Parayno vs. Jovellanos

A municipal zoning ordinance that expressly defines and distinguishes "gasoline filling station" from "gasoline service station" precludes the application of ejusdem generis to include the former within the prohibitions of the latter. Furthermore, a local government unit invalidly exercises police power when it orders the summary closure of a business without due process, particularly when the business is not a nuisance per se and the municipality fails to substantiate alleged violations, and res judicata bars relitigation of issues already settled in a prior final HLURB decision where there is a community of interests between the parties.

Petitioner owned a gasoline filling station in Calasiao, Pangasinan. In 1989, residents petitioned the Sangguniang Bayan for its closure or transfer, citing violations of the zoning code's 100-meter distance rule, fire hazards, health hazards, and traffic congestion. The Sangguniang Bayan adopted Resolution No. 50 recommending closure or transfer based on these grounds. Prior to this resolution, respondent Jose Jovellanos had opposed the establishment of the same station before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) on identical grounds, which the HLURB dismissed in a decision that attained finality.

• The Gasoline Station and Residents' Complaints: Petitioner Concepcion Parayno owned a gasoline filling station in Calasiao, Pangasinan. In 1989, residents petitioned the Sangguniang Bayan for its closure or transfer, alleging violation of the Official Zoning Code (specifically Section 44's 100-meter distance rule from schools and churches), fire and health hazards, building code violations, and traffic congestion.
• Resolution No. 50: The Sangguniang Bayan referred the matter to local offices for investigation and subsequently passed Resolution No. 50, recommending closure or transfer based on the alleged violations and hazards.
• Prior HLURB Adjudication: Before the resolution's passage, respondent Jose Jovellanos had filed a case against petitioner's predecessor (Dennis Parayno) before the HLURB opposing the station's establishment on the exact same grounds. The HLURB ruled in favor of the predecessor, finding that the station complied with safety regulations, was not a fire hazard, and was located within a designated Business/Commercial Zone.

• Statutory Construction: Petitioner argued that ejusdem generis did not apply because the zoning ordinance explicitly distinguished "gasoline filling station" (Section 21) from "gasoline service station" (Section 42), and Section 44 only mentioned the latter.
• Invalid Exercise of Police Power: Petitioner maintained that the closure/transfer ordered by the municipality constituted an invalid exercise of police power.
• Res Judicata: Petitioner insisted that the prior final HLURB decision involving her predecessor and respondent Jovellanos barred the issues raised in Resolution No. 50 under the principle of res judicata.

• Application of Ejusdem Generis: Respondent municipality countered that "gasoline service station" in Section 44 should be interpreted to include "gasoline filling station" under the principle of ejusdem generis.
• Lack of Identity of Parties: Respondent municipality argued that res judicata did not apply because it was not a party to the prior HLURB case, claiming a lack of absolute identity of parties.

• Statutory Construction: Whether the principle of ejusdem generis applies to include a "gasoline filling station" within the prohibition of Section 44 of the Zoning Code, which expressly mentions only "gasoline service station."
• Police Power: Whether the Municipality of Calasiao validly exercised its police power in ordering the closure/transfer of petitioner's gasoline filling station through Resolution No. 50.
• Res Judicata: Whether the principle of res judicata bars the enforcement of Resolution No. 50 based on a prior final HLURB decision, notwithstanding the municipality's non-inclusion in the prior case.

• Statutory Construction: Ejusdem generis was inapplicable because the zoning ordinance expressly defined "gasoline filling station" (Section 21) and "gasoline service station" (Section 42) as distinct terms, a distinction admitted by the municipality's counsel in judicial admissions. The maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius applied instead; the express mention of "gasoline service station" in Section 44 implied the exclusion of "gasoline filling station."
• Police Power: The exercise of police power was invalid for failing the due process requisite. The municipality failed to measure the distance from the station to the school or church, which was crucial to proving a Section 44 violation. Moreover, a gasoline station is not a nuisance per se and cannot be summarily abated without judicial proceedings. The prior HLURB findings also established that the station complied with safety regulations and was located in a commercial zone.
• Res Judicata: Res judicata applied because absolute identity of parties is not required; a shared identity of interests or community of interests suffices. The municipality raised the same grounds (Section 44 violation and health/safety hazards) that its co-respondent Jovellanos raised in the prior HLURB case, which had already attained finality.

• Ejusdem Generis — Where general words follow the enumeration of particular classes of persons or things, the general words apply only to persons or things of the same general nature or class as those enumerated. The doctrine was held inapplicable because the ordinance specifically defined the two terms separately, rendering them distinct rather than falling under a general class.
• Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius — The express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of others. Applied here because Section 44 expressly mentioned "gasoline service station" but omitted "gasoline filling station," implying the latter's exclusion from the prohibition.
• Valid Exercise of Police Power — A local government properly exercises police power only when the following requisites are met: (1) the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require the interference of the State (equal protection clause) and (2) the means employed are reasonably necessary for the attainment of the object sought to be accomplished and not unduly oppressive (due process clause). The municipality failed the due process requisite by ordering closure without substantiating the factual basis for the violation.
• Nuisance Per Se — A nuisance per se affects the immediate safety of persons and property and may be summarily abated. A gasoline station is not a nuisance per se and cannot be summarily closed without judicial proceedings.
• Res Judicata — 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. Elements: (1) final judgment, (2) on the merits, (3) by a court with jurisdiction, (4) identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action. Absolute identity of parties is not required; a community of interests suffices.

• "Instead, what applied in this case was the legal maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius which means that the express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of others."
• "A local government is considered to have properly exercised its police powers only when the following requisites are met: (1) the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require the interference of the State and (2) the means employed are reasonably necessary for the attainment of the object sought to be accomplished and not unduly oppressive."
• "The absolute identity of parties is not required for the principle of res judicata to apply. A shared identity of interests is sufficient to invoke the application of this principle."

• Ching v. Salinas, G.R. No. 161295, 29 June 2005 — Followed for the definition of ejusdem generis.
• NFA v. Masada Security Agency, Inc., G.R. No. 163448, 8 March 2005 — Followed for the definition of expressio unius est exclusio alterius.
• Lucena Grand Central Terminal, Inc. v. JAC Liner, Inc., G.R. No. 148339, 23 February 2005 — Followed for the requisites of a valid exercise of police power.
• Monteverde v. Generoso, 52 Phil. 123 (1982) — Followed for the rule that a gasoline station is not a nuisance per se.
• Development Bank of the Philippines v. La Campana Development Corporation, G.R. No. 137694, 17 January 2005 — Followed for the elements of res judicata.
• Carlet v. Court of Appeals, 341 Phil. 99 (1997) — Followed for the rule that absolute identity of parties is not required for res judicata.

• Section 44, Official Zoning Code of Calasiao — Prohibits gasoline service stations within 100 meters of schools, churches, etc. Interpreted not to include filling stations due to the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius.
• Section 21, Official Zoning Code of Calasiao — Defines "Filling Station" as a retail station servicing automobiles with gasoline and oil only. Used to distinguish the petitioner's business from a service station.
• Section 42, Official Zoning Code of Calasiao — Defines "Service Station" as a building where gasoline, oil, accessories are supplied and specific repair services are rendered. Used to distinguish from a filling station.
• Section 16, RA 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991) — General welfare clause. Cited as the basis for municipal police power, although its exercise must comply with due process and equal protection.
• Section 4, Rule 129, Rules of Court — Provides that judicial admissions are conclusive on the party making them. Applied to bind the municipality to its counsel's admissions distinguishing a filling station from a service station.

Puno, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Azcuna, Garcia