SECOND DIVISION
[UDK-15330. June 3, 2019.]
SPOUSES ANTONIO F. ALGURA AND LORENCITA SJ. ALGURA, petitioners, vs.THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT OF THE CITY OF NAGA, ATTY. MANUEL TEOXON, ENGR. LEON PALMIANO, NATHAN SERGIO, AND BENJAMIN NAVARRO, SR., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated03 June 2019which reads as follows:
"UDK-15330 (Spouses Antonio F. Algura and Lorencita SJ. Algura v. The Local Government Unit of the City of Naga, Atty. Manuel Teoxon, Engr. Leon Palmiano, Nathan Sergio, and Benjamin Navarro, Sr.)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the Decision 2 dated June 10, 2015 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 98805 for failure of petitioners Spouses Antonio F. Algura and Lorencita SJ. Algura (petitioners) to sufficiently show that the CA committed reversible error in upholding the dismissal of their complaint 3 for damages against respondents Local Government Unit of the City of Naga, Atty. Manuel Teoxon, Engr. Leon Palmiano, Nathan Sergio, and Benjamin Navarro, Sr. (respondents).
As correctly ruled by the CA, petitioners' structure is considered a public nuisance per se, for being built on a road right of way, thereby obstructing the free ingress and egress of the tenants of the relocation site for the Jolly Neighborhood Association, Inc. 4 As such, respondents correctly availed of the remedy of abatement without judicial proceedings. 5 Further, absent any of the recognized exceptions, the factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the CA, are binding and conclusive on the Court, 6 as in this case.
SO ORDERED. (CAGUIOA, J., on official leave.)"
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 9-20.
2.Id. at 49-61. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon A. Cruz with Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Marlene Gonzales-Sison, concurring.
3. See Verified complaint dated August 30, 1999; id. at 32-35.
4. See id. at 55-58.
5. See Article 699 (3), of the CIVIL CODE.
6. See People v. Sota, G.R. No. 203121, November 29, 2017.