PHILIPPINE SUPREME
COURT
DECISIONS
FIRST DIVISION
THE ILOILO CITY
ZONING
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS
AND THE CITY
GOVERNMENT
OF ILOILO, REPRESENTED BY HON.
CITY MAYOR JERRY
P. TREÑAS,
Petitioners,
G.R.
No.
157118
December 8, 2003
-versus-
GEGATO-ABECIA
FUNERAL
HOMES, INC.,REPRESENTED BY ITS
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT,
DANIEL FAJARDO,
Respondent.
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
D E C I S I O N
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
This is a petition
for review under Rule 45 of the Rules
of Court assailing the December 19, 2002 Order[1]
of the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 29 in Civil Case No.
02-27308 which granted the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the
City Government of Iloilo to issue a permit to operate a funeral
establishment
in favor of respondent Gegato-Abecia Funeral Homes, Inc. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The undisputed facts
show that on May 2, 2001, the City Council of Iloilo enacted Zoning
Ordinance
No. 2001-072[2]
which was duly ratified by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
(HLURB).
Section 41 (3)(d) of said ordinance provides, among others, for a
prohibition
to operate a funeral establishment at a minimum radial distance of at
least
25 meters from restaurants, food centers and other food establishments,
thus: chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Section 41
3(d). Funeral Establishments shall be at a minimum radial
distance
from the following:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
d.1
restaurants,
food center and other food establishments — at least 25 meters.
d.2 markets — at
least
50 meters.
d.3 abattoirs,
schools
and hospitals — at least 200 meters.[3]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Under the same
ordinance,
funeral establishments are classified and allowed to operate in certain
areas, as follows:[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
a) Funeral
Establishments shall be classified as x x x:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
a.1.
Category
I — funeral establishments with chapels, embalming facilities and
offering
funeral services.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Category II —
funeral
establishments with chapels and offering funeral services without
embalming
facilities; andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Category III —
funeral
establishments offering only funeral services from house of the
deceased
to the burial place.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
b) Funeral
establishments
shall be allowed in the following zones:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Category
I
— C2 or an area within the city with quasi-trade business activities
and
services performing complementary/supplementary functions to
principally
commercial zone.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Category II — C1
or
an area within the city principally for trade, services and business
activities
ordinarily referred to as Central Business District; C-2; and
Institutional
Zone.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Category III —
C1; C2;
and Institutional Zone.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On June 17, 2002,
respondent
applied with the City Zoning Board of Adjustments and Appeals (CZBAA)
of
Iloilo for the issuance of a permit to operate a funeral establishment
on a 4-storey building located between a restaurant[5]
and a bakery in the commercial zone of Iloilo City, classified as C2.
Invoking
Section 46 of the zoning ordinance which gives the CZBAA the discretion
to grant exceptions from the provisions thereof,[6]
respondent contended that since its business is classified under
Category
II, i.e., without embalming facilities, it should be excepted from the
prohibition to operate a funeral establishment at a radial distance of
less than 25 meters from food establishments. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In Resolution No. 7,
dated June 25, 2002, the CZBAA of Iloilo denied respondent's
application.
Pertinent portion thereof reads:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREAS,
SECTION
47 sets the procedures for Granting of Exceptions and Variances, which
is the specific issue raised by the applicant;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREAS, the board
took
cognizance of existing HLURB Regulations, CLUP presentations on
Flood-Prone
Areas, the role of the Iloilo City Zoning Board of Adjustment and
Appeals
being a creation and implementor of the aforementioned ordinance;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREAS, the said
ordinance
provides that Section 41.3(d) "Funeral establishments shall be at
minimum
radial distance from the following:chanrobles virtual law library
d.1. restaurants —
at
least 25 meters x x x" and shall conform with existing laws,
rules
and regulations, affecting the same;
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
NOW, THEREFORE,
premises
considered and on motion of Atty. Saturnino B. Gonzales, Jr., duly
seconded
by Mr. Florendo Besana and Atty. Mary Milagros A. Hechanova, resolve as
it is hereby resolved to DENY the appeal of GEGATO-ABECIA Funeral
Homes,
Inc. for exception and for issuance of a Mayor's Permit to operate a
funeral
parlor at Brgy. Quintin Salas, Jaro, Iloilo City.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Unanimously
APPROVED.[7]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Consequently,
respondent
filed a petition for mandamus[8]
with the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 29 to compel the
CZBAA
of Iloilo to grant its prayer for exception and to issue the
corresponding
permit to operate a funeral establishment under Category II. Respondent
claimed that Zoning Ordinance No. 2001-072 is unconstitutional insofar
as it prohibits the operation of funeral establishments without
embalming
facilities (Category II) within a radial distance of less than 25
