SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 253947. November 29, 2021.]
ZINIA L. GUEVARA1AND NORMA L. GUEVARA, petitioners, vs.ANTHONY S. DUYAN, TACTICAL BUILDERS, INC., AND ISAGANI R. VERZOSA, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS BUILDING OFFICIAL OF QUEZON CITY, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 29 November 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 253947 (Zinia L. Guevara and Norma L. Guevara v. Anthony S. Duyan, Tactical Builders, Inc., and Isagani R. Verzosa, Jr., in his capacity as Building Official of Quezon City). — Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari2 assailing the Decision 3 dated October 12, 2020 of the Court of Appeals (CA) which denied the appeal filed by Zinia L. Guevara (Zinia) and her parents, Spouses Simeon 4 and Norma L. Guevara (Norma), (collectively, the Guevaras) in CA-G.R. CV No. 112521.
The Antecedents
The case emanated from a complaint for damages, injunction, and mandamus filed by the Guevaras against Anthony S. Duyan (Duyan); Tactical Builders, Inc. (TBI); and Isagani R. Verzosa, Jr. (Verzosa), in his capacity as Building Official of Quezon City (collectively, respondents). 5
The Guevaras stated in the Complaint the following: they were residents of a two-storey house located at No. 23 Lunas St., La Loma, Quezon City, while Duyan was the person who bought the property next to theirs; on April 21, 2014, Duyan caused the demolition of the structure on his property and commenced the construction of a new building (subject building) with TBI as the contractor; they sent a letter to Duyan explaining the requirements for excavation, but the latter ignored it and began the construction of the building without a building permit; on May 20, 2014, the Guevaras' fence that separated their property from Duyan's collapsed and the concrete structure of their laundry area, fence, plant box, and electric meter post cracked; and the Guevaras' water and power connections were severed, their electric meter post was dislocated, and their personal effects were damaged. The Guevaras insisted that the cause of the destruction was the excavation on the lot of Duyan without shoring or excavation protection. 6 ATICcS
The Guevaras also averred that on May 23, 2014, Zinia filed a letter-complaint against Duyan and TBI before the Office of the Quezon City Building Official (CBO) and stated therein that Duyan had been engaged in illegal construction of a multi-storey building project at No. 21 Lunas St., La Loma, Quezon City adjacent to the Guevaras' house; that on May 20, 2014, the concrete fence of the Guevaras collapsed due to the excavation work at Duyan's property; and that there was no building permit displayed at the job site and no approved building plans were issued for it. 7
The Guevaras further averred that they sent several letters, including a cease-and-desist order (CDO) issued by Verzosa, to Duyan, who nonetheless continued with the construction of his building. The Guevaras, however, admitted that the CDO was lifted due to the eventual issuance of a building permit in favor of Duyan. 8
As regards Verzosa, the Guevaras contended that he was remiss in the performance of his duties as Building Official as he made it appear that Duyan's only violation was the lack of a building permit; Verzosa opined that the Guevaras should have brought their complaint before the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH). 9
In their supplemental complaint, the Guevaras asserted that the subject building was already completed but must be demolished due to violation of the provisions of the National Building Code of the Philippines (Building Code). 10
For his part, Verzosa countered that he acted on the complaint of Zinia and his actions enjoyed the presumption of regularity. He also insisted that the DPWH has supervision over local building officials and the enforcement of the Building Code, including the imposition of penalties for administrative violation; that the issuance of the building permit to Duyan legitimized his previous violations; and that it is the DPWH which has jurisdiction to rule whether the issuance of such building permit was valid. 11
Meanwhile, Duyan and TBI contended that the Guevaras failed to present credible evidence supporting the complaint against them and Verzosa. They insisted that the supposed violations they committed relating to the commencement of the construction of the subject building were already cured by the issuance of Building Permit No. BP140601304 in favor of Duyan. 12
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City
