Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

SECOND DIVISIONG.R. No. 61516 March 21, 1989

FLORENTINA A. GUILATCO,petitioner,vs.CITY OF DAGUPAN, and the HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS,respondents.Nolan R. Evangelista for petitioner.

The City Legal Officer for respondents.SARMIENTO,J.:In a civil action1for recovery of damages filed by the petitioner Florentina A. Guilatco, the following judgment was rendered against the respondent City of Dagupan:

x x x

(1) Ordering defendant City of Dagupan to pay plaintiff actual damages in the amount of P 15,924 (namely P8,054.00 as hospital, medical and other expenses [Exhs. H to H-60], P 7,420.00 as lost income for one (1) year [Exh. F] and P 450.00 as bonus). P 150,000.00 as moral damages, P 50,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P 3,000.00 as attorney's fees, and litigation expenses, plus costs and to appropriate through its Sangguniang Panglunsod (City Council) said amounts for said purpose;

(2) Dismissing plaintiffs complaint as against defendant City Engr. Alfredo G. Tangco; and

(3) Dismissing the counterclaims of defendant City of Dagupan and defendant City Engr. Alfredo G. Tangco, for lack of merit.2The facts found by the trial court are as follows:3It would appear from the evidences that on July 25, 1978, herein plaintiff, a Court Interpreter of Branch III, CFI--Dagupan City, while she was about to board a motorized tricycle at a sidewalk located at Perez Blvd. (a National Road, under the control and supervision of the City of Dagupan) accidentally fell into a manhole located on said sidewalk, thereby causing her right leg to be fractured. As a result thereof, she had to be hospitalized, operated on, confined, at first at the Pangasinan Provincial Hospital, from July 25 to August 3, 1978 (or for a period of 16 days). She also incurred hospitalization, medication and other expenses to the tune of P 8,053.65 (Exh. H to H-60) or a total of P 10,000.00 in all, as other receipts were either lost or misplaced; during the period of her confinement in said two hospitals, plaintiff suffered severe or excruciating pain not only on her right leg which was fractured but also on all parts of her body; the pain has persisted even after her discharge from the Medical City General Hospital on October 9, 1978, to the present. Despite her discharge from the Hospital plaintiff is presently still wearing crutches and the Court has actually observed that she has difficulty in locomotion. From the time of the mishap on July 25, 1978 up to the present, plaintiff has not yet reported for duty as court interpreter, as she has difficulty of locomotion in going up the stairs of her office, located near the city hall in Dagupan City. She earns at least P 720.00 a month consisting of her monthly salary and other means of income, but since July 25, 1978 up to the present she has been deprived of said income as she has already consumed her accrued leaves in the government service. She has lost several pounds as a result of the accident and she is no longer her former jovial self, she has been unable to perform her religious, social, and other activities which she used to do prior to the incident.

Dr. Norberto Felix and Dr. Dominado Manzano of the Provincial Hospital, as well as Dr. Antonio Sison of the Medical City General Hospital in Mandaluyong Rizal (Exh. I; see also Exhs. F, G, G-1 to G-19) have confirmed beyond shadow of any doubt the extent of the fracture and injuries sustained by the plaintiff as a result of the mishap. On the other hand, Patrolman Claveria, De Asis and Cerezo corroborated the testimony of the plaintiff regarding the mishap and they have confirmed the existence of the manhole (Exhs. A, B, C and sub-exhibits) on the sidewalk along Perez Blvd., at the time of the incident on July 25, 1978 which was partially covered by a concrete flower pot by leaving gaping hole about 2 ft. long by 1 1/2 feet wide or 42 cms. wide by 75 cms. long by 150 cms. deep (see Exhs. D and D-1).

Defendant Alfredo Tangco, City Engineer of Dagupan City and admittedly ex-officio Highway Engineer, City Engineer of the Public Works and Building Official for Dagupan City, admitted the existence of said manhole along the sidewalk in Perez Blvd., admittedly a National Road in front of the Luzon Colleges. He also admitted that said manhole (there are at least 11 in all in Perez Blvd.) is owned by the National Government and the sidewalk on which they are found along Perez Blvd. are also owned by the National Government. But as City Engineer of Dagupan City, he supervises the maintenance of said manholes or drainage system and sees to it that they are properly covered, and the job is specifically done by his subordinates, Mr. Santiago de Vera (Maintenance Foreman) and Engr. Ernesto Solermo also a maintenance Engineer. In his answer defendant Tangco expressly admitted in par. 7-1 thereof, that in his capacity as ex-officio Highway Engineer for Dagupan City he exercises supervision and control over National roads, including the Perez Blvd. where the incident happened.