meters
from food establishments; and assuming that the ordinance is valid, the
CZBAA gravely abused its discretion in outrightly denying the
application.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In its Answer,[9]
the CZBAA of Iloilo averred that respondent violated the rule on
exhaustion
of administrative remedies as it failed to appeal the decision to the
HLURB
as mandated by Section 56(C) of Zoning Ordinance No. 2001-072. It
further
averred that the exception prayed for cannot be granted because the 25
meter radial distance rule which was in fact copied from the Internal
Rules
and Regulations of the HLURB on applications for funeral establishments,[10]
applies to all categories of funeral establishments, including those
without
embalming facilities.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On December 19, 2002,
the trial court rendered a decision in favor of respondent. It did not
pass upon the constitutionality of the zoning ordinance but
nevertheless
ruled that the CZBAA of Iloilo gravely abused its discretion in denying
the application without giving respondent an opportunity to prove that
its application is meritorious. The court a quo further held that
respondent's
resort to judicial remedy is correct because under the Local Government
Code, the power to act on pending applications for locational clearance
is now vested with local government units and no longer with the HLURB
per resolution of the latter dated July 19, 2002. It thus proceeded to
assess the merits of respondent's appeal for exception and thereafter
issued
the writ of mandamus prayed for. The dispositive portion of the
assailed
order, states:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, and finding the prayer for Mandamus to be
impressed
with merit, a Writ of Mandamus is hereby issued against the respondents
directing them to grant the appeal for exception and to issue the
corresponding
Mayor's Permit for the Gegato-Abecia Funeral Homes, Inc. to operate a
funeral
establishment under Category II of the City Zoning Ordinance in the
building
standing on the property of petitioner along the Highway of Barangay
Quintin
Salas, Jaro, Iloilo City. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.[11]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A motion for
reconsideration
thereof was denied on February 12, 2003.[12]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Hence, petitioners filed
the instant petition based on the following legal issues: (1) whether
or
not respondent violated the rule on exhaustion of administrative
remedies;
and (2) whether or not the trial court erred in issuing a writ of
mandamus
directing the CZBAA of Iloilo to issue a permit to operate a funeral
establishment.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The settled rule is
that before a party is allowed to seek the intervention of the court,
it
is a pre-condition that he should have availed of all the means of
administrative
processes afforded him. Hence, if a remedy within the administrative
machinery
can still be resorted to by giving the administrative officer concerned
every opportunity to decide on a matter that comes within his
jurisdiction,
then such remedy should be exhausted first before the court's judicial
power can be sought. The premature invocation of the court's
intervention
is fatal to one's cause of action. Accordingly, absent any finding of
waiver
or estoppel, the case is susceptible of dismissal for failure to state
a cause of action. This doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies
is not without practical and legal reasons, for one thing, availment of
administrative remedy entails lesser expenses and provides for a
speedier
disposition of controversies. It is no less true to state that courts
of
justice for reasons of comity and convenience will shy away from a
dispute
until the system of administrative redress has been completed and
complied
with so as to give the administrative agency concerned every
opportunity
to correct its error and to dispose of the case.[13]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In Systems Plus
Computer
College of Caloocan City v. Local Government of Caloocan City,[14]
the Court affirmed the dismissal of a petition for mandamus to compel
the
City of Caloocan to classify certain parcels of land as actually,
directly
and exclusively used for educational purposes and to grant the
corresponding
tax exemption. It ruled that petitioner cannot in the guise of raising
pure question of law, seek judicial intervention without exhausting the
available administrative remedies, thus —chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Petitioner
also argues that it is seeking to enforce, through the petition for
mandamus,
a clear legal right under the Constitution and the pertinent provisions
of the Local Government Code granting tax exemption on properties
actually,
directly and exclusively used for educational purposes. But petitioner
is taking an unwarranted shortcut. The argument gratuitously presumes
the
existence of the fact which it must first prove by competent and
sufficient
evidence before the City Assessor. It must be stressed that the
authority
to receive evidence, as basis for classification of properties for
taxation,
is legally vested on the respondent City Assessor whose action is
appealable
to the Local Board of Assessment Appeals and the Central Board of
Assessment
Appeals, if necessary.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The petitioner
cannot
bypass the authority of the concerned administrative agencies and
directly
seek redress from the courts even on the pretext of raising a
supposedly
pure question of law without violating the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative
remedies. Hence, when the law provides for remedies against the action
of an administrative board, body, or officer, as in the case at bar,
relief
to the courts can be made only after exhausting all remedies provided
therein.
