G.R. No. 148408 ; July 14, 2006
CONCEPCION PARAYNO, petitioner, vs. JOSE JOVELLANOS and the MUNICIPALITY OF CALASIAO, PANGASINAN, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Concepcion Parayno owned a gasoline filling station in Calasiao, Pangasinan. In 1989, residents petitioned for its closure, leading the Sangguniang Bayan to issue Resolution No. 50, which declared the station a violation of the zoning ordinance for being within 100 meters of a school and church, and a danger to public safety and health. The resolution cited Section 44 of the Official Zoning Code, which prohibits “gasoline service stations” within such distance. Parayno contested this before the RTC, arguing her establishment was a “gasoline filling station” under Section 21, not a “service station” under Section 44, and that a prior HLURB case involving the same property and opponent, Jovellanos, had already resolved similar issues against him.
The RTC denied Parayno’s petition and request for injunction. It applied the principle of ejusdem generis, ruling that a filling station fell within the ambit of Section 44’s prohibition on service stations, emphasizing public safety concerns. The Court of Appeals subsequently dismissed Parayno’s petition for certiorari, prompting this appeal to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s application of the ejusdem generis principle to classify petitioner’s gasoline filling station as a “gasoline service station” prohibited under Section 44 of the zoning ordinance.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed the lower courts’ decisions. The legal logic centered on statutory construction. The zoning ordinance explicitly and distinctly defined a “Gasoline Service Station” under Section 42 and a “Filling Station” under Section 21. A “Filling Station” was narrowly defined as a retail station servicing vehicles with gasoline and oil only, while a “Service Station” included additional services like repairs and sales of accessories. Since the ordinance made a clear distinction, the principle of ejusdem generis—which applies only when a law uses general terms following specific enumerations—was inapplicable. Here, Section 44 specifically prohibited only “gasoline service stations” within 100 meters. The term was not ambiguous, and its plain meaning must prevail. Therefore, petitioner’s “gasoline filling station,” as defined by the ordinance, was not covered by the 100-meter prohibition in Section 44. The closure order based on a misapplication of the law was invalid. The Court did not reach the other issues on police power and res judicata, having resolved the case on this primary legal ground.