LEONOR FARRALES, ASSISTED BY HER HUSBAND, EMILIO FARRALES, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, VS. THE CITY MAYOR OF BAGUIO, THE CHIEF OF POLICE, THE MARKET SUPERINTENDENT AND THE CITY TREAS…

Farrales versus City Mayor of Baguio

The Case

This is an action for damages brought by Leonor Farrales, assisted by her husband Emilio Farrales, against the City Mayor of Baguio, the Chief of Police, the Market Superintendent, and the City Treasurer. The plaintiff held a municipal license to sell liquor and sari-sari goods in the Baguio City Market, and she complains of the demolition of the temporary shack she had built there. The case matters because it fixes the rule on when a public official may abate a nuisance without judicial proceedings, and on when that official becomes liable in damages for doing so. It is a study in the limits of self-help against the police power of the city, and in the exact reach of Articles 702 and 707 of the Civil Code.

Procedural History

The plaintiff first came to the Court of First Instance of Baguio, seeking an injunction before the demolition. That court refused to issue the writ unless she could show a proper permit, which she could not. After the demolition she cited the police for contempt, and the court denied her petition in an order dated September 19, 1956, an order final in character and never appealed. She then filed the present action for damages. The trial court dismissed her complaint with costs. She appealed to the Court of Appeals, which certified the case to the Supreme Court because only questions of law are involved. The appeal thus reached the Supreme Court as a pure question of law.

Facts

The plaintiff was the holder of a municipal license to sell liquor and sari-sari goods. When the temporary building where she had her stall was demolished so that the city could construct a permanent building, she was ordered to move her goods to another temporary place until the permanent building was completed. She did not like the location pointed out by the city officials. Instead, taking the law into her own hands, she built a temporary shack at one end of the Rice Section of the Baguio City Market, without seeking any prior permit or permission from any city official.

The shack stood on the cement passageway at the end of the Rice Section building, where people pass on their way to the hangar market. When the police threatened to demolish it, the plaintiff went to court for an injunction. The court held a hearing and refused the writ unless she could show a proper permit. She could not, and so the police demolished the shack, brought the materials and goods to the City Hall, and later delivered both to her.

She cited the police for contempt, and the court denied her petition. She then brought this action for damages, amending her complaint to include as defendants the policemen who did the demolishing. The trial court found that the shack was built in defiance of orders from City Hall officials, that it obstructed a passageway, and that the police properly demolished it.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in refusing to declare the defendants in default and in allowing them to file their answer after the reglementary period.
• Whether or not the shack was a nuisance that could be abated by the police without prior judicial proceedings.
• Whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to damages for the demolition of the shack.

Applicable Provisions

Article 702 of the Civil Code provides:

The District Officer shall determine whether or not abatement, without judicial proceedings, is the best remedy against a public nuisance.

The Court cites it to meet the argument that abatement must first pass through the officer named there, and holds that the failure to observe it is not by itself a ground for damages.

Article 707 of the Civil Code provides:

A public official extrajudicially abating a nuisance shall be liable for damages in only two cases: (1) if he causes unnecessary injury, or (2) if an alleged nuisance is later declared by the courts to be not a real nuisance.

This is the measure of the city officials' liability, and the Court finds that neither case is present here.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the trial court was justified in allowing the answer. The stenographic notes showed that the plaintiff's own counsel of record withdrew the motion to declare the defendants in default and manifested his willingness to let them answer, and the plaintiff is bound by the actuations of her counsel.

On the second issue, the Court held that the shack was a nuisance and could be abated without prior judicial proceedings. The plaintiff had no permit for the precise place where she built, and its location on the cement passageway obstructed the free movement of people. Judging by the photographs, what she built was not even a temporary stall but a lean-to improvised with pieces of used scrap iron roofing sheets, and so not a building within the meaning of the Charter of the City of Baguio. The Court added that the abatement was in truth not summary, because she was warned, she went to court for an injunction, a hearing was held, and the denial of the writ upon her failure to produce a permit was in effect an authority for the police to carry out the act sought to be enjoined, later confirmed by the same court in its decision.

On the third issue, the Court held that there is no ground for damages. No unnecessary injury was caused to the plaintiff, and not only was there no judicial declaration that the alleged nuisance was not really so, but the trial court found that it was in fact a nuisance. The failure to observe Article 702 is not in itself a ground for an award of damages.

Doctrine

A structure built without permit on a public passageway, obstructing the free movement of people, is a nuisance that the police may abate without waiting for judicial proceedings, especially where the owner was warned and sought an injunction that was denied for want of a permit. Under Article 707 of the Civil Code, a public official extrajudicially abating a nuisance is liable for damages in only two cases: if he causes unnecessary injury, or if the alleged nuisance is later declared by the courts to be not a real nuisance. The failure to observe Article 702, on the determination by the District Officer, is not by itself a ground for damages. And a client is bound by the acts of her counsel of record.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment appealed from, dismissing the complaint, without pronouncement as to costs. The city officials won.

Remember This

Memorize the two instances under Article 707 when an official who abates a nuisance without judicial proceedings becomes liable for damages: unnecessary injury, or a later judicial declaration that the thing was not a real nuisance. Examiners use this case to test the limits of extrajudicial abatement of nuisances and the liability of local officials acting under the city's police power.