Otherwise stated, before seeking the intervention of the courts, it is
a precondition that petitioner should first avail of all the means
afforded
by the administrative processes.[15]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the case at bar,
respondent failed to exhaust the available administrative remedies
before
seeking judicial intervention via a petition for mandamus. Section 55C
of Zoning Ordinance No. 2001-072, which was duly reviewed and ratified
by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board, categorically provides
that
"decisions of the Local Zoning Board of Adjustment and Appeals shall be
appealable to the HLURB." chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Under Section 5 of Executive
Order No. 648, series of 1981,[16]
the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission (HSRC) later renamed as
Housing
and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), pursuant to Section 1 (c) of
Executive
Order No. 90, series of 1986,[17]
has the power to:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
a)
Promulgate
zoning and other land use control standards and guidelines which shall
govern land use plans and zoning ordinances of local governments;
x x x
b) Review,
evaluate
and approve or disapprove comprehensive land use development plans and
zoning ordinances of local government[s]; x x x
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
f) Act as the
appellate
body on decisions and actions of local and regional planning and zoning
bodies and of the deputized officials of the Commission, on matters
arising
from the performance of these functions.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On March 23, 1993, then
President Fidel V. Ramos issued Executive Order No. 71 devolving the
power
of the HLURB to approve subdivision plans to cities and municipalities
pursuant to the Local Government Code. Section 1 thereof reads:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SECTION 1. Cities and
municipalities shall heretofore assume the powers of the Housing and
Land
Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) over the following:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(a)
Approval
of preliminary as well as final subdivision schemes and development
plans
of all subdivisions, residential, commercial, industrial and for other
purposes of the public and private sectors, in accordance with the
provisions
of P.D. No. 957 as amended and its implementing standards, rules and
regulations
concerning approval of subdivision plans;[18]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(b) Approval of
preliminary
and final subdivision schemes and development plans of all economic and
socialized housing projects as well as individual or group building and
occupancy permits covered by BP 220 and its implementing standards,
rules
and regulations;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
c) Evaluation and
resolution
of opposition against the issuance of development permits for any of
the
said projects, in accordance with the said laws and the Rules of
Procedure
promulgated by the HLURB incident thereto;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
d) Monitoring the
nature
and progress of land development projects it has approved, as well as
housing
construction in the case of house and lot packages, to ensure their
faithfulness
to the approved plans and specifications thereof, and, imposition of
appropriate
measures to enforce compliance therewith;
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the exercise of
such responsibilities, the city or municipality concerned shall be
guided
by the work program approved by the Board upon evaluation of the
developer's
financial, technical and administrative capabilities; chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Moreover, the city
or
municipality concerned may call on the Board for assistance in the
imposition
of administrative sanctions and the Department of Justice (DOJ) in the
institution of the criminal proceedings against violators;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(e) Assessment and
collection
of fees incident to the foregoing.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Section 2 of E.O. No.
71, however, specifically states that "the HLURB shall retain such
powers
and functions not otherwise expressly provided herein or under existing
laws." One of such powers not expressly withdrawn by E.O. No. 71 is the
power of the HLURB to act as an appellate body to which decisions and
actions
of local and regional planning and zoning bodies may be brought
(Section
5(f) of Executive Order No. 648). Expressio unius est exclussio
alterius.
The express mention of one person, thing or consequence implies the
exclusion
of all others. Inasmuch as Section 1 of E.O. No. 71 does not include
the
appellate jurisdiction of the HLURB over decisions of local government
units, it follows that said power was retained by it and not among
those
devolved to local government units. In fact, Section 4 of E.O. No. 71
affirms
the power of the HLURB to review actions of local government units on
the
issuance of permits —
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SEC. 4. If
in the course of evaluation of application for registration and
licensing
of projects within its jurisdiction, HLURB finds that a local
government
unit has overlooked or mistakenly applied a certain law, rule or
standard
in issuing a development permit, it shall suspend action with a
corresponding
advice to the local government concerned, so as to afford it an
opportunity
to take appropriate action thereon. Such return and advice must
likewise
be effected within a period of thirty (30) days from receipt by HLURB
of
the application.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Moreover, Executive
Order No. 72, series of 1993 (Providing for the Preparation and
Implementation
of the Comprehensive Land Use Plans of Local Government Units Pursuant
to the Local Government Code of 1991 and other Pertinent Laws), gives
the
HLURB the power to review and ratify land use plans of highly urbanized
cities, like Iloilo City,[19]
viz —chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SEC.
