Perez v. Madrona

G.R. No. 184478 (March 21, 2012)

Jaime S. Perez lost a dispute over an unauthorized fence, ordered to pay damages for violating due process.

Facts:

Respondent-spouses Fortunito L. Madrona and Yolanda B. Pante are the registered owners of a residential property located in Marikina City, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 169365. In 1989, they constructed a house on the property and enclosed it with a concrete fence and steel gate. In 1999, Jaime S. Perez, the Chief of the Marikina Demolition Office, sent a letter to the respondents alleging that their fence encroached on the sidewalk and violated various laws, including the National Building Code and the Anti-Squatting Law. He demanded the removal of the structure within seven days, threatening demolition if they failed to comply.

In response, Madrona sent a letter to Perez contesting the accusations, asserting that the letter was libelous, lacked legal basis, and that their fence did not extend to the sidewalk. Despite this, Perez sent another letter in 2001, reiterating his demand for the removal of the fence, which prompted the respondents to file a complaint for injunction against him in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Marikina City on March 12, 2001.

The respondents sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a writ of preliminary injunction to prevent Perez from demolishing their property. The RTC issued a TRO on March 16, 2001, but Perez failed to file an answer to the complaint within the required time, leading to a default judgment against him. The RTC later denied his motion to lift the default order, and the case was eventually reinstated after a series of procedural motions.

On July 27, 2004, the RTC ruled in favor of the respondents, permanently enjoining Perez from demolishing their fence and awarding them attorney's fees and costs of suit. Perez appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the RTC's ruling.

Legal Issues:

  1. Did the trial court err in reinstating the respondents' complaint?
  2. Were the requisites for the issuance of a writ of injunction present?
  3. Is the petitioner liable to pay attorney's fees and costs of suit?

Arguments:

Petitioner (Jaime S. Perez):

  • Argued that the RTC erred in reinstating the respondents' complaint, claiming that there was an express admission of negligence on their part.
  • Contended that the requisites for an injunction were not met, asserting that a mere notice does not constitute an invasion of rights and that the respondents' fence was constructed in violation of existing laws.
  • Claimed that as a public officer, he was entitled to the presumption of regularity in the performance of his duties and could not be held liable for attorney's fees without clear proof of malice or bad faith.

Respondents (Fortunito L. Madrona and Yolanda B. Pante):

  • Countered that there was no admission of negligence and that they had not lost interest in prosecuting their case.
  • Argued that the requisites for an injunction were present, as their right to protect their property was being threatened by the petitioner's actions.
  • Asserted that the petitioner acted beyond his authority and failed to follow due process, justifying the award of attorney's fees and moral damages.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The Supreme Court affirmed the CA's decision, holding that the RTC did not err in reinstating the respondents' complaint. The Court found that the respondents did not admit negligence and had valid reasons for the delay in prosecution. The Court also ruled that the requisites for the issuance of an injunction were satisfied, as the respondents had a right to protect their property, and the petitioner's threatened demolition would violate that right.

The Court emphasized that unless a structure is a nuisance per se, it cannot be summarily demolished without judicial intervention. The respondents' fence was not deemed a nuisance per se, and the petitioner should have pursued legal remedies rather than threatening demolition.

Regarding the issue of attorney's fees, the Court ruled that the respondents were justified in seeking damages due to the petitioner's actions, which caused them anxiety and distress. The Court awarded moral damages and exemplary damages to serve as a warning to public officials to act within the bounds of their authority.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

  • The necessity of judicial intervention before the summary demolition of structures that are not nuisances per se.
  • The importance of due process in property rights and the protection of lawful possession.
  • The entitlement to moral and exemplary damages when a public official acts beyond their authority, causing harm to private individuals.