GR 202618; (April, 2016) (Digest)
G.R. No. 202618. April 12, 2016.
CONSULAR AREA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION, INC., REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT BENJAMIN V. ZABAT, ROMEO JUGADO, JR., AND NANCY QUINO, PETITIONER, VS. ARNEL PACIANO D. CASANOVA, ENGR. TOMAS Y. MACROHON, LOCAL HOUSING BOARD OF TAGUIG CITY, AND THE CITY GOVERNMENT OF TAGUIG, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
Congress enacted Republic Act No. 7227 (Bases Conversion and Development Act of 1992), creating the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA) to administer and develop former military camps, including Fort Bonifacio in Taguig City. Located within Fort Bonifacio are the Joint US Military Army Group (JUSMAG) Area and the Diplomatic and Consular Area. The JUSMAG Area is a 34.5-hectare area being developed by Megaworld Corporation. The Diplomatic and Consular Area was declared alienable and disposable land under Proclamation No. 1725, with administrative jurisdiction transferred to the BCDA. On July 18, 2012, the Local Housing Board of Taguig City issued a Certificate of Compliance on Demolition, stating that the BCDA had complied with the requirements for “Just and Humane Demolition and Eviction” under Section 28 of RA 7279 (Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992) for structures within the JUSMAG Area. Consequently, respondent Arnel Paciano D. Casanova, as President and CEO of BCDA, sent a letter dated July 20, 2012, informing the petitioner association and its members to coordinate with BCDA officials within seven days to either accept a relocation package or voluntarily dismantle their structures and vacate the property. Petitioner filed a petition denominated as one for “Prohibition with plea for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and Injunction” to enjoin the demolition, claiming their structures were within the Diplomatic and Consular Area, not the JUSMAG Area, and that the demolition lacked a court order. Petitioner also collaterally attacked Casanova’s authority, alleging his appointment as BCDA President was “highly anomalous and irregular.” Respondents argued the clearing operations covered only the JUSMAG Area, that eviction is allowed under RA 7279 for government infrastructure projects even without a court order, that Casanova was duly appointed, and that the petition was moot as the demolition was completed on September 21, 2012. Respondents Local Housing Board of Taguig City and the City Government of Taguig additionally contended the petition should have been filed with the Regional Trial Court.
ISSUE
Whether or not the demolition should be enjoined.
RULING
The petition lacks merit. The Court first resolved preliminary concerns. The petition, though denominated as one for prohibition, is essentially an action for injunction as it seeks to permanently stop the demolition. An action for prohibition requires allegations that a tribunal, corporation, board, or person exercising judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial functions acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, which are absent here. Therefore, Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court on where to file a prohibition petition does not apply. Instead, Section 21 of RA 7227 governs, which authorizes only the Supreme Court to issue injunctions to restrain the implementation of conversion projects of military reservations. Thus, the petition was properly filed with the Supreme Court. The collateral attack on respondent Casanova’s title to the public office of BCDA President is improper, as title to a public office may only be contested directly by quo warranto proceedings and not collaterally in a prohibition or injunction suit.
On the main issue, the Court found the petition moot and academic because the act sought to be enjoined—the demolition of the remaining structures in the JUSMAG Area—had already been completed on September 21, 2012. A case becomes moot when there is no more actual controversy between the parties or no useful purpose can be served in passing upon the merits. The completion of the demolition rendered the plea for injunctive relief without any practical legal effect. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner failed to substantiate its claim that the demolished structures were located within the Diplomatic and Consular Area and not the JUSMAG Area. The BCDA and the Local Housing Board had determined the area for demolition to be the JUSMAG Area, and the petitioner did not provide convincing evidence to contradict this. The petition was dismissed.