On appeal by the respondent City of Dagupan, the appellate court4reversed the lower court findings on the ground that no evidence was presented by the plaintiff- appellee to prove that the City of Dagupan had "control or supervision" over Perez Boulevard.5The city contends that Perez Boulevard, where the fatal drainage hole is located, is a national road that is not under the control or supervision of the City of Dagupan. Hence, no liability should attach to the city. It submits that it is actually the Ministry of Public Highways that has control or supervision through the Highway Engineer which, by mere coincidence, is held concurrently by the same person who is also the City Engineer of Dagupan.

After examination of the findings and conclusions of the trial court and those of the appellate court, as well as the arguments presented by the parties, we agree with those of the trial court and of the petitioner. Hence, we grant the petition.

In this review on certiorari, we have simplified the errors assigned by the petitioner to a single issue: whether or not control or supervision over a national road by the City of Dagupan exists, in effect binding the city to answer for damages in accordance with article 2189 of the Civil Code.

The liability of public corporations for damages arising from injuries suffered by pedestrians from the defective condition of roads is expressed in the Civil Code as follows:

Article 2189. Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be liable for damages for the death of, or injuries suffered by, any person by reason of the defective condition of roads, streets, bridges, public buildings, and other public works under their control or supervision.

It is not even necessary for the defective road or street to belong to the province, city or municipality for liability to attach. The article only requires that either control or supervision is exercised over the defective road or street.6In the case at bar, this control or supervision is provided for in the charter of Dagupan and is exercised through the City Engineer who has the following duties:

Sec. 22. The City Engineer--His powers, duties and compensation-There shall be a city engineer, who shall be in charge of the department of Engineering and Public Works. He shall receive a salary of not exceeding three thousand pesos per annum. He shall have the following duties:

x x x

(j) He shall have the care and custody of the public system of waterworks and sewers, and all sources of water supply, and shall control, maintain and regulate the use of the same, in accordance with the ordinance relating thereto; shall inspect and regulate the use of all private systems for supplying water to the city and its inhabitants, and all private sewers, and their connection with the public sewer system.

x x x

The same charter of Dagupan also provides that the laying out, construction and improvement of streets, avenues and alleys and sidewalks, and regulation of the use thereof, may be legislated by the Municipal Board .7Thus the charter clearly indicates that the city indeed has supervision and control over the sidewalk where the open drainage hole is located.

The express provision in the charter holding the city not liable for damages or injuries sustained by persons or property due to the failure of any city officer to enforce the provisions of the charter, can not be used to exempt the city, as in the case at bar.8The charter only lays downgeneral rulesregulating the liability of the city. On the other hand article 2189 appliesin particularto the liability arising from "defective streets, public buildings and other public works."9The City Engineer, Mr. Alfredo G. Tangco, admits that he exercises control or supervision over the said road. But the city can not be excused from liability by the argument that the duty of the City Engineer to supervise or control the said provincial road belongs more to his functions as an ex-officio Highway Engineer of the Ministry of Public Highway than as a city officer. This is because while he is entitled to an honorarium from the Ministry of Public Highways, his salary from the city government substantially exceeds the honorarium.

We do not agree.

Alfredo G. Tangco "(i)n his official capacity as City Engineer of Dagupan, as Ex- Officio Highway Engineer, as Ex-Officio City Engineer of the Bureau of Public Works, and, last but not the least, as Building Official for Dagupan City, receives the following monthly compensation: P 1,810.66 from Dagupan City; P 200.00 from the Ministry of Public Highways; P 100.00 from the Bureau of Public Works and P 500.00 by virtue of P.D. 1096, respectively."10This function of supervision over streets, public buildings, and other public works pertaining to the City Engineer is coursed through a Maintenance Foreman and a Maintenance Engineer.11Although these last two officials are employees of the National Government, they are detailed with the City of Dagupan and hence receive instruction and supervision from the city through the City Engineer.

There is, therefore, no doubt that the City Engineer exercises control or supervision over the public works in question. Hence, the liability of the city to the petitioner under article 2198 of the Civil Code is clear.

Be all that as it may, the actual damages awarded to the petitioner in the amount of P 10,000.00 should be reduced to the proven expenses of P 8,053.65 only. The trial court should not have rounded off the amount. In determining actual damages, the court can not rely on "speculation, conjecture or guess work" as to the amount. Without the actual proof of loss, the award of actual damages becomes erroneous.12On the other hand, moral damages may be awarded even without proof of pecuniary loss, inasmuch as the determination of the amount is discretionary on the court.13Though incapable of pecuniary estimation, moral damages are in the nature of an award to compensate the claimant for actual injury suffered but which for some reason can not be proven. However, in awarding moral damages, the following should be taken into consideration:

(1) First, the proximate cause of the injury must be the claimee's acts.14(2) Second, there must be compensatory or actual damages as satisfactory proof of the factual basis for damages.15(3) Third, the award of moral damages must be predicated on any of the cases enumerated in the Civil Code.16In the case at bar, the physical suffering and mental anguish suffered by the petitioner were proven. Witnesses from the petitioner's place of work testified to the degeneration in her disposition-from being jovial to depressed. She refrained from attending social and civic activities.17Nevertheless the award of moral damages at P 150,000.00 is excessive. Her handicap was not permanent and disabled her only during her treatment which lasted for one year. Though evidence of moral loss and anguish existed to warrant the award of damages,18the moderating hand of the law is called for. The Court has time and again called attention to the reprehensible propensity of trial judges to award damages without basis,19resulting in exhorbitant amounts.20Although the assessment of the amount is better left to the discretion of the trial court21under preceding jurisprudence, the amount of moral damages should be reduced to P 20,000.00.

