Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

1. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS; LIABLE TO PAY DAMAGES TO PERSON PREJUDICED BY ACTS. — The municipality closed that part of a municipal street which ran between the public market and the plaintiff’s property. That plaintiff was economically damaged, the stipulation of facts admits; that the indemnity assessed is within the bounds of the damages suffered, there is no dispute. Defendant municipality contends however that it acted in the exercise of its police power, and that this being the case it is not liable for damages. Held: Under Section 2246 of the Revised Administrative Code, "no municipal road, street, etc., or any part thereof shall be closed without indemnifying any person prejudiced thereby." Defendant municipality is therefore liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur sentencing the municipality of Naga, now Naga City, to pay the plaintiff, now appellee, P300 damages resulting from the closing of a municipal street.

The complaint alleged two causes of action and the parties submitted in the court below an agreed statement of facts on both. As the second cause of action was dismissed and the plaintiff did not appeal, and as the stipulated facts are long and somewhat involved and many or most of them have become irrelevant to the issues formulated in this appeal, it will suffice to state for the purpose of these issues, that the defendant municipality by resolution ordered the closing of that part of a municipal street which ran between the public market and the plaintiff’s property, and used the closed thoroughfare to expand the market. "As a consequence of this resolution, and immediately after the passage of the same, — says the agreement — permanent, semi-permanent, as well as temporary constructions were allowed by the defendant municipality of Naga along the sidewalk of plaintiff’s property and abutting to said property, facing P. Prieto Street, and extending out in the middle of the same street, hence depriving the plaintiff’s property of access to said street, and consequently retarding her reconstructions." It was further stipulated "that if at all damages is to be awarded the plaintiff, the same should not exceed the sum of Three hundred pesos (P300)."cralaw virtua1aw library

The appellant is the municipality of or city of Naga and the burden of its contention is that "it acted and exercised its police power" "prompted to preserve the peace and good order of the community and promote the general welfare;" and this being the case, it believes that it is not liable for damages.

The appellant misses the point. The municipality or city of Naga was not charged with any unlawful act, or with acting without authority, or with invasion of plaintiff’s property rights; the basis of the lower court’s decision is Section 2246 of the Revised Administrative Code copied in appellant’s brief, which provides that no municipal road, street, etc. or any part thereof "shall be closed without indemnifying any person prejudiced thereby."cralaw virtua1aw library

The question then for determination by the court below was reduced to whether the plaintiff was prejudiced by defendant municipality’s action. That she was economically damaged, the stipulation of facts admits; and that the indemnity assessed is within the bounds of the damages suffered, there is no dispute. As a matter of fact, the damages awarded seem to be nominal judged by the description of the plaintiff’s interests adversely affected by the conversion of P. Prieto Street into a market.

The appeal is absolutely without merit, and the appealed decision will be affirmed, with costs against the Appellant.

Paras, C.J., Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Reyes, Jugo and Bautista Angelo, JJ., concur.