2.
x x x
(e) Pursuant to
LOI
729, S. of 1978, E.O. 648 S. of 1981, and RA No. 7279, the
comprehensive
land use plans of provinces, highly-urbanized cities and independent
component
cities shall be reviewed and ratified by the HLURB to ensure compliance
with national standards and guidelines.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondent cannot rely
on the July 19, 2002 Order of the HLURB which declined to assume
jurisdiction
over respondent's application for a locational clearance to operate a
funeral
home. It appears from the record that respondent filed his application
for the issuance of a permit with the HLURB before it filed a similar
application
with the CZBAA of Iloilo. In indorsing the application to the latter,
the
HLURB ratiocinated as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Considering
that Iloilo City has already updated its Comprehensive Land Use Plan
and
the same was approved and ratified by the Board on March 14, 2001,
authority
to issue Locational Clearance is now vested in the city government
pursuant
to Executive Order No. 71, Series of 1986, implementing Section 20 and
other related provisions of the Local Government Code of 1991. In view
thereof, the Board is divested of the power to act on pending
applications
therefore.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, let the
records of this case be indorsed to the Zoning Administrator of the
City
or the body/official performing the equivalent function for its proper
disposition.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.[20]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We note that the
HLURB's
refusal to act on the application was not based on the absence of
appellate
jurisdiction, but on lack of authority to issue locational clearances.
The HLURB correctly indorsed the application to the zoning
administrator
of the city because the power to issue permits and locational
clearances
for locally significant projects is now lodged with the
city/municipality
with a comprehensive land use plan. This is in accordance with
Executive
Order No. 72, which was issued to delineate the powers and
responsibilities
of local government units and the HLURB in the preparation and
implementation
of comprehensive land use plans under a decentralized framework of
local
governance.[21]Section 3 of Executive Order No. 72, provides:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Sec. 3.
Plan
implementation. — (a) The authority of the HLURB to issue locational
clearance
for locally significant projects is hereby devolved to cities and
municipalities
with comprehensive land use plans reviewed and approved in accordance
with
this Order. Such cities and municipalities shall likewise be
responsible
for the institution of other actions in the enforcement of the
provisions
thereof. For this purpose, they may call on the HLURB and such other
NGAs
for any legal and technical assistance.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The power of the HLURB
to issue locational clearance is now limited to projects considered to
be of vital and national or regional economic or environmental
significance.
Second paragraph of Section 3 of Executive Order No. 72, further states
that:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Based on
established
national standards and priorities, the HLURB shall continue to issue
locational
clearances for projects considered to be of vital and national or
regional
economic or environmental significance. Unless otherwise declared by
the
NEDA Board, all projects shall be presumed locally significant.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Clearly therefore,
what were devolved to local government units were only the powers and
responsibilities
specifically stated in Section 1 of E.O. No. 71, as well the authority
of the HLURB to issue locational clearance for locally significant
projects
as provided in Section 3 of E.O. No. 72. The power to act as appellate
body over decisions and actions of local and regional planning and
zoning
bodies and deputized official of the board was retained by the HLURB
and
remained unaffected by the devolution under the Local Government Code.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Moreover, the fact
that the Rules of Procedure of the HLURB[22]
does not categorically provide for a procedure on the remedy of appeal
from decisions of local government units will not operate to divest the
HLURB of the appellate jurisdiction specifically granted to it by law.
It must be stressed that no rule or regulation may alter, amend, or
contravene
a provision of law. Implementing rules should conform, not clash, with
the law that they implement.[23]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Indeed, it would be
in consonance with orderly procedure to provide an administrative
sifting
process of matters peculiarly within the competence of administrative
agencies.
Being the agency mandated to adopt standards and guidelines for land
use
plans and zoning ordinances of local government units, the HLURB is
presumed
to have the necessary knowledge and expertise on matters specifically
patterned
after its rules and is therefore in a better position to pass judgment
thereon. Moreover, such administrative process would not only save the
parties the expenses and tedious litigation but will also prevent
clogging
of dockets in court.[24]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Considering that the
law provides for an administrative remedy of appeal to the HLURB from
decisions
of the CZBAA of Iloilo, and that respondent failed to exhaust the same,
the petition for mandamus should have been dismissed by the trial
court.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Furthermore, the issuance
of a permit to operate a funeral establishment and the grant of
exception
from the zoning ordinances is a discretionary act of the CZBAA of
Iloilo.
