Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 83 views

    Asilo v. Bombasi Report

    Uploaded by

    G Ant Mgd
    Mayor Comendador and Municipal Administrator Asilo were found guilty of violating section 3(e) of RA 3019 for the demolition of Visitacion's store in the public market. The elements of the offense were met as the defendants were public officials who caused undue injury to Visitacion by demolishing the store despite lacking legal authority, and acted with evident bad faith. The market stall was not legally considered a public nuisance. Additionally, the municipality was estopped from claiming the store's illegality as it had granted yearly permits for the store's operation for many years.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Asilo v. Bombasi Report

    Uploaded by

    G Ant Mgd
    83 views3 pages
    Mayor Comendador and Municipal Administrator Asilo were found guilty of violating section 3(e) of RA 3019 for the demolition of Visitacion's store in the public market. The elements of the offense were met as the defendants were public officials who caused undue injury to Visitacion by demolishing the store despite lacking legal authority, and acted with evident bad faith. The market stall was not legally considered a public nuisance. Additionally, the municipality was estopped from claiming the store's illegality as it had granted yearly permits for the store's operation for many years.

    Original Description:

    dfd

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Mayor Comendador and Municipal Administrator Asilo were found guilty of violating section 3(e) of RA 3019 for the demolition of Visitacion's store in the public market. The elements of the offense were met as the defendants were public officials who caused undue injury to Visitacion by demolishing the store despite lacking legal authority, and acted with evident bad faith. The market stall was not legally considered a public nuisance. Additionally, the municipality was estopped from claiming the store's illegality as it had granted yearly permits for the store's operation for many years.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    83 views3 pages

    Asilo v. Bombasi Report

    Uploaded by

    G Ant Mgd
    Mayor Comendador and Municipal Administrator Asilo were found guilty of violating section 3(e) of RA 3019 for the demolition of Visitacion's store in the public market. The elements of the offense were met as the defendants were public officials who caused undue injury to Visitacion by demolishing the store despite lacking legal authority, and acted with evident bad faith. The market stall was not legally considered a public nuisance. Additionally, the municipality was estopped from claiming the store's illegality as it had granted yearly permits for the store's operation for many years.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Asilo v. Bombasi issued by Asst.

    Provincial Prosecutor
    Marianito Sasondoncillo of Laguna.
    Article 1431 of the New Civil Code provides
    that, through estoppel, an admission or Visitacion wrote a reply letter to
    representation is rendered conclusive upon the Mayor Comendador saying that:
    person making it, and cannot be denied or
    disproved as against the person relying (1) the lease contract was still existing
    thereon and legally binding;

    On 15 March 1978, Private Respondent (2) she was willing to vacate the store as
    Visitacions late mother Marciana Vda. De long as same place and area would be
    Coronado (Vda. De Coronado) and the given to her in the new public
    Municipality of Nagcarlan, Laguna market; and
    (represented by the then Municipal Mayor
    Crisostomo P. Manalang) entered into a lease (3) in case her proposals are not acceptable
    contract whereby the Municipality allowed to Mayor Comendador, for the latter to just file
    the use and enjoyment of property an unlawful detainer case against her
    comprising of a lot and a store located at pursuant to Sangguniang Bayan Resolution
    the corner of Coronado and E. Fernandez Sts. No. 156.
    at Poblacion, Nagcarlan, Laguna, in favor of
    the respondents mother for a period of twenty Once again, the Respondent Visitacion was
    (20) years beginning on 15 March 1978 until sent a letter by the Asst. Provincial Prosecutor
    15 March 1998, extendible for another 20 ordering her to vacate the portion of the public
    years.; market she was occupying. In connection to
    this, the Sangguniang Bayan of Nagcarlan
    Visitacion took over the store when her issued Resolution No. 183 authorizing
    mother died sometime in 1984. From then
    9 Mayor Comendador to demolish the store
    on up to January 1993, Visitacion being occupied by Visitacion using legal
    secured the yearly Mayors permits. means.

