G.R. No. 150270 November 26, 2008.
CITY ENGINEER OF BAGUIO and HON. MAURICIO DOMOGAN, petitioners, vs. ROLANDO BANIQUED, respondent.

FACTS

Generoso Bonifacio, as attorney-in-fact for the owners of a parcel of land in Upper Quezon Hill, Baguio City, filed a complaint with the Office of the Mayor seeking the demolition of a house built on the land. On May 19, 1999, then City Mayor Mauricio Domogan issued Notice of Demolition No. 55, Series of 1999, against spouses Rolando and Fidela Baniqued. The notice stated that an investigation by the City Engineer’s Office showed the structures were built without a building permit in violation of P.D. 1096 and possibly R.A. 7279, qualifying them as illegal and subject to demolition, as recommended by the Anti-Squatting Committee. The notice ordered the spouses to voluntarily remove/demolish the structures within seven days, otherwise the City Demolition Team would undertake the demolition at their expense. Rolando Baniqued filed a complaint for prohibition with TRO/injunction before the RTC, alleging the intended demolition was without due process, as he was never given a copy of the complaint, summoned, allowed to participate in the investigation, appear before the Anti-Squatting Committee, or given an opportunity to contest the complaint. He argued that a court action and order were required under Article 536 of the Civil Code, that adequate relocation should be provided under R.A. 7279, and that demolition under the National Building Code is only for dangerous or ruinous structures. The RTC granted the petitioners’ motion to dismiss, reasoning that the mayor’s functions are neither judicial nor quasi-judicial, the act complained of was not ministerial, and Baniqued failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC, ruling that the mayor exercises quasi-judicial functions when hearing controversies involving property rights and that the complaint stated a cause of action.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the act of the City Mayor in issuing a notice of demolition is a quasi-judicial function and that the action for prohibition filed by Baniqued is proper.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, ruling it was unmeritorious. The Court held that Baniqued correctly availed of the remedy of prohibition. Prohibition is a writ issued by a superior court to prevent an inferior court, tribunal, board, officer, or person from usurping or exercising a jurisdiction or power not vested by law. Under Section 2, Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, prohibition lies against any tribunal, corporation, board, officer, or person, whether exercising judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial functions, who acts without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. The Court found that the allegations in Baniqued’s complaint, if true, showed that the petitioners acted without or in excess of their jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion by issuing the demolition notice without affording him due process. The Court emphasized that the determination of whether a structure is illegal or not involves the exercise of judgment and discretion, which is quasi-judicial in nature. Therefore, the act of the mayor in issuing the notice after an investigation and recommendation was an exercise of a quasi-judicial function, making prohibition an appropriate remedy to prevent the enforcement of an order issued without due process.