to the
Best Interest of the Service and Abuse of Authority) before the Prosecutor's Office and the Office of the
Ombudsman by the group that claims to be the basketball court's owners, herein respondents Pandacan
Hiker's Club, Inc. and its president Priscila Ilao.
Cruz alleged that the basketball court affected the peace in the barangay and was the subject of many
complaints from residents asking for its closure. She alleged that the playing court blocked jeepneys from
passing through and was the site of rampant bettings and fights involving persons from within and outside
the barangays. She claimed that innocent persons have been hurt and property had been damaged by
such armed confrontations, which often involved the throwing of rocks and improvised molotov bombs.
She also averred that noise from the games caused lack of sleep among some residents and that the
place's frequent visitors used the community's fences as places to urinate.
The Office of the Ombudsman dismissed the complaint filed by Ilao, et al. finding that the act of
destroying the basketball ring was only motivated by Cruz and Dela Cruz performing their sworn duty, as
defined in the Local Government Code. It found the act to be a mere response to the clamor of
constituents. The office found that though the cutting of the ring was drastic, it was done by the
barangay officials within their lawful duties, as the act was only the result of the unauthorized removal of
and failure to return the steel bar and padlock that were earlier placed thereon.
The appellate court reversed the Ombudsmans Decision stating that Cruz and Dela Cruz performed an
abatement of what they thought was a public nuisance but did the same without following the proper legal
procedure, thus making them liable for said acts. Moreover, it held Cruz to be without the power to
declare a thing a nuisance unless it is a nuisance per se. It declared the subject basketball ring as not
such a nuisance and, thus, not subject to summary abatement. The court added that even if the same
was to be considered a nuisance per accidens, the only way to establish it as such is after a hearing
conducted for that purpose. Thus, this petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not there is a nuisance which the Barangay Chairperson may summarily abate.
HELD: There is a nuisance when there is any act, omission, establishment, business, condition of
property, or anything else which: (1) injures or endangers the health or safety of others; or (2) annoys or
offends the senses; or (3) shocks, defies or disregards decency or morality; or (4) obstructs or interferes
with the free passage of any public highway or street, or any body of water; or (5) hinders or impairs the
use of property. But other than the statutory definition, jurisprudence recognizes that the term nuisance
is so comprehensive that it has been applied to almost all ways which have interfered with the rights of
the citizens, either in person, property, the enjoyment of his property, or his comfort.
A nuisance is classified in two ways: (1) according to the object it affects; or (2) according to its
susceptibility to summary abatement. As for a nuisance classified according to the object or objects that it
affects, a nuisance may either be: (a) a public nuisance, i.e., one which affects a community or
neighborhood or any considerable number of persons, although the extent of the annoyance, danger or
damage upon individuals may be unequal; or (b) a private nuisance, or one that is not included in the
foregoing definition which, in jurisprudence, is one which violates only private rights and produces
damages to but one or a few persons.
A nuisance may also be classified as to whether it is susceptible to a legal summary abatement, in which
case, it may either be: (a) a nuisance per se, when it affects the immediate safety of persons and
property, which may be summarily abated under the undefined law of necessity; or, (b) a nuisance per
accidens, which depends upon certain conditions and circumstances, and its existence being a question
of fact, it cannot be abated without due hearing thereon in a tribunal authorized to decide whether such a
thing does in law constitute a nuisance; it may only be so proven in a hearing conducted for that purpose
and
may
not
be
summarily
abated
without
judicial
intervention.
In the case at bar, none of the tribunals below made a factual finding that the basketball ring was a
nuisance per se that is susceptible to a summary abatement. And based on what appears in the records,
it can be held, at most, as a mere nuisance per accidens, for it does not pose an immediate effect upon
the safety of persons and property, the definition of a nuisance per se. Culling from examples cited in
jurisprudence, it is unlike a mad dog on the loose, which may be killed on sight because of the immediate
danger it poses to the safety and lives of the people; nor is it like pornographic materials, contaminated
meat and narcotic drugs which are inherently pernicious and which may be summarily destroyed; nor is it
similar to a filthy restaurant which may be summarily padlocked in the interest of the public health. A
basketball ring, by itself, poses no immediate harm or danger to anyone but is merely an object of
recreation. Neither is it, by its nature, injurious to rights of property, of health or of comfort of the
community and, thus, it may not be abated as a nuisance without the benefit of a judicial hearing. But
even if it is assumed, ex gratia argumenti, that the basketball ring was a nuisance per se, but without
posing any immediate harm or threat that required instantaneous action, the destruction or abatement
performed by petitioners failed to observe the proper procedure for such an action which puts the said act
into legal question.

Cruz v. PHC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cruz v. PHC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cruz v. PHC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CRUZ V. PANDACAN HIKERS CLUB, INC.

You might also like