Delfino vs. St. James Hospital, Inc.

A hospital operating in a residential zone under a prior zoning ordinance becomes a non-conforming structure under a new ordinance that expressly reclassifies hospitals as permissible only in institutional zones; consequently, any expansion of such hospital is prohibited under statutory provisions barring the enlargement of non-conforming uses, and the applicable law is that in effect at the time the cause of action arose, regardless of subsequent amendments or repeal.

The case involves a zoning dispute in the Municipality of Santa Rosa, Laguna, concerning St. James Hospital located within the Mariquita Pueblo Subdivision. The dispute arose following the enactment of the 1991 Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) and Zoning Ordinance, which reclassified permissible land uses by transferring hospitals from residential zones to a separate institutional zone, thereby affecting the legal status of existing medical facilities situated in residential areas.

• St. James Hospital, Inc. is situated in Mariquita Pueblo Subdivision, Santa Rosa, Laguna, within a residential zone.
• In 1994, the hospital applied for a permit with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) to expand into a four-storey, forty-bed capacity medical institution.
• At the time of the application, the 1991 Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) or Zoning Ordinance of Santa Rosa, Laguna was in effect.
• Under the previous 1981 Zoning Ordinance, hospitals with a capacity of not more than ten beds were allowed in residential zones.
• The 1991 Zoning Ordinance transferred hospitals to the "institutional zone" under Section 4, Article VI, and removed them from the enumeration of allowed uses in the residential zone under Section 2, Article VI.
• Article X, Section 1 of the 1991 Zoning Ordinance prohibits the enlargement, increase, or extension of non-conforming uses to occupy a greater area of land.
• The 1999 Zoning Ordinance was enacted subsequent to the 1994 application but prior to the final resolution of the case in the Supreme Court.

• Sps. Nereo and Nieva Delfino consistently maintained that the proposed expansion of St. James Hospital violated the 1991 Zoning Ordinance because the hospital was a non-conforming structure in a residential zone.
• They argued that under the 1991 Ordinance, hospitals were no longer permitted in residential zones but were instead classified under the institutional zone, and thus the expansion was prohibited by Article X, Section 1 which bars the enlargement of non-conforming uses.

• St. James Hospital, Inc. argued that the Supreme Court erroneously interpreted the 1991 Zoning Ordinance by failing to recognize that the term "institutional" in Section 2, Article VI of the residential zone provisions included hospitals.
• It contended that the legislative history indicated commercial and institutional uses were retained in residential zones, and that the omission of specific words like "hospitals" from the enumeration did not signify prohibition but rather inclusion under the general "institutional" category or "other spaces designed for recreational pursuit."
• It asserted that the 1999 Zoning Ordinance, which was in effect at the time of the appeal, should be applied to determine the legality of the expansion, and that the hospital complied with this new ordinance.

• Procedural:
  • Whether the 1999 Zoning Ordinance should be applied retroactively to determine the legality of the 1994 application for expansion.
  • Whether arguments based on the 1999 Zoning Ordinance can be raised for the first time in a Motion for Reconsideration before the Supreme Court.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether St. James Hospital constitutes a non-conforming structure under the 1991 Zoning Ordinance of Santa Rosa, Laguna.
  • Whether the term "institutional" in Section 2, Article VI of the 1991 Zoning Ordinance includes hospitals, thereby permitting them in residential zones.
  • Whether the proposed expansion of St. James Hospital is prohibited under Article X, Section 1 of the 1991 Zoning Ordinance.

• Procedural:
  • The Court held that the 1991 Zoning Ordinance, not the 1999 Ordinance, is the applicable law because the cause of action arose in 1994 when the application for expansion was filed; the law in force at the time of the occurrence of the cause of action governs notwithstanding subsequent amendments or repeal.
  • The Court ruled that points of law, theories, issues, and arguments not raised in prior proceedings cannot be raised for the first time in a Motion for Reconsideration before the Supreme Court as this would offend the basic rules of fair play, justice, and due process.
• Substantive:
  • The Court affirmed that St. James Hospital is a non-conforming structure under the 1991 Zoning Ordinance because the ordinance expressly transferred hospitals from residential zones to the institutional zone, and the omission of hospitals from the residential zone list was intentional.
  • The Court applied the maxim expression unius est exclusio alterius, holding that the express enumeration of allowed uses in the residential zone excludes others not mentioned, such as hospitals.
  • The Court ruled that the expansion is prohibited under Section 1, Article X of the 1991 Zoning Ordinance, which explicitly bars the enlargement or increase of non-conforming uses or their extension to occupy a greater area of land.

• Expression unius est exclusio alterius — The express mention of one thing in a law means the exclusion of others not expressly mentioned; applied to hold that the specific enumeration of uses permitted in a residential zone excludes hospitals, which are instead listed in the institutional zone.
• Casus omissus — A thing omitted from a statute must be considered to have been omitted intentionally; applied to conclude that the legislative body deliberately removed hospitals from the list of allowable uses in residential zones when drafting the 1991 Ordinance.
• Non-conforming uses — Existing lawful uses of buildings or land that do not conform to new zoning ordinances may be continued but cannot be enlarged, increased, extended to occupy a greater area, or moved to other portions of the lot.

• "expression unius est exclusio alterius, the express mention of one thing in a law, means the exclusion of others not expressly mentioned"
• "casus omissus in statutory construction, a thing omitted must be considered to have been omitted intentionally"
• "It is a well-settled rule that the law in force at the time of the occurrence of the cause of action is the applicable law notwithstanding its subsequent amendment or repeal."
• "Points of law, theories, issues and arguments not adequately brought to the attention of the trial court need not be, and ordinarily will not be, considered by a reviewing court as they cannot be raised for the first time on appeal because this would be offensive to the basic rules of fair play, justice and due process."

• Republic v. Estenzo — Cited as authority for the application of the maxim expression unius est exclusio alterius.
• Benolirao v. Court of Appeals — Cited for the principle that the law in force at the time of the occurrence of the cause of action is the applicable law.
• Joint Ministry of Health – MOLE Accreditation Committee for Medical Clinics v. Court of Appeals — Cited in support of the principle governing the applicability of the law in force at the time of the cause of action.
• Buyco v. Philippine National Bank — Cited in support of the principle governing the applicability of the law in force at the time of the cause of action.
• In re Will of Riosa — Cited in support of the principle governing the applicability of the law in force at the time of the cause of action.
• Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission — Cited for the rule that new arguments cannot be raised for the first time on appeal or in a motion for reconsideration.

• Section 2, Article VI of the 1991 Zoning Ordinance of Santa Rosa, Laguna — Enumerates the uses permitted within a residential zone, from which hospitals were excluded.
• Section 4, Article VI of the 1991 Zoning Ordinance of Santa Rosa, Laguna — Establishes the institutional zone and expressly enumerates health facilities, including hospitals, as permitted uses therein.
• Section 1, Article X of the 1991 Zoning Ordinance of Santa Rosa, Laguna — Provides that non-conforming uses may be continued but prohibits their enlargement, increase, or extension to occupy a greater area of land.