TATEL vs. MUNICIPALITY OF VIRAC
G.R. No. 40243, 11 Mar 1992, 207 SCRA 157
Facts:
Petitioner Celestino Tatel owns a warehouse
in barrio Sta. Elena, Municipality of
Virac. Complaints were received by the
municipality concerning the
disturbance caused by the operation of the abaca bailing machine inside
petitioner’s warehouse.
A committee was then appointed by the municipal council, and it noted from its
investigation on the matter that an accidental fire within the warehouse of the petitioner
created a danger to the lives and properties of the people in the neighborhood.
Resolution No. 29 was passed by the Municipal council declaring said warehouse as a
public nuisance within a purview of Article 694 of the New Civil Code.
Tatel filed a petition for preliminary
injunction to prevent council from implement such a resolution.
Respondent municipal officials contended that petitioner’s
warehouse was constructed in violation of Ordinance No. 13, series of 1952,
prohibiting the construction of warehouses near a block of houses either in the poblacion or barrios without
maintaining the necessary distance of 200 meters from said block of houses to avoid loss of lives and
properties by accidental fire. On the other hand,
petitioner contends that Ordinance No. 13 is unconstitutional.
Issue: Whether or not Ordinance No. 13, series of 1952 is unconstitutional and void.
Ordinance No. 13, series of 1952, was passed by the Municipal Council of Virac in the exercise of its police power. It is a settled principle of law that municipal corporations are agencies of the State for the promotion and maintenance of local self-government and as such are endowed with the police powers in order to effectively accomplish and carry out the declared objects of their creation. Its authority emanates from the general welfare clause under the Administrative Code, which reads:
The
municipal council shall enact such ordinances and make such regulations, not
repugnant to law, as may be necessary to carry into effect and discharge the
powers and duties conferred upon it by law and such as shall seem necessary and
proper to provide for the health and safety, promote the prosperity, improve
the morals, peace, good order, comfort and convenience of the municipality and
the inhabitants thereof, and for the protection of property therein.
For an ordinance to be valid, it must
not only be within the corporate powers of the municipality to enact but must
also be passed according to the procedure prescribed by law, and must be in
consonance with certain well established and basic principles of a substantive
nature. These principles require that a municipal ordinance:
(1) must
not contravene the Constitution or any statute
(2) must
not be unfair or oppressive
(3) must
not be partial or discriminatory
(4) must
not prohibit but may regulate trade
(5) must
be general and consistent with public policy, and
(6) must
not be unreasonable.
Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1952, meets these
criteria.
Issue:
Whether or not the Ordinance is discriminatory in that warehouses similarly
situated as that of the petitioner were not prosecuted
The mere fact that the municipal authorities
of Virac have not proceeded against other warehouses in the municipality
allegedly violating Ordinance No. 13 is no reason to claim that the ordinance
is discriminatory. A distinction must be made between the law itself and the
manner in which said law is implemented by the agencies in charge with its
administration and enforcement. There is no valid reason for the petitioner to
complain in the absence of proof that the other bodegas mentioned by him are
operating in violation of the ordinance and that the complaints have been
lodged against the bodegas concerned without the municipal authorities doing
anything about it.
The objections interposed by the petitioner
to the validity of the ordinance have not been substantiated. Its purpose is
well within the objectives of sound government. No undue restraint is placed
upon the petitioner or for anybody to engage in trade but merely a prohibition
from storing inflammable products in the warehouse because of the danger of
fire to the lives and properties of the people residing in the vicinity. As
far as public policy is concerned, there can be no better policy than what has
been conceived by the municipal government.
0
Comments