Well-settled is the rule that mandamus may not be availed of to direct
the exercise of judgment or discretion in a particular way, or to
retract
or reverse an action already taken in the exercise of either.[25]
In the present case, the trial court cannot substitute its judgment for
that of the CZBAA of Iloilo by directing the latter to issue a permit
to
operate a funeral establishment in favor of respondent. All that the
court
can do is to see to it that the licensing authorities have proceeded
according
to law. Where an administrative body simply refuses to take any action
whatsoever, the court may issue a writ of mandamus to compel it to take
some action, but should not attempt to prescribe the action to be taken
and thereby control the discretion or judgment of the board or officer.[26]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, in view of
all the foregoing, the petition is GRANTED. The December 19, 2002 Order
of the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 29, which granted
the
issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the City Government of Iloilo
to issue a permit to operate a funeral establishment in favor of
respondent
is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The petition for mandamus filed by
respondent
in Civil Case No. 02-27308 is ordered DISMISSED. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
Panganiban, Carpio and Azcuna, JJ., concur.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
____________________________
Endnotes:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
[1]
Issued by Judge Rene B. Hondrado; Rollo, p. 50. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
An Ordinance Establishing a Revised Comprehensive Zoning Regulation for
the City of Iloilo, and Providing for the Administration, Enforcement
and
Amendment Thereof, and for the Repeal of All Ordinances in Conflict
Therewith.
(Rollo, p. 67)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Rollo, p. 94.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Ordinance No. 2001-072, Section 41 (3) Special Permit Uses (Rollo, pp.
93–94), in relation to Article III, Definition of Terms (Rollo, p. 73).
[5]
Alleged to be non-functional.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Section 46. Deviation. — The City Zoning Board of Adjustment and
appeals
(CZBAA) may allow exceptions, variances or deviations from the
provisions
of this Ordinance only when the following terms and conditions exist:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x x
x
x x
x
x x x
Exceptionschanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The
exception will not adversely affect the public health, safety and
welfare
and is in keeping with the general pattern of development in the
community.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The
proposed project shall support economic based activities/provide
livelihood,
vital community services and facilities while at the same time posing
no
adverse effect on the zone/community.
The
exception will not adversely affect the appropriate use of adjoining
property
in the same district.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The
exception will not alter the essential character in (sic) general
purpose
of the district where the exception sought is located. (Rollo, pp.
96–97)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Rollo,
p. 103.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Rollo, p. 235.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Rollo, p. 252.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Rule III, Design Standard and Requirements, Section 4 (A1.3).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Rollo, p. 53.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
Rollo, p. 54.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Paat v. Court of Appeals, 334 Phil. 146, 152–153 (1997).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
G.R. No, 146382, 7 August 2003, citing Lopez v. City of Manila, 363
Phil.
68 (1999); Zabat v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122089, 23 August 2000,
338 SCRA 551, 560.
[15]
Id.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
Took effect on February 7, 1981 (See United Housing Corporation v.
Dayrit,
G.R. No. 76422, 22 January 1990, 181 SCRA 285, 291).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
Realty Exchange Venture Corporation v. Sendino, G.R. No. 109703, 5 July
1994, 233 SCRA 665, 672.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
See Section 468 of the Local Government Code; Powers, Duties, Functions
x x x of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(2)vii.
Review the comprehensive land use plans and zoning ordinances of
component
cities and municipalities and adopt a comprehensive provincial land use
plans, subject to existing laws;
[19]
In Executive Judge Astorga v. Solas, 413 Phil. 558, 562 (2001), the
Court
took judicial notice that Iloilo City is a highly urbanized city.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
Rollo, p. 189.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
Sixth whereas clause of Executive Order No. 72.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
1996 Rules of Procedure of the HLURB as amended by Board Commissioners
Resolution No. R-655, Series of 1999.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
Bank of the Philippine Island v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 102383, 26
November 1992, 216 SCRA 51, 64; citing Shell Philippines, Inc. v.
Central
Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. L-51353, 27 June 1988, 162 SCRA 628.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[24]
Martin and Martin, Administrative Law, Law of Public Officers and
Election
Law, 1983 Edition, p. 52.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[25]
Angchangco, Jr. v. Hon. Ombudsman, 335 Phil. 766, 771–772 (1997),
citing
Martin, Rules of Court in the Philippines, Vol. III, 4th Edition, p.
233.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[26]
Policarpio v. Philippine Veterans Board; 99 Phil. 797, 799 (1956).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Back
to Top - Back
to Main Index - Back
to Table of Contents -2003 SC Decisions
- Back
to Home
|