Cruz v. Pandacan Hiker’s Club, Inc., [G.R. No. 188213] Case Digest

 

Cruz v. Pandacan Hiker’s Club, Inc.,

G.R. No. 188213

 

 

Facts:

Petitioner Natividad C. Cruz was Punong Barangay of Brgy, 848, City of Manila. Petitioner Cruz confronted persons playing basketball and thereby instructed Barangay Tanod Benjamin dela Cruz (Dela Cruz), to destroy the basketball ring by cutting it up with a hacksaw,  thus, rendering the said basketball court unusable.

The acts of petitioners prompted the filing of a Complaint (for Malicious Mischief, Grave Misconduct and others before the Prosecutor's Office and the Office of the Ombudsman by the group that claims to be the basketball court's owners. Cruz alleged that the basketball court affected the peace in the barangay and was the subject of many complaints from residents asking for its closure. In support of her answer, Cruz attached copies of the complaints, a "certification" and letters of barangay residents asking for a solution to the problems arising from the disruptive activities on the said playing venue.

 

Issue:

Whether or not Cruz can order to destroy the basketball ring because it is a public nuisance.

 

Held:

No.

 

Ratio:

The destructive acts of petitioners, however, find no legal sanction. This Court has ruled time and again that no public official is above the law. The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that although petitioners claim to have merely performed an abatement of a public nuisance, the same was done summarily while failing to follow the proper procedure therefor and for which, petitioners must be held administratively liable.

Prevailing jurisprudence holds that unless a nuisance is a nuisance per se, it may not be summarily abated.

There is a nuisance when there is "any act, omission, establishment, business, condition of property, or anything else which: (1) injures or endangers the health or safety of others; or (2) annoys or offends the senses; or (3) shocks, defies or disregards decency or morality; or (4) obstructs or interferes with the free passage of any public highway or street, or any body of water; or (5) hinders or impairs the use of property." But other than the statutory definition, jurisprudence recognizes that the term "nuisance" is so comprehensive that it has been applied to almost all ways which have interfered with the rights of the citizens, either in person, property, the enjoyment of his property, or his comfort.