As for the award of exemplary damages, the trial court correctly pointed out the basis:

To serve as an example for the public good, it is high time that the Court, through this case, should serve warning to the city or cities concerned to be more conscious of their duty and responsibility to their constituents, especially when they are engaged in construction work or when there are manholes on their sidewalks or streets which are uncovered, to immediately cover the same, in order to minimize or prevent accidents to the poor pedestrians.22Too often in the zeal to put up "public impact" projects such as beautification drives, the end is more important than the manner in which the work is carried out. Because of this obsession for showing off, such trivial details as misplaced flower pots betray the careless execution of the projects, causing public inconvenience and inviting accidents.

Pending appeal by the respondent City of Dagupan from the trial court to the appellate court, the petitioner was able to secure an order for garnishment of the funds of the City deposited with the Philippine National Bank, from the then presiding judge, Hon. Willelmo Fortun. This order for garnishment was revoked subsequently by the succeeding presiding judge, Hon. Romeo D. Magat, and became the basis for the petitioner's motion for reconsideration which was also denied.23We rule that the execution of the judgment of the trial court pending appeal was premature. We do not find any good reason to justify the issuance of an order of execution even before the expiration of the time to appeal .24WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed decision and resolution of the respondent Court of Appeals are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the decision of the trial court, dated March 12, 1979 and amended on March 13, 1979, is hereby REINSTATED with the indicated modifications as regards the amounts awarded:

(1) Ordering the defendant City of Dagupan to pay the plaintiff actual damages in the amount of P 15,924 (namely P 8,054.00 as hospital, medical and other expenses; P 7,420.00 as lost income for one (1) year and P 450.00 as bonus); P 20,000.00 as moral damages and P 10,000.00 as exemplary damages.

The attorney's fees of P 3,000.00 remain the same.

SO ORDERED.Melencio-Herrera, (Chaiperson), Paras, Padilla and Regalado, JJ., concur.Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

SECOND DIVISIONG.R. No. 40243 March 11, 1992

CELESTINO TATEL,petitioner,vs.MUNICIPALITY OF VIRAC, SALVADOR A. SURTIDA, in his capacity as Mayor of Virac, Catanduanes; GAVINO V. GUERRERO, in his capacity as Vice-Mayor of Virac, Catanduanes; JOSE T. BUEBOS, in his capacity as Councilor of Virac, Catanduanes; ANGELES TABLIZO, in his capacity as Councilor of Virac, Catanduanes; ELPIDIO T. ZAFE, in his capacity as Councilor of Virac, Catanduanes; MARIANO ALBERTO, in his capacity as Councilor of Virac, Catanduanes; JULIA A. GARCIA, in her capacity as Councilor of Virac, Catanduanes; and PEDRO A. GUERRERO, in his capacity as Councilor of Virac, Catanduanes,respondents.NOCON,J.:This is a Petition for Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction with the Court of First Instance of Catanduanes filed by appellant, Celestino Tatel, a businessman engaged in the import and export of abaca and other products against the Municipal Council of Virac, Catanduanes and its municipal officials enjoining them from enforcing Resolution No 291of the Council, declaring the warehouse of petitioner in barrio Sta. Elena of the said municipality a public nuisance within the purview of Article 694 of the Civil Code of the Philippines and directing the petitioner to remove and transfer said warehouse to a more suitable place within two (2) months from receipt of the said resolution.

It appears from the records that on the basis of complaints received from the residents of barrio Sta. Elena on March 18, 1966 against the disturbance caused by the operation of the abaca bailing machine inside the warehouse of petitioner which affected the peace and tranquility of the neighborhood due to the smoke, obnoxious odor and dust emitted by the machine, a committee was appointed by the municipal council of Virac to investigate the matter. The committee noted the crowded nature of the neighborhood with narrow roads and the surrounding residential houses, so much so that an accidental fire within the warehouse of the petitioner occasioned by the continuance of the activity inside the warehouse and the storing of inflammable materials created a danger to the lives and properties of the people within the neighborhood.

Resultantly, Resolution No. 29 was passed by the Municipal Council of Virac on April 22, 1966 declaring the warehouse owned and operated by petitioner a public nuisance within the purview of Article 694 of the New Civil Code.2His motion for reconsideration having been denied by the Municipal Council of Virac, petitioner instituted the present petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction.

Respondent municipal officials contend 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 said ordinance is unconstitutional, contrary to the due process and equal protection clause of the Constitution and null and void for not having been passed in accordance with law.

