04/02/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
762 PHIL. 539
FIRST DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 206423, July 01, 2015 ]
LEONCIO ALANGDEO, ARTHUR VERCELES, AND DANNY VERGARA,
PETITIONERS, VS. THE CITY MAYOR OF BAGUIO, HON. BRAULIO
D. YARANON (TO BE SUBSTITUTED BY INCUMBENT CITY MAYOR,
HON. MAURICIO DOMOGAN), JEOFREY MORTELA, HEAD
DEMOLITION TEAM, CITY ENGINEER’S OFFICE, AND ERNESTO
LARDIZABAL, RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari[1] are the Decision[2] dated June 29,
2012 and the Resolution[3] dated March 5, 2013 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CAG.R. CV No. 87439, which reversed
Regional Trial Court of Baguio City,
granting the complaint for injunction
Arthur Verceles (Verceles), and Danny
the Decision[4] dated April 27, 2006 of the
Branch 60 (RTC) in Civil Case No. 6007-R
filed by herein petitioners Leoncio Alangdeo,
Vergara (collectively, petitioners).
The Facts
On November 13, 2003, respondent Ernesto Lardizabal (Ernesto) filed a complaint
for demolition,[5] before the City Engineer’s Office[6] of Baguio City (City Engineer’s
Office), questioning the ongoing construction of a residential structure and garage
extension by petitioners on a parcel of land, situated at Barangay Atok Trail, Baguio
City (subject property), allegedly owned by Mariano Pangloy and Ernesto’s father,
Juanito Lardizabal.[7] Upon investigation, the City Engineer’s Office found out that
the construction had no building permit. Consequently, the City Mayor issued,
through the Secretary to the Mayor, Demolition Order No. 05, series of 2005
(DO No. 05) directing the City Demolition Team to summarily demolish the said
structures, to wit:[8]
WHEREFORE, the CITY DEMOLITION TEAM is hereby directed to
SUMMARILY DEMOLISH the aforesaid structures of Atty. Leoncio
Alangdeo, Arthur Verceles and/or Danny Vergara in accordance with
Section 3[,] par. 2.5(a) of the implementing rules and regulations
governing summary eviction jointly issued by the Department of
Interior and Local Government (DILG) and the Housing and Urban
Development Coordinating Council pursuant to Section 44, [A]rticle XII
of [Republic Act (RA) No. 7279[9]].(Emphases supplied)
Aggrieved, petitioners moved for a reconsideration of DO No. 05, but was denied by
the City Mayor. Thus, they were prompted to file a complaint for injunction and
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/60932
1/13