G.R. No. 192692 , June 17, 2020
REYNALDO DELA CRUZ AND CATALINO C. FELIPE, PETITIONERS, VS. LEOPOLDO V. PARUMOG, GUARDIAN ANGEL ETERNITY GARDEN, AND MUNICIPALITY OF GUIMBA, NUEVA ECIJA, REPRESENTED BY HON. POCHOLO M. DIZON, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Respondent Leopoldo V. Parumog sought to build the Guardian Angel Eternal Garden memorial park on his land in Barangay Cavite, Guimba, Nueva Eja. He obtained the required permits and clearances from the Municipality of Guimba (Guimba LGU) and the Barangay LGU. The Guimba LGU approved the project through Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 33-04. Petitioners Reynaldo dela Cruz and Catalino C. Felipe, owners of adjoining lots, filed a complaint for injunction with a prayer for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to stop the construction, alleging violations of their rights to health and a balanced ecology. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the TRO and later made the injunction permanent. The RTC ruled that Resolution No. 33-04 merely reclassified the land to commercial but did not designate it as a burial ground, and Barangay Cavite was not a designated burial area under the local zoning ordinance. The RTC noted that while the defect was later addressed by the passage of Ordinance No. 4-04 amending the zoning ordinance, there was no proof this amendatory ordinance was approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) or the Sangguniang Panlalawigan (SP) of Nueva Ecija as required. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC, dismissing the complaint. The CA found that the SP of Nueva Ecija had approved Ordinance No. 4-04 through Kapasyahan Blg. 181-S-2004, thus complying with the legal requirement. The CA also held petitioners were precluded from raising the issue of non-consultation as they did not appeal the RTC decision. Petitioners filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

1. Whether the CA erred in barring petitioners from raising the issue of non-consultation.
2. Whether the CA erred in reversing the RTC ruling on the validity and approval of Resolution No. 33-04 and Ordinance No. 4-04.
3. Whether the rights of the adjoining lot owners to health, a healthful and balanced ecology, and due process were violated.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the CA Decision and Resolution.
1. On the issue of non-consultation, the Court found petitioners failed to prove a clear legal right to be consulted on the passage of Resolution No. 33-04, which was a zoning reclassification. The law requiring public hearings applies to the enactment or amendment of zoning ordinances, not to resolutions approving specific projects. Furthermore, petitioners had signed a manifesto endorsing and supporting the memorial park project.
2. On the validity of the ordinances, the Court upheld the CA’s finding that Ordinance No. 4-04, which amended the zoning ordinance to include memorial parks as a permissible use in the area, was validly enacted and approved. The Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Nueva Ecija explicitly approved the ordinance through Kapasyahan Blg. 181-S-2004, satisfying the requirement for provincial review under the Local Government Code.
3. On the alleged violation of constitutional rights, the Court held that petitioners failed to demonstrate a clear and unmistakable right to an injunction. Their fears of environmental and health hazards were speculative. The project had complied with the necessary local government approvals. Concerns regarding environmental compliance, such as securing permits from the DENR-EMB, were matters for the concerned administrative agencies, not for injunction, as petitioners had not exhausted administrative remedies. The essential requisites for an injunction—a clear right, a material invasion of that right, urgent necessity, and lack of other adequate remedies—were not established.