The issue then boils down on whether petitioner's warehouse is a nuisance within the meaning of Article 694 of the Civil Code and whether Ordinance No. 13, S. 1952 of the Municipality of Virac is unconstitutional and void.

In a decision dated September 18, 1969, the courta quoruled as follows:

1. The warehouse in question was legally constructed under a valid permit issued by the municipality of Virac in accordance with existing regulations and may not be destroyed or removed from its present location;

2. Ordinance No. 13, series of 1952, is a legitimate and valid exercise of police power by the Municipal Council of Virac is not (sic) unconstitutional and void as claimed by the petitioner;

3. The storage by the petitioner of abaca and copra in the warehouse is not only in violation of the provisions of the ordinance but poses a grave danger to the safety of the lives and properties of the residents of the neighborhood due to accidental fire and constitutes a public nuisance under the provisions of Article 694 of the New Civil code of the Philippines and may be abated;

4. Accordingly, the petitioner is hereby directed to remove from the said warehouse all abaca and copra and other inflammable articles stored therein which are prohibited under the provisions of Ordinance No. 13, within a period of two (2) months from the time this decision becomes final and that henceforth, the petitioner is enjoined from storing such prohibited articles in the warehouse. With costs against petitioner.

Seeking appellate review, petitioner raised as errors of the courta quo:1. In holding that Ordinance No. 13, series of 1952, of the Municipality of Virac, Catanduanes, is a legitimate and valid exercise of police power of the Municipal Council, and therefore, constitutional;

2. In giving the ordinance a meaning other than and different from what itprovidedby declaring that petitioner violated the same by using the warehouse for storage of abaca and copra when what is prohibited and penalized by the ordinance is the construction of warehouses.

3. In refusing to take judicial notice of the fact that in the municipality, there are numerous establishments similarly situated as appellants' warehouses but which are not prosecuted.

We find no merit in the Petition.

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.3Its 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.4For 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.5Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1952, meets these criteria.

As to the petitioner's second assignment of error, the trial court did not give the ordinance in question a meaning other than what it says. Ordinance No. 13 passed by the Municipal Council of Virac on December 29, 1952,6reads:

AN ORDINANCE STRICTLY PROHIBITING THE CONSTRUCTION OF WAREHOUSE IN ANY FORM NEAR A BLOCK OF HOUSES EITHER IN POBLACION OR BARRIO WITH NECESSARY DISTANCE TO AVOID GREAT LOSSES OF PROPERTY AND LIVES BY FIRE ACCIDENT.

Section 1 provides:

It is strictly prohibited to construct warehouses in any form to any person, persons, entity, corporation or merchants, wherein to keep or store copra, hemp, gasoline, petroleum, alcohol, crude oil, oil of turpentine and the like products or materials if not within the distance of 200 meters from a block of houses either in the poblacion or barrios to avoid great losses of properties inclusive lives by fire accident.

Section 2 provides:7Owners of warehouses in any form, are hereby given advice to remove their said warehouses this ordinance by the Municipal Council,providedhowever, that if those warehouses now in existence should no longer be utilized as such warehouse for the above-described products in Section 1 of this ordinance after a lapse of the time given for the removal of the said warehouses now in existence, same warehouses shall be exempted from the spirit of the provision of section 1 of this ordinance,providedfurther, that these warehouses now in existence, shall in the future be converted into non-inflammable products and materials warehouses.

In spite of its fractured syntax, basically, what is regulated by the ordinance is the construction of warehouses wherein inflammable materials are stored where such warehouses are located at a distance of 200 meters from a block of houses and not the constructionper seof a warehouse. The purpose is to avoid the loss of life and property in case of fire which is one of the primordial obligation of the government.

This was also the observation of the trial court:

A casual glance of the ordinance at once reveals a manifest disregard of the elemental rules of syntax. Experience, however, will show that this is not uncommon in law making bodies in small towns where local authorities and in particular the persons charged with the drafting and preparation of municipal resolutions and ordinances lack sufficient education and training and are not well grounded even on the basic and fundamental elements of the English language commonly used throughout the country in such matters. Nevertheless, if one scrutinizes the terms of the ordinance, it is clear that what is prohibited is the construction of warehouses by any person, entity or corporation wherein copra, hemp, gasoline and other inflammable products mentioned in Section 1 may be stored unless at a distance of not less than 200 meters from a block of houses either in the poblacion or barrios in order to avoid loss of property and life due to fire. Under Section 2, existing warehouses for the storage of the prohibited articles were given one year after the approval of the ordinance within which to remove them but were allowed to remain in operation if they had ceased to store such prohibited articles.

