GR 170615; (July, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. 170615-16; July 9, 2009
THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, MA. MERCEDITAS N. GUTIERREZ, in her capacity as the Ombudsman, Petitioner, vs. RUFINO V. MIJARES, ROBERTO G. FERRERA, ALFREDO M. RUBA and ROMEO QUERUBIN, Respondents.
FACTS
The case originated from an administrative complaint for grave misconduct filed by the Southern Pinugay Farmers Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc. (SPFMPCI) against several public officials. The SPFMPCI members had occupied a parcel of land owned by PHILCOMSAT, claiming it was covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). They constructed houses and introduced improvements. While PHILCOMSAT’s petition for CARP exemption was pending before the Court of Appeals, respondent Mayor Roberto Ferrera issued a demolition order, which was implemented by respondent Engr. Romeo Querubin with police assistance, resulting in the destruction of the houses and improvements on March 24, 2000. Respondents justified the demolition by arguing the occupants were illegal entrants and the structures were built without the required building permits, constituting a nuisance that could be summarily abated.
ISSUE
Whether the respondents are administratively liable for grave misconduct for ordering and implementing the demolition of the houses and improvements constructed by the SPFMPCI members.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative, reinstating the Ombudsman’s finding of grave misconduct and the penalty of dismissal. The Court held that the respondents acted with flagrant disregard of established rules, which constitutes grave misconduct. Their reliance on the National Building Code (PD 1096) and the Urban Development and Housing Act (RA 7279) to justify a summary demolition was legally erroneous. First, the structures were traditional indigenous family dwellings made of native materials costing less than ₱15,000, which are explicitly exempt from building permit fees under the law. The absence of a permit, therefore, did not automatically authorize demolition.
Second, the Court emphasized that under PD 1096, only buildings that are dangerous or ruinous may be ordered vacated or demolished. The demolished houses were not alleged to be such. Third, RA 7279, which allows summary demolition in certain contexts against professional squatters, is inapplicable as it pertains to urban lands, not rural agricultural lands potentially under CARP coverage. The respondents’ precipitate action, taken while the fundamental issue of CARP exemption was still sub judice, demonstrated a patent violation of due process and a gross disregard of applicable laws. This arbitrary exercise of authority warranted the administrative penalty imposed.