In the Decision 13 dated June 14, 2018, Branch 83 of the RTC decreed that the subject building should not be demolished. Nonetheless, it ruled that because the construction caused damage to the Guevaras' property, Duyan and TBI should make the necessary repairs thereon and pay the Guevaras actual damages amounting to P90,001.23 representing the expenses incurred for restoration of electricity (P1,000.00), clearing of debris and excavation originating from the subject construction (P21,208.00), repair of electric water pump (P2,881.00), and transfer of temporary shelter (P64,912.23). It further held respondents jointly and severally liable to the Guevaras for moral damages and exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 each, attorney's fees amounting to P50,000.00, and costs of suit. 14 According to the RTC, records showed that the CBO dismissed the complaint of Zinia considering that Duyan had presented the necessary building permit over the subject building. The dismissal of the complaint with the CBO was in effect a finding that Duyan and TBI did not violate the Building Code and its Implementing Rules and Regulations. 15 TIADCc
The RTC further ruled that the Guevaras failed to appeal the CBO's dismissal of their complaint before the DPWH, despite the advice of the hearing officer. As such, the Guevaras were deemed to have accepted that Duyan and TBI did not violate the Building Code. It furthermore ruled that in the absence of any evidence, Verzosa was considered to have regularly performed his duties as Building Official. It also held that the Building Code is curative in nature and that the issuance of a building permit legitimized Duyan's previous violations under it. 16
On motion for reconsideration, the RTC ruled that the case against Verzosa must be dismissed. 17
Undaunted, the Guevaras filed an appeal with the CA and alleged that the RTC erred as follows: in dismissing the complaint against Verzosa; in ruling that their failure to appeal from the dismissal of their complaint before the CBO was an admission that Duyan and TBI did not violate the Building Code; and in not awarding the correct amount of moral and exemplary damages. 18
Ruling of the CA
In the Decision 19 dated October 12, 2020, the CA affirmed the RTC Decision.
The CA found that the RTC properly dismissed the case against Verzosa. It ratiocinated that the Guevaras failed to prove that Verzosa took advantage of his position as Building Official considering that he issued the CDO and subsequently the building permit based on the evaluation of the Construction Permits Division, Technical Program Unit and Final Permits Division, and Duyan and TBI's compliance with the requirements for its issuance. 20
The CA also ruled that the appeal for non-issuance, suspension, or revocation of permits may be filed with the DPWH Secretary whose decision is final, subject only to review by the Office of the President. According to the CA, the Guevaras should have sought the revocation of the building permit premised on the supposed violation committed by Duyan and TBI; and in case of dismissal of the complaint for revocation, the Guevaras may appeal their case against Duyan and TBI with the DPWH Secretary. 21
Lastly, the CA held that the amount of moral and exemplary damages awarded by the RTC in favor of the Guevaras was fair and reasonable and hence must be sustained. 22
Unfazed, Zinia and her mother, Norma, filed the instant petition and alleged the following errors of the CA; thus:
I
THE BUILDING OFFICIAL IS THE ONE PRIMARILY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE NATIONAL BUILDING CODE, NOT THE SECRETARY OF [THE DEPARTMENT] OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS.
II
REGARDLESS OF THE BUILDING PERMIT, RESPONDENTS WERE LEGALLY OBLIGED TO COMPLY WITH THE NATIONAL BUILDING CODE. AIDSTE
III
RESPONDENT BUILDING OFFICIAL ALLOWED, PERMITTED AND MADE POSSIBLE THESE VIOLATIONS OF THE NATIONAL BUILDING CODE SO IT WAS BASELESS FOR THE COURT OF APPEALS TO ABSOLVE HIM FROM ANY RESPONSIBILITY.
IV
THE AWARD OF DAMAGES TO THE PETITIONERS WAS TOO MINISCULE AS TO RENDER THE SAME PRACTICALLY MEANINGLESS. 23
Our Ruling
In a nutshell, petitioners contend: (1) that Duyan and TBI should be ordered to demolish and reconstruct the subject building to conform with the requirements under the Building Code and (2) that the CA erred in absolving Verzosa from liability because the latter should not have permitted the violations committed by Duyan and TBI. They further claim entitlement to the award of moral damages and exemplary damages in the respective amounts of P1.2 million and P500,000.00. 24
The Court is unconvinced.