The ambiguity therefore is more apparent than real and springs from simple error in grammatical construction but otherwise, the meaning and intent is clear that what is prohibited is the construction or maintenance of warehouses for the storage of inflammable articles at a distance within 200 meters from a block of houses either in the poblacion or in the barrios. And the purpose of the ordinance is to avoid loss of life and property in case of accidental fire which is one of the primordial and basic obligation of any government.8Clearly, the lower court did NOT add meaning other than or differrent from what wasprovidedin the ordinance in question. It merely stated the purpose of the ordinance and what it intends to prohibit to accomplish its purpose.

As to the third assignment of error, that warehouses similarly situated as that of the petitioner were not prosecuted, suffice it to say that 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.

As to petitioner's contention of want of jurisdiction by the lower court we find no merit in the same. The case is a simple civil suit for abatement of a nuisance, the original jurisdiction of which falls under the then Court of First Instance.

WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the petition is hereby DISMISSED. Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.Melencio-Herrera, Paras, Padilla and Regalado, JJ., concur.Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

FIRST DIVISIONG.R. No. L-31249 August 19, 1986

SALVADOR VILLACORTA as City Engineer of Dagupan City, and JUAN S. CAGUIOA as Register of Deeds of Dagupan City,petitioners,vs.GREGORIO BERNARDO and HON. MACARIO OFILADA as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinanrespondents.Victor T. Llamas, Jr. for respondents.CRUZ,J.:This is a petition for certiorari against a decision of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan annulling an ordinance adopted by the municipal board of Dagupan City.

The ordinance reads in full as follows:

ORDINANCE 22

AN ORDINANCE REGULATING SUBDIVISION PLANS OVER PARCELS OF LAND IN THE CITY OF DAGUPAN.

Be it ordained by the Municipal Board of Dagupan City in session assembled:

Section 1. Every proposed subdivision plan over any lot in the City of Dagupan, shalt before the same is submitted for approval and/or verification by the Bureau of Lands and/or the Land Registration Commission, be previously submitted to the City Engineer of the City who shall see to it that no encroachment is made on any portion of the public domain, that the zoning ordinance and all other pertinent rules and regulations are observed.

Section 2. As service fee thereof, an amount equivalent to P0.30 per square meter of every lot resulting or win result from such subdivision shall be charged by the City Engineer's Office.

Section 3. It shall be unlawful for the Register of Deeds of Dagupan City to allow the registration of a subdivision plan unless there is prior written certification issued by the City Engineer that such plan has already been submitted to his office and that the same is in order.

Section 4. Any violation of this ordinance shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two hundred (P200.00) pesos or imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months or both in the discretion of the judge.

Section 5. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon approval.

In declaring the said ordinance null and void, the courta quodeclared:

From the above-recited requirements, there is no showing that would justify the enactment of the questioned ordinance. Section 1 of said ordinance clearly conflicts with Section 44 of Act 496, because the latter law does not require subdivision plans to be submitted to the City Engineer before the same is submitted for approval to and verification by the General Land Registration Office or by the Director of Lands as provided for in Section 58 of said Act. Section 2 of the same ordinance also contravenes the provisions of Section 44 of Act 496, the latter being silent on a service fee of PO.03 per square meter of every lot subject of such subdivision application; Section 3 of the ordinance in question also conflicts with Section 44 of Act 496, because the latter law does not mention of a certification to be made by the City Engineer before the Register of Deeds allows registration of the subdivision plan; and the last section of said ordinance imposes a penalty for its violation, which Section 44 of Act 496 does not impose. In other words, Ordinance 22 of the City of Dagupan imposes upon a subdivision owner additional conditions.

xxx xxx xxx

The Court takes note of the laudable purpose of the ordinance in bringing to a halt the surreptitious registration of lands belonging to the government. But as already intimidated above, the powers of the board in enacting such a laudable ordinance cannot be held valid when it shall impede the exercise of rights granted in a general law and/or make a general law subordinated to a local ordinance.

We affirm.

To sustain the ordinance would be to open the floodgates to other ordinances amending and so violating national laws in the guise of implementing them. Thus, ordinances could be passed imposing additional requirements for the issuance of marriage licenses, to prevent bigamy; the registration of vehicles, to minimize carnaping; the execution of contracts, to forestall fraud; the validation of passports, to deter imposture; the exercise of freedom of speech, to reduce disorder; and so on. The list is endless, but the means, even if the end be valid, would beultra vires.

So many excesses are attempted in the name of the police power that it is time, we feel, for a brief admonition.

Regulation is a fact of life in any well-ordered community. As society becomes more and more complex, the police power becomes correspondingly ubiquitous. This has to be so for the individual must subordinate his interests to the common good, on the time honored justification ofSalus populi est suprema lex.

In this prolix age, practically everything a person does and owns affects the public interest directly or at least vicariously, unavoidably drawing him within the embrace of the police power. Increasingly, he is hemmed in by all manner of statutory, administrative and municipal requirements and restrictions that he may find officious and even oppressive.

It is necessary to stress that unless the creeping interference of the government in essentially private matters is moderated, it is likely to destroy that prized and peculiar virtue of the free society: individualism.

