April 2016 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
G.R. No. 202618, April 12, 2016 - CONSULAR AREA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION, INC., REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT BENJAMIN V. ZABAT, ROMEO JUGADO, JR., AND NANCY QUINO, Petitioner, v. ARNEL PACIANO D. CASANOVA, ENGR. TOMAS Y. MACROHON, LOCAL HOUSING BOARD OF TAGUIG CITY, AND THE CITY GOVERNMENT OF TAGUIG, Respondents.
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 202618, April 12, 2016
CONSULAR AREA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION, INC., REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT BENJAMIN V. ZABAT, ROMEO JUGADO, JR., AND NANCY QUINO, Petitioner, v. ARNEL PACIANO D. CASANOVA, ENGR. TOMAS Y. MACROHON, LOCAL HOUSING BOARD OF TAGUIG CITY, AND THE CITY GOVERNMENT OF TAGUIG, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Before the Court is a petition1 denominated as one for "Prohibition with plea for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and Injunction" filed by petitioner Consular Area Residents Association, Inc., an association composed of residents of the Diplomatic and Consular Area of Fort Bonifacio, Taguig City, represented by its President Benjamin V. Zabat, Romeo Jugado, Jr., and Nancy Quino (petitioner), against respondents Arnel Paciano D. Casanova (Casanova), President and Chief Executive Officer of the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA), Engr. Tomas Macrohon2 (Engr. Macrohon), as well as the Local Housing Board of Taguig City, and the City Government of Taguig, seeking that the BCDA be enjoined from demolishing what it claims as the remaining structures in the Joint US Military Army Group (JUSMAG) Area in Fort Bonifacio, Taguig City.
In 1992, Congress enacted Republic Act No. (RA) 7227,3 otherwise known as the Bases Conversion and Development Act of 1992, which, inter alia, created the BCDA in order to "accelerate the sound and balanced conversion into alternative productive uses of the Clark and Subic military reservations and their extensions (i.e., John Hay Station, Wallace Air Station, O'Donnell Transmitter Station, San Miguel Naval Communications Station, and Capas Relay Station)" and "to raise funds by the sale of portions of Metro Manila military camps."4 For this purpose, the BCDA was authorized to own, hold, and administer portions of the Metro Manila military camps that may be transferred to it by the President.5 In this relation, Executive Order (EO) No. 40, Series of 19926 was issued, identifying Fort Bonifacio as one of the military camps earmarked for development and disposition to raise funds for BCDA projects.7
Located in Fort Bonifacio are the JUSMAG and Diplomatic and Consular Areas subject of this case.8 The JUSMAG Area is a 34.5-hectare area located along Lawton Avenue where military officers, both in the active and retired services, and their respective families, had occupied housing units and facilities originally constructed by the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP).9 Presently, it is being developed by Megaworld Corporation as the McKinley West.10 On the other hand, the Diplomatic and Consular Area was declared as alienable and disposable land by virtue of Proclamation No. 1725,11 signed on February 10, 2009. Its administrative jurisdiction, supervision, and control were transferred to the BCDA, which is likewise responsible for maintaining the usefulness of the area.12
On July 18, 2012, the Local Housing Board of Taguig City issued a Certificate of Compliance on Demolition13 declaring that the BCDA had complied with the requirement of "Just and Humane Demolition and Eviction," prescribed under Section 28 of RA 7279,14 otherwise known as the "Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992," for the demolition of structures within the JUSMAG Area. Consequently, respondent Casanova, as President and Chief Executive Officer of the BCDA, sent a Letter15 dated July 20, 2012, informing petitioner and its members that they should, within a seven (7)-day period ending on July 27, 2012, coordinate with BCDA officials should they choose to either accept the relocation package being offered to them, or voluntarily dismantle their structures and peacefully vacate the property.
Petitioner filed the present case to enjoin the demolition of their structures which they claimed are within the Diplomatic and Consular Area, and not the JUSMAG Area. They averred that the BCDA itself declared in its own website that the Diplomatic and Consular Area is not its property,16 and that its members are occupying the Diplomatic and Consular Area with the consent of the Republic of the Philippines given at the time of their assignments in the military service,17 and hence, cannot be demolished, especially in the absence of a court order.18 Furthermore, petitioner posited that Casanova had no authority to act for and in behalf of the BCDA considering his "highly anomalous and irregular" appointment as President thereof.19
In their Comment,20 respondents Casanova and Engr. Macrohon maintained that the clearing operations undertaken by the BCDA covered only the JUSMAG area, on which the structures possessed by petitioner's members are located.21 They also argued that under Section 28 (b) of RA 7279, eviction or demolition is allowed when government infrastructure projects with available funding are about to be implemented, even in the absence of a court order.22 Moreover, they maintained that respondent Casanova acted with authority as President and Chief Executive Officer of the BCDA, having been duly appointed by the President of the Philippines,23 and in any event, the instant case has already been rendered moot and academic because the act sought to be enjoined, i.e., the demolition of the remaining structures in the JUSMAG Area, was already completed on September 21, 2012.24
Respondents Local Housing Board of Taguig City and the City Government of Taguig likewise filed their own Comment,25 substantially adopting the contentions propounded by respondents Casanova and Engr. Macrohon. Separately, however, they contended that the instant petition should have been filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area, instead of the Supreme Court.26
The main issue in this case is whether or not the demolition should be enjoined.
The petition lacks merit.
The Court first resolves the preliminary concerns raised.
For one, respondents Local Housing Board of Taguig City and the City Government of Taguig seek the outright dismissal of the petition on the ground that it should have been filed before the RTC, and not before the Supreme Court. As basis, they cite Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, which provision applies to, among others, petitions for prohibition, viz.:
RULE 65
Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus
Section 4. When and where to file the petition.