This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-06-06 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| But as correctly noted by the Ombudsman, petitioner failed to point out specific evidence and concrete proof that respondents demonstrated manifest partiality or evident bad faith in the construction of the BGHMC and its retaining wall. There is manifest partiality when there is a clear, notorious, or plain inclination or predilection to favor one side or person rather than another.[20] Evident bad faith, on the other hand, connotes a manifest deliberate intent on the part of the accused to do wrong or cause damage.[21] It connotes not only bad judgment but also palpably and patently fraudulent and dishonest purpose to do moral obliquity or conscious wrongdoing for some perverse motive or ill will.[22] Petitioner has not shown that respondents were impelled by such motives in the performance of their official duties and functions. Neither did petitioner establish that respondents acted with gross inexcusable negligence. As found by the Ombudsman: Respondents adopted emergency slope protection at the onset of the BGHMC Project. The Supplemental Agreement provided reinforced concrete slope protection and grouted rip rap, installation of polyurethane sheets and hiring of structural design specialist x x x. In fact, as recommended by complainant's Architect Angelo Lazaro three hundred (300) RSB soil nails were installed on site. The collapse was due to heavy rains and typhoon Feria. This was followed by the discovery of a pre-war tunnel under which caved-in and collapsed also. The delay was beyond the control of respondents. There was the Open public bidding and the review of plans and structural design by the Bureau of Design. These factors were beyond the scope of authority of respondents. Conformably to the series of acts done by the respondents, we find no negligence or inexcusable negligence as claimed by complainants. The recommendation of complainant's architect was even implemented and yet, due to "force majeure", the collapse happened. | |||||
|
2009-10-05 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| As we explained in Tayaban v. People:[23] | |||||
|
2009-07-13 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| A nuisance per se is that which affects the immediate safety of persons and property and may be summarily abated under the undefined law of necessity.[31] Evidently, the concrete posts summarily removed by petitioner did not at all pose a hazard to the safety of persons and properties, which would have necessitated immediate and summary abatement. What they did, at most, was to pose an inconvenience to the public by blocking the free passage of people to and from the national road. | |||||