Every member of society, while paying proper deference to the general welfare, must not be deprived of the right to be left alone or, in the Idiom of the day, "to do his thing." As long as he does not prejudice others, his freedom as an individual must not be unduly curtailed.

We therefore urge that proper care attend the exercise of the police power lest it deteriorate into an unreasonable intrusion into the purely private affairs of the individual. The so-called "general welfare" is too amorphous and convenient an excuse for official arbitrariness.

Let it always be remembered that in the truly democratic state, protecting the rights of the individual is as important as, if not more so than, protecting the rights of the public.

This advice is especially addressed to the local governments which exercise the police power only by virtue of a valid delegation from the national legislature under the general welfare clause. In the instant case, Ordinance No. 22 suffers from the additional defect of violating this authority for legislation in contravention of the national law by adding to its requirements.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the lower court annulling the challenged ordinance is AFFIRMED, without any pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.Yap (Chairman), Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera and Paras, JJ., concur.Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

EN BANCG.R. No. L-42571-72 July 25, 1983

VICENTE DE LA CRUZ, RENATO ALIPIO, JOSE TORRES III, LEONCIO CORPUZ, TERESITA CALOT, ROSALIA FERNANDEZ, ELIZABETH VELASCO, NANETTE VILLANUEVA, HONORATO BUENAVENTURA, RUBEN DE CASTRO, VICENTE ROXAS, RICARDO DAMIAN, DOMDINO ROMDINA, ANGELINA OBLIGACION, CONRADO GREGORIO, TEODORO REYES, LYDIA ATRACTIVO, NAPOLEON MENDOZA, PERFECTO GUMATAY, ANDRES SABANGAN, ROSITA DURAN, SOCORRO BERNARDEZ, and PEDRO GABRIEL,petitioners,vs.THE HONORABLE EDGARDO L. PARAS, MATIAS RAMIREZ as the Municipal Mayor, MARIO MENDOZA as the Municipal Vice-Mayor, and THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF BOCAUE, BULACAN,respondents.Federico N. Alday for petitioners.

Dakila F. Castro for respondents.FERNANDO,C.J.:The crucial question posed by this certiorari proceeding is whether or not a municipal corporation, Bocaue, Bulacan, represented by respondents,1can, prohibit the exercise of a lawful trade, the operation of night clubs, and the pursuit of a lawful occupation, such clubs employing hostesses. It is contended that the ordinance assailed as invalid is tainted with nullity, the municipality being devoid of power to prohibit a lawful business, occupation or calling, petitioners at the same time alleging that their rights to due process and equal protection of the laws were violated as the licenses previously given to them was in effect withdrawn without judicial hearing.2The assailed ordinance3is worded as follows: "Section 1.Title of Ordinance. This Ordinance shall be known and may be cited as the [Prohibition and Closure Ordinance] of Bocaue, Bulacan. Section 2. Definitions of Terms (a) 'Night Club' shall include any place or establishment selling to the public food or drinks where customers are allowed to dance. (b) 'Cabaret' or 'Dance Hall' shall include any place or establishment where dancing is permitted to the public and where professional hostesses or hospitality girls and professional dancers are employed. (c) 'Professional hostesses' or 'hospitality girls' shall include any woman employed by any of the establishments herein defined to entertain guests and customers at their table or to dance with them. (d) 'Professional dancer' shall include any woman who dances at any of the establishments herein defined for a fee or remuneration paid directly or indirectly by the operator or by the persons she dances with. (e) 'Operator' shall include the owner, manager, administrator or any person who operates and is responsible for the operation of any night club, cabaret or dance hall. Section 3. Prohibition in the Issuance and Renewal of Licenses, Permits. Being the principal cause in the decadence of morality and because of their other adverse effects on this community as explained above, no operator of night clubs, cabarets or dance halls shall henceforth be issued permits/licenses to operate within the jurisdiction of the municipality and no license/permit shall be issued to any professional hostess, hospitality girls and professional dancer for employment in any of the aforementioned establishments. The prohibition in the issuance of licenses/permits to said persons and operators of said establishments shall include prohibition in the renewal thereof. Section 4.Revocation of Permits and Licenses. The licenses and permits issued to operators of night clubs, cabarets or dance halls which are now in operation including permits issued to professional hostesses, hospitality girls and professional dancers are hereby revoked upon the expiration of the thirty-day period given them as provided in Section 8 hereof and thenceforth, the operation of these establishments within the jurisdiction of the municipality shall be illegal. Section 5.Penalty in case of violation. Violation of any of the provisions of this Ordinance shall be punishable by imprisonment not exceeding three (3) months or a fine not exceeding P200.00 or both at the discretion of the Court. If the offense is committed by a juridical entity, the person charged with the management and/or operation thereof shall be liable for the penalty provided herein. Section 6. Separability Clause. If, for any reason, any section or provision of this Ordinance is held unconstitutional or invalid, no other section or provision hereof shall be affected thereby. Section 7.Repealing Clause. All ordinance, resolutions, circulars, memoranda or parts thereof that are inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section 8.Effectivity. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its approval; provided, however, that operators of night clubs, cabarets and dance halls now in operation including professional hostesses, hospitality girls and professional dancers are given a period of thirty days from the approval hereof within which to wind up their businesses and comply with the provisions of this Ordinance."4On November 5, 1975, two cases for prohibition with preliminary injunction were filed with the Court of First Instance of Bulacan.5The grounds alleged follow:

1. Ordinance No. 84 is null and void as a municipality has no authority to prohibit a lawful business, occupation or calling.

