Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Parayno v. Jovellanos
Parayno v. Jovellanos
DECISION
CORONA, J : p
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules
of Court questioning the resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) which
dismissed the petition for certiorari, mandamus and prohibition, with prayer for
issuance of a preliminary and mandatory injunction, filed by petitioner
Concepcion Parayno against respondents Jose Jovellanos and the Municipality of
Calasiao, Pangasinan.
Petitioner claimed that her gasoline station was not covered by Section 44
of the Official Zoning Code since it was not a "gasoline service station" but a
"gasoline filling station" governed by Section 21 thereof. She added that the
decision of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), 3 in a previous
case filed by the same respondent Jovellanos against her predecessor (Dennis
Parayno), barred the grounds invoked by respondent municipality in Resolution
No. 50. In the HLURB case, respondent Jovellanos opposed the establishment of
the gas station on the grounds that: (1) it was within the 100-meter prohibited
radius under Section 44 and (2) it posed a pernicious effect on the health and
safety of the people in Calasiao. cIADTC
It is evident from the foregoing that the ordinance intended these two
terms to be separate and distinct from each other. Even respondent
municipality's counsel admitted this dissimilarity during the hearing on the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary prohibitory and mandatory
injunction. Counsel in fact admitted:
1. That there exist[ed] an official zoning code of Calasiao,
Pangasinan which [was] not yet amended;
2. That under Article III of said official zoning code there
[were] certain distinctions made by said municipality
about the designation of the gasoline filling station and
that of the gasoline service station as appearing in Article
III, Nos. 21 and 42, [respectively];
3. That the business of the petitioner [was] one of a
gasoline filling station as defined in Article III, Section 21
of the zoning code and not as a service station as
differently defined under Article 42 of the said official
zoning code;
4. That under Section 44 of the official zoning code of
Calasiao, the term filling station as clearly defined under
Article III, Section 21, [did] not appear in the wordings
thereof; 9 (emphasis supplied )
On the alleged hazardous effects of the gasoline station to the lives and
properties of the people of Calasiao, we again note:
Relative to the allegations that the project (gasoline station) is
hazardous to life and property, the Board takes cognizance of the
respondent's contention that the project "is not a fire hazard since
petroleum products shall be safely stored in underground tanks and
that the installation and construction of the underground tanks shall be
in accordance with the Caltex Engineering Procedures which is true to
all gasoline stations in the country. . . .
Hence, the Board is inclined to believe that the project
being hazardous to life and property is more perceived than
factual. For, after all, even the Fire Station Commander, after studying
the plans and specifications of the subject proposed construction,
recommended on 20 January 1989, "to build such buildings after
conform (sic ) all the requirements of PP 1185." It is further alleged
by the complainants that the proposed location is "in the heart
of the thickly populated residential area of Calasiao." Again,
findings of the [HLURB] staff negate the allegations as the
same is within a designated Business/Commercial Zone per the
Zoning Ordinance. . . . 20 (emphasis supplied)
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
The findings of fact of the HLURB are binding as they are already final and
conclusive vis-à-vis the evidence submitted by respondents.
THE PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA
Petitioner points out 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. We agree.
Res judicata refers to 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. 21 For res judicata to apply, the following elements must be
present: (1) the judgment or order must be final; (2) the judgment must be on
the merits; (3) it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over
the subject matter and the parties and (4) there must be, between the first and
second actions, identity of parties, of subject matter and of cause of action. 22
Respondent municipality does not contest the first, second and third
requisites. However, it claims that it was not a party to the HLURB case but
only its co-respondent Jovellanos, hence, the fourth requisite was not met. The
argument is untenable.
The absolute identity of parties is not required for the principle of res
judicata to apply. 23 A shared identity of interests is sufficient to invoke the
application of this principle. 24 The proscription may not be evaded by the mere
expedient of including an additional party. 25 Res judicata may lie as long as
there is a community of interests between a party in the first case and a party
in the second case although the latter may not have been impleaded in the
first. 26
In the assailed resolution of respondent municipality, it raised the same
grounds invoked by its co-respondent in the HLURB: (1) that the resolution
aimed to close down or transfer the gasoline station to another location due to
the alleged violation of Section 44 of the zoning ordinance and (2) that the
hazards of said gasoline station threatened the health and safety of the public.
The HLURB had already settled these concerns and its adjudication had long
attained finality. It is to the interest of the public that there should be an end to
litigation by the parties over a subject matter already fully and fairly adjudged.
Furthermore, an individual should not be vexed twice for the same cause. 27
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Footnotes
*. Hon. Crispin C. Laron, of the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City, Branch 44,
was impleaded as respondent. Under Section 4, Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of
Court, lower courts or judges thereof need not be impleaded either as
petitioners or respondents.
1. Section 44. Gasoline Service Stations:
6. Rollo , p. 7.
7. Rollo , p. 39.
8. Id., p. 40.
9. Annex "E," rollo, p. 70.
10. Section 4, Rule 129, Rules of Court; see also EVIDENCE, by R.J. Francisco,
1996 Edition.
11. Memorandum of Respondent, rollo, p. 125.