G.R. No. 184478; March 21, 2012
JAIME S. PEREZ, both in his personal and official capacity as Chief, Marikina Demolition Office, Petitioner, vs. SPOUSES FORTUNITO L. MADRONA and YOLANDA B. PANTE, Respondents.

FACTS

Respondent-spouses are the registered owners of a residential property in Marikina City. In 1999, petitioner Jaime S. Perez, as Chief of the Marikina Demolition Office, sent them a letter alleging their concrete fence violated several laws, including the National Building Code, and ordered them to remove the structure within seven days, threatening demolition. The spouses responded, contesting the accusations and the lack of a court order. Over a year later, petitioner sent another identical letter, prompting the spouses to file a complaint for injunction with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to prevent the threatened demolition.
During the proceedings, petitioner was declared in default for failure to file an Answer within the extended period granted by the court. His motion to lift the order of default was denied. The RTC proceeded to hear the case ex parte and subsequently granted a permanent injunction, finding the threatened demolition to be without legal basis and an abuse of authority. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision in toto.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s grant of a permanent injunction and award of damages against the petitioner.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the appellate court’s decision with modification on damages. The legal logic centered on the proper exercise of authority and the right to due process. The Court held that the power to order the demolition of a structure, even one allegedly encroaching on a public right-of-way, is not an unbridled executive power. Such action requires prior judicial determination in an appropriate proceeding, such as an expropriation case or an action for the recovery of possession, where the owner can be heard and present evidence. Petitioner’s unilateral threat of demolition, based merely on his office’s assessment and without a court order, constituted an abuse of authority and a violation of the respondents’ constitutional right to due process. The issuance of the permanent injunction was therefore proper to prevent a clear, imminent, and material invasion of the respondents’ property rights.
Regarding damages, the Court found that petitioner’s actions, which were done in excess of his authority and with a degree of harassment as evidenced by the successive threatening letters, caused the respondents mental anguish and anxiety, warranting an award of moral damages. Exemplary damages were also justified to serve as a deterrent against similar arbitrary conduct by public officials. The Court, however, reduced the amounts awarded by the lower courts to be more commensurate with the circumstances.