2. Ordinance No. 84 is violative of the petitioners' right to due process and the equal protection of the law, as the license previously given to petitioners was in effect withdrawn without judicial hearing. 3. That under Presidential Decree No. 189, as amended, by Presidential Decree No. 259, the power to license and regulate tourist-oriented businesses including night clubs, has been transferred to the Department of Tourism."6The cases were assigned to respondent Judge, now Associate Justice Paras of the Intermediate Appellate Court, who issued a restraining order on November 7, 1975. The answers were thereafter filed. It was therein alleged: " 1. That the Municipal Council is authorized by law not only to regulate but to prohibit the establishment, maintenance and operation of night clubs invoking Section 2243 of the RAC, CA 601, Republic Acts Nos. 938, 978 and 1224. 2. The Ordinance No. 84 is not violative of petitioners' right to due process and the equal protection of the law, since property rights are subordinate to public interests. 3. That Presidential Decree No. 189, as amended, did not deprive Municipal Councils of their jurisdiction to regulate or prohibit night clubs."7There was the admission of the following facts as having been established: "l. That petitioners Vicente de la Cruz, et al. in Civil Case No. 4755-M had been previously issued licenses by the Municipal Mayor of Bocaue-petitioner Jose Torres III, since 1958; petitioner Vicente de la Cruz, since 1960; petitioner Renato Alipio, since 1961 and petitioner Leoncio Corpuz, since 1972; 2. That petitioners had invested large sums of money in their businesses; 3. That the night clubs are well-lighted and have no partitions, the tables being near each other; 4. That the petitioners owners/operators of these clubs do not allow the hospitality girls therein to engage in immoral acts and to go out with customers; 5. That these hospitality girls are made to go through periodic medical check-ups and not one of them is suffering from any venereal disease and that those who fail to submit to a medical check-up or those who are found to be infected with venereal disease are not allowed to work; 6. That the crime rate there is better than in other parts of Bocaue or in other towns of Bulacan."8Then came on January 15, 1976 the decision upholding the constitutionality and validity of Ordinance No. 84 and dismissing the cases. Hence this petition for certiorari by way of appeal.

In an exhaustive as well as scholarly opinion, the lower court dismissed the petitions. Its rationale is set forth in the opening paragraph thus: "Those who lust cannot last. This in essence is why the Municipality of Bocaue, Province of Bulacan, stigmatized as it has been by innuendos of sexual titillation and fearful of what the awesome future holds for it, had no alternative except to order thru its legislative machinery, and even at the risk of partial economic dislocation, the closure of its night clubs and/or cabarets. This in essence is also why this Court, obedient to the mandates of good government, and cognizant of the categorical imperatives of the current legal and social revolution, hereby [upholds] in the name of police power the validity and constitutionality of Ordinance No. 84, Series of 1975, of the Municipal Council of Bocaue, Bulacan. The restraining orders heretofore issued in these two cases are therefore hereby rifted, effective the first day of February, 1976, the purpose of the grace period being to enable the petitioners herein to apply to the proper appellate tribunals for any contemplated redress."9This Court is, however, unable to agree with such a conclusion and for reasons herein set forth, holds that reliance on the police power is insufficient to justify the enactment of the assailed ordinance. It must be declared null and void.