Section 205 of the Building Code states that the Building Official "shall be responsible for carrying out the provisions of [the Building] Code in the field as well as the enforcement of orders and decisions made pursuant thereto." Moreover, Section 207 of the same Code provides that among the duties of the Building Official is the issuance of the necessary building permit. In turn, Section 215 of the Building Code provides that before a structure may be abated or demolished, the Building Official must first arrive at a finding that the subject structure is either ruinous, dangerous, or a nuisance. Simply put, it is the Building Official who has the authority to order the demolition of a nuisance, ruinous, or dangerous structure. 25
In the instant case, both the RTC and the CA properly found that the subject building should not be demolished for two reasons: one, the necessary building permit was issued for its construction and two, there was no finding by the Building Official that the building was a nuisance, or a ruinous or dangerous structure. 26 Hence, the contention of petitioners that the subject building must be demolished and reconstructed is untenable.
As also pointed out by the RTC and the CA, the decision of the Building Official is appealable to the DPWH Secretary. Thus, petitioners should have appealed the dismissal of their complaint to the DPWH Secretary. Petitioners were well aware of the availability of appeal as it was in fact contained in the minutes of hearing before the CBO and even quoted by petitioners in their Appellants' Brief filed with the CA:
Both parties appeared in today's proceedings.
A Building Permit was secured by the respondent with nos. BP140601304 issued on June 26, 2014. [Petitioners] are informed of the curative nature of PD 1096. However, [the CBO] also informed [petitioners that] if [they] are dissatisfied of this Department's issuance of the Building Permit, the same may be appealed to the Secretary of the [DPWH]. 27
Definitely, for their failure to appeal the dismissal of their complaint before the CBO, petitioners were deemed to have accepted that Duyan and TBI did not violate the Building Code.
The Court also agrees with the RTC and the CA that Verzosa must be absolved from liability because his acts as Building Official enjoy the presumption of regularity as he issued them pursuant to official duty. Besides, Verzosa's determination — that petitioners' complaint was lacking in merit — was not sufficiently rebutted. 28 Accordingly, it had attained finality.
Additionally, the Court denies petitioners' prayer to increase the amount of moral and exemplary damages granted to them.
While the Civil Code grants compensation especially for the mental anguish that petitioners sustained due to the damage to their property, the award of moral damages is not meant to enrich them at the expense of Duyan and TBI. 29 Thus, the Court finds that the amount of P25,000.00 is adequate recompense for the moral damages sustained by petitioners. Under the circumstances, petitioners also deserve the award of exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00, as awarded by the RTC and affirmed on appeal. AaCTcI
In view of all the foregoing, the Court finds that the CA did not err in affirming the ruling of the RTC that the subject building must not be demolished; that Verzosa must be absolved from liability; and that petitioners deserve moral and exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 each.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated October 12, 2020 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 112521 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED." (HERNANDO, J., on official leave.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Guevarra in some parts of the rollo.
2.Rollo, pp. 8-20.
3.Id. at 23-28; penned by Associate Justice Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez, with Associate Justices Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas and Carlito B. Calpatura, concurring.
4. Due to his demise, Simeon Guevara was substituted by his heirs in September 2016; id. at 98.
5.Id. at 95.
6.Id. at 95-96.
7.Id. at 35-36.
8.Id. at 37.
9.Id. at 25.
10.Id.
11.Id.
12.Id. at 25-26.
13.Id. at 95-101; penned by Presiding Judge Ralph S. Lee.
14.Id. at 101.
15.Id. at 100-101.
16.Id. at 100.
17.Id. at 26.
18.Id. at 32-33.
19.Id. at 23-28.
20.Id. at 27.
21.Id.
22.Id.
23.Id. at 13.
24.Id. at 17-18.
25.Alangdeo v. Yaranon, 762 Phil. 539 (2015), citing Gancayco v. City Government of Quezon City, 674 Phil. 637, 656-657 (2011).
26.Id. at 26-27.
27.Rollo, p. 38.
28. See AMA Land, Inc. v. Wack Wack Residents' Association, Inc., 813 Phil. 932 (2017).
29. See Torreon v. Aparra, 822 Phil. 561 (2017).