G.R. No. 157118 ; December 8, 2003
THE ILOILO CITY ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS and THE CITY GOVERNMENT OF ILOILO, represented by HON. CITY MAYOR JERRY P. TREÑAS, petitioners, vs. GEGATO-ABECIA FUNERAL HOMES, INC., represented by its Attorney-In-Fact, DANIEL FAJARDO, respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Gegato-Abecia Funeral Homes, Inc. applied for a permit to operate a Category II funeral establishment (with chapels and funeral services but without embalming facilities) in a C2 commercial zone in Iloilo City. The location was within 25 meters of a restaurant and a bakery. The Iloilo City Zoning Ordinance of 2001 prohibits funeral establishments from operating within a minimum radial distance of 25 meters from restaurants and food establishments. Respondent invoked a provision of the ordinance granting the City Zoning Board of Adjustments and Appeals (CZBAA) discretion to allow exceptions, arguing the distance rule should not apply to its Category II business. The CZBAA denied the application, citing the clear prohibition in the ordinance.
Respondent then filed a petition for mandamus with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), arguing the ordinance was unconstitutional as applied and that the CZBAA gravely abused its discretion. The RTC granted the writ, ordering the issuance of the permit. It ruled that the CZBAA abused its discretion by denying the application without a hearing and that mandamus was proper as the power to act on such applications had been devolved to local governments. Petitioners appealed, arguing respondent failed to exhaust administrative remedies by not appealing to the HLURB and that the CZBAA’s denial was a valid exercise of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court erred in granting the writ of mandamus to compel the issuance of a business permit to the respondent funeral home.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court reversed the RTC decision and dismissed the mandamus petition. The Court held that a writ of mandamus is a coercive remedy issued to compel a tribunal, corporation, or person to perform a ministerial duty. The duty must be clear and specific, leaving no room for discretion. The power of the CZBAA to grant exceptions or variances under the zoning ordinance is discretionary, not ministerial. The board must evaluate whether an application meets specific conditions set by law, such as not adversely affecting public health or the character of the district. Since the exercise of this power involves judgment and discretion, it cannot be compelled by mandamus.
Furthermore, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the CZBAA’s denial. The zoning ordinance’s 25-meter radial distance rule applied to all funeral establishments, regardless of category, to protect public health and welfare by preventing the potential mixing of funeral and food-related activities. The CZBAA’s denial was a reasoned application of this clear ordinance provision. The RTC therefore erred in substituting its own judgment for that of the administrative body. The proper remedy for an aggrieved party from the CZBAA’s decision was an appeal to the HLURB, not a direct petition for mandamus.