G.R
No. 148408
July
14, 2006
Concepcion
Parayno vs. Jose Jovellanos
FACTS:
Respondent Parayno was an owner of a gasoline filling station in Calasiao, Pangasinan. In
1989, some residents of Calasiao petitioned the Sangguniang Bayan (SB) of said
municipality for the closure or transfer of the station to another location.
The matter was referred to the Municipal Engineer, Chief of Police, Municipal
Health Officer and the Bureau of Fire Protection for investigation. Upon their
advice, the Sangguniang Bayan recommended to the Mayor the closure or transfer
of location of petitioner's gasoline station. Resolution 50 stipulated the
alleged violations of the gasoline station in question. Petitioner sought for
reconsideration, which was then denied. She then filed a special civil action
for prohibition and mandamus in the RTC, contending that her gasoline station
was not covered by Section 44 of the Official Zoning Code of Calasiao, which
prohibits gasoline service stations which are within 100meters away from any public or
private school, public library, playground, church, and hospital based on the
straight line method measured from the nearest side of the building nearest the
lot if there are no intervening buildings to the nearest pump of the gasoline
station. Petitioner contended that hers was not a "gasoline service
station" but a "gasoline filling station" governed by Section 21
thereof. Moreover, the decision of the Housing and
Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) in a previous case filed by the same
respondent Jovellanos against her predecessor (Dennis Parayno) should bar the
grounds invoked by respondent municipality in Resolution No. 50. The RTC ruled against petitioner by applying
the virtue of ejusdem generis, saying that a “gasoline filling station” fell within
the ambit of Section 44. Petitioner moved for reconsideration but was, again,
only denied by the RTC. The same fate was met by the petition in the CA. Hence
this appeal.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner’s gasoline filling station could be
likened to that of a gasoline service station as provided for in Section 44 of
the Official zoning Code by virtue of Ejusdem Generis.
HELD:
The Court held
that the zoning ordinance of respondent municipality made a clear distinction
between a gasoline service station and a gasoline filling station as found in
Section 21 and Section 42 of the said ordinance. It was made clear that the two
terms were intended to be distinguished from the other, which the respondent
further admitted. Respondent municipality cannot invoke the principle of
Ejusdem generis which means "of the same
kind, class or nature” but rather should apply the legal maxim expressio
unius est exclusio alterius which means that the express mention of one thing
implies the exclusion of others.
With the distinction clearly provided, respondents could not insist
that "gasoline service station" under Section 44 necessarily included
"gasoline filling station" under Section 21.
The Court also
held that the HLURB decision in the previous case
filed against her predecessor (Dennis Parayno) by respondent Jovellanos had
effectively barred the issues in Resolution No. 50 based on the principle of res
judicata or the rule that a final judgment or decree on the merits by a
court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the parties or
their privies in all later suits on all points and matters determined in the
former suit. With the similarity of the identity of interest of the case at bar
and that of the previous case already decided by HLURB, the litigation should
already end since the concerns had
already been resolved. The Court stated that an individual should not be vexed
twice for the same cause.
0 comments:
Post a Comment