    A fire occurred in the market of Nagcarlan and The PetitionerMunicipal Administrator


    upon the finding of the District Engineer Asilo sent another letter to Visitacion
    Gorospe the said building of Visitacion stood informing her of the impending demolition of
    strong and remained intact. This finding of her store the next day.
    Engineer Gorospe was contested by the
    Municipality of Nagcarlan. Visitacion wrote a reply letter17 to Asilo,
    alleging the following:
    On 1 September 1993, Visitacion received a
    letter12 from Mayor Comendador directing her a. that there is no legal right to
    to demolish her store within five (5) days from demolish the store in the absence of
    notice. Attached to the letter were copies a court order; and
    of Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 156
    dated 30 August 1993 and a Memorandum
    b. that the Resolutions did not sanction (e)Causing any undue injury to any party,
    the demolition of her store but only including the Government, or giving any
    the filing of an appropriate private party any unwarranted benefits,
    unlawful detainer case against advantage or preference in the discharge of his
    her. official, administrative or judicial
    functions through manifest partiality,
    evident bad faith or gross inexcusable
    On 15 October 1993, Mayor Comendador negligence. This provision shall apply to
    relying on the strength of Sangguniang officers and employees of offices or government
    Bayan Resolution Nos. 183 and 156 authorized corporations charged with the grant of
    the demolition of the store with Asilo and licenses or permits or other concessions.
    Angeles supervising the work.
    The elements of the offense are as follows:
    In relation to this the Spouses Bombasi filed (1) that the accused are public officers or
    with the RTC a civil case for damages with private persons charged in conspiracy with
    preliminary injunction against the them;
    Municipality of Nagcarlan Laguna, Mayor (2) that said public officers commit the
    Comenador, Asilo and Angeles. Also, they filed prohibited acts during the performance of
    a criminal complaint against Mayor their official duties or in relation to their
    Comenador, Asilo, Angeles for the violation public positions;
    of RA 3019 Section 3 (e) (3) that they caused undue injury to any party,
    whether the Government or a private party;
    (4) OR that such injury is caused by giving
    Issue:
    unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference
    to the other party; and
    WON Mayor Comenador and Asilo are liable
    (5) that the public officers have acted with
    for the violation of RA 3019 Section 3(e)
    manifest partiality, evident bad
    faith or gross inexcusable negligence
    Held:
    All the elements are present in the case at bar.
    Mayor Comenador and Petitioner Asilo are
    found guilty of violation of RA 3019 Section 3 It is proven that the defendants acted in
    (e) evident bad faith when they proceeded with
    the demolition.
    Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019
    provides: First
    In addition to acts or omissions of public The market stall is not a public nuisance as
    officers already penalized by existing law, the found out by the Court. The finding was
    following shall constitute corrupt practices of certified by Supervising Civil Engineer
    any public officer and are hereby declared to Wilfredo A. Sambrano of the Laguna District
    be unlawful: Engineer Office.
    xxxx
    Second
    The accused public officials were devoid of Art. 1431 of the New Civil Code provides that,
    power to demolish the store. A closer look at through estoppel, an admission or
    the contested resolutions reveals that Mayor representation is rendered conclusive upon the
    Comendador was only authorized to file an person making it, and cannot be denied or
    unlawful detainer case in case of resistance to disproved as against the person relying
    obey the order or to demolish the building thereon.
    using legal means.
    The representation made by the
    Third municipality that the Spouses Bombasi had
    the right to continuously operate its store
    The Municipality of Nagcarlan, Laguna, as binds the municipality. It is utterly unjust for
    represented by the then Mayor Comendador, the Municipality to receive the benefits of the
    was placed in estoppel after it granted yearly store operation and later on claim the
    business permits45 in favor of the Spouses illegality of the business.
    Bombasi.

    You might also like