Chua Huat vs. CA G.R. No. L-53851, July 9, 1991 FACTS: Manuel Uy and Sons, Inc.

requested Manila City Engineer and Building Official Manuel del Rosario to condemn the dilapidated structures located in Paco, Manila, all occupied by petitioners. The said official issued notices of condemnation to petitioners based on Inspection Reports showing that the buildings suffered from structural deterioration of as much as 80%. The condemnation orders stated that the subject buildings were found to be in dangerous condition and therefore condemned, subject to the confirmation of the Mayor as required by Section 276 of the Compilation of Ordinances of the City of Manila. It was stated that the notice was not an order to demolish as the findings of the City Engineer are still subject to the approval of the Mayor. The Mayor confirmed the condemnation orders. More than 3 months after the issuance of the condemnation order, petitioners protested against the notices of condemnation on the ground that the buildings are still in good physical condition and are structurally sound. Later, the City Engineer issued a demolition order. The petitioners filed a Petition for Prohibition, with PI or TRO against the City Mayor, City Engineer, Building Officer and Manuel Uy and Sons Inc. The Court issued the TRO and required respondents to comment. Respondents prayed that the petition be dismissed claiming that: (1) the power to condemn buildings and structures in the City of Manila falls within the exclusive domain of the City Engineer pursuant to Sections 275 and 276 of its Compilation of Ordinances (also Revised Ordinances 1600); and (2) the power to condemn and remove buildings and structures is an exercise of the police power granted the City of Manila to promote public safety. ISSUE: (1) WON the power to condemn buildings and structures in the City of Manila falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the City Engineer, who is at the same time the Building Official; (2) WON the City Mayor and City Engineer committed grave abuse of discretion in the exercise of such powers. HELD: (1) YES. The power to condemn buildings and structures in the City of Manila falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the City Engineer, who is at the same time the Building Officials. The Compilation of Ordinances of the City of Manila and the National Building Code, also provide the authority of the Building Officials, with respect to dangerous buildings. Respondent City Engineer and Building Official can, therefore, validly issue the questioned condemnation and demolition orders. This is also true with the Mayor who can

approve or deny the condemnation orders as provided in Section 276 of the Compilation of Ordinances of the City of Manila. (2) NO. The orders were made only after thorough ocular inspections were conducted by the City's Building Inspectors. The results of the inspections were set forth in a memorandum dated 16 November 1982 where it was shown that all the buildings had architectural, structural, sanitary, plumbing and electrical defects of up to 80%. The respondent Mayor's act of approving the condemnation orders was likewise done in accordance with law. Petitioners were given the opportunity to protest the condemnation but only did so long after the lapse of the period (7 days) allowed them under Section 276 of the Compilation of Ordinances of the City of Manila. It is a settled doctrine that there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction "when there is a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, such as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and it must be so patent and gross so as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.