MUNICIPALITY OF BINAN LAGUNA vs HOLIDAY HILLS STOCK & BREEDING FARM CORPORATION AND DOMINO FARMS INC
GR 200403
October 10, 2022
Facts:
The
Municipality of Binan Laguna issued Municipal Resolution No. 284 which approved
Mun. Ord. No. 06, an ordinance regulating the use of urban control zones for agricultural
use, gradually phasing out large piggery, fowl, and other livestock farms
located within the Municipality of Binan, providing penalties, and for other
purposes.
Holiday Hills
and Domino Farms filed a Petition for Certiorari, Declaratory Relief, and
Prohibition with application for Preliminary Injunction and/or prayer for Temporary
Restraining Order8 before the RTC, assailing the validity of Municipal
Ordinance No. 06, specifically sections 2,3,and 6 for being vague, whimsical,
arbitrary, and capricious and unconstitutional.
The RTC
dismissed the petition stating that it was issued in the exercise of police power and since the facilities were located near residential subdivisions, it therefore constitute a nuisance per se.
Holiday Hills and Domino appealed before the CA which
reversed the RTC decision. It found that the ordinance violated Holiday Hills'
and Domino Farms' right to substantial due process 19 because their hog farms
are not a nuisance per se but a nuisance per accidens, which
cannot be abated via an ordinance.
Issue:
Whether or not the CA correctly reversed the RTC Decision
and declared the invalidity of Municipal Ordinance No. 06.
Ruling:
No. The petitioners have
satisfied both tests of a valid ordinance and police power. All the requisites
for a valid ordinance were established and they rightfully invoked police power
to successfully justify the enactment of the municipal ordinance.
The municipality defends the
Ordinance by stating that it seeks to abate a nuisance per se since The
residents of Binan have exemplified their disgust over these
"stench-emitting" hog farms through a collective complaint signed by
them.
To constitute a nuisance per
se, the obstruction must hinder the public use of streets, highways, or
sidewalks, or the interference with the safety or property of a person must be
immediate. In other words, the perceived danger that the act, omission,
establishment, business, or condition of property poses must be of the type
that presents an emergency.
Here, respondents' hog farms must
be considered a nuisance per se. The fact that they emit an unfavorable
stench immediately interferes with the safety of the residents of Binan.
As a public nuisance, the large hog farms owned by respondents may be abated
through a local ordinance.
Nuisance may be classified in two
ways, according to: ( 1) the object it affects; or (2) its susceptibility to
summary abatement.
Being a nuisance per se, petitioners
can summarily abate respondents' hog farms. Petitioners have substantiated how
the alleged annoying and offensive character of respondents' hog farms is
deleterious to the public health and safety of the residents of Binan.
The means adopted, or summary
abatement of a nuisance per se, is reasonably necessary to accomplish
Municipal Ordinance No. 06' s alleged purpose. It
sought to "fully protect the residents of Binan, Laguna from all forms of
health hazards.”
Municipal Ordinance No. 06 merely
seeks to reduce the level of livestock to a manageable level, and only those
farms with large livestock will be affected. Municipal Ordinance No. 06 does
not totally prohibit the conduct of business and even specifies the number of
livestock and poultry that must not be exceeded by the business owners. To be
sure, it is a form of regulating businesses, which is within the power of local
governments under the general welfare clause of the Local Government Code.
By passing Municipal Ordinance
No. 06, the Municipality of Bifian simply exercised its power to promote the
general welfare of the residents of Bifian by preserving their comfort and
convenience.