1. Police power is granted to municipal corporations in general terms as follows:"General power of council to enact ordinances and make regulations. - 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."10It is practically a reproduction of the former Section 39 of Municipal Code.11An ordinance enacted by virtue thereof, according to Justice Moreland, speaking for the Court in the leading case ofUnited States v. Abendan12"is valid, unless it contravenes the fundamental law of the Philippine Islands, or an Act of the Philippine Legislature, or unless it is against public policy, or is unreasonable, oppressive, partial, discriminating, or in derogation of common right. Where the power to legislate upon a given subject, and the mode of its exercise and the details of such legislation are not prescribed, the ordinance passed pursuant thereto must be a reasonable exercise of the power, or it will be pronounced invalid."13In another leading case,United States v. Salaveria,14theponentethis time being Justice Malcolm, where the present Administrative Code provision was applied, it was stated by this Court: "The general welfare clause has two branches: One branch attaches itself to the main trunk of municipal authority, and relates to such ordinances and regulations as may be necessary to carry into effect and discharge the powers and duties conferred upon the municipal council by law. With this class we are not here directly concerned. The second branch of the clause is much more independent of the specific functions of the council which are enumerated by law. It authorizes such ordinances 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.' It is a general rule that ordinances passed by virtue of the implied power found in the general welfare clause must be reasonable, consonant with the general powersand purposes of the corporation, and not inconsistent with the laws or policy of the State."15If night clubs were merely then regulated and not prohibited, certainly the assailed ordinance would pass the test of validity. In the two leading cases above set forth, this Court had stressed reasonableness, consonant with the general powers and purposes of municipal corporations, as well as consistency with the laws or policy of the State. It cannot be said that such a sweeping exercise of a lawmaking power by Bocaue could qualify under the term reasonable. The objective of fostering public morals, a worthy and desirable end can be attained by a measure that does not encompass too wide a field. Certainly the ordinance on its face is characterized by overbreadth. The purpose sought to be achieved could have been attained by reasonable restrictions rather than by an absolute prohibition. The admonition in Salaveria should be heeded: "The Judiciary should not lightly set aside legislative action when there is not a clear invasion of personal or property rights under the guise of police regulation."16It is clear that in the guise of a police regulation, there was in this instance a clear invasion of personal or property rights, personal in the case of those individuals desirous of patronizing those night clubs and property in terms of the investments made and salaries to be earned by those therein employed.

2. The decision now under review refers to Republic Act No. 938 as amended.17It was originally enacted on June 20, 1953. It is entitled: "AN ACT GRANTING MUNICIPAL OR CITY BOARDS AND COUNCILS THE POWER TO REGULATE THE ESTABLISHMENT, MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF CERTAIN PLACES OF AMUSEMENT WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTIONS.'18Its first section insofar as pertinent reads: "The municipal or city board or council of each chartered city shall have the power to regulate by ordinance the establishment, maintenance and operation of night clubs, cabarets, dancing schools, pavilions, cockpits, bars, saloons, bowling alleys, billiard pools, and other similar places of amusement within its territorial jurisdiction: ... "19Then on May 21, 1954, the first section was amended to include not merely "the power to regulate, but likewise "Prohibit ... "20The title, however, remained the same. It is worded exactly as Republic Act No. 938. It is to be admitted that as thus amended, if only the above portion of the Act were considered, a municipal council may go as far as to prohibit the operation of night clubs. If that were all, then the appealed decision is not devoid of support in law. That is not all, however. The title was not in any way altered. It was not changed one whit. The exact wording was followed. The power granted remains that ofregulation, notprohibition. There is thus support for the view advanced by petitioners that to construe Republic Act No. 938 as allowing the prohibition of the operation of night clubs would give rise to a constitutional question. The Constitution mandates: "Every bill shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof. "21Since there is no dispute as the title limits the power to regulating, not prohibiting, it would result in the statute being invalid if, as was done by the Municipality of Bocaue, the operation of a night club was prohibited. There is a wide gap between the exercise of a regulatory power "to provide for the health and safety, promote the prosperity, improve the morals,22in the language of the Administrative Code, such competence extending to all "the great public needs,23to quote from Holmes, and to interdict any calling, occupation, or enterprise. In accordance with the well-settled principle of constitutional construction that between two possible interpretations by one of which it will be free from constitutional infirmity and by the other tainted by such grave defect, the former is to be preferred. A construction that would save rather than one that would affix the seal of doom certainly commends itself. We have done so before We do so again.243. There is reinforcement to the conclusion reached by virtue of a specific provision of the recently-enacted Local Government Code.25The general welfare clause, a reiteration of the Administrative Code provision, is set forth in the first paragraph of Section 149 defining the powers and duties of thesangguniang bayan. It read as follows: "(a) Enact such ordinances and issue such regulations as may be necessary to carry out and discharge the responsibilities conferred upon it by law, and such as shall be necessary and proper to provide for the health, safety, comfort and convenience, maintain peace and order, improve public morals, promote the prosperity and general welfare of the municipality and the inhabitants thereof, and insure the protection of property therein; ..."26There are in addition provisions that may have a bearing on the question now before this Court. Thus thesangguniang bayanshall "(rr) Regulate cafes, restaurants, beer-houses, hotels, motels, inns, pension houses and lodging houses, except travel agencies, tourist guides, tourist transports, hotels, resorts, de luxe restaurants, and tourist inns of international standards which shall remain under the licensing and regulatory power of the Ministry of Tourism which shall exercise such authority without infringing on the taxing or regulatory powers of the municipality; (ss) Regulate public dancing schools, public dance halls, and sauna baths or massage parlors; (tt) Regulate the establishment and operation of billiard pools, theatrical performances, circuses and other forms of entertainment; ..."27It is clear that municipal corporations cannot prohibit the operation of night clubs. They may be regulated, but not prevented from carrying on their business. It would be, therefore, an exercise in futility if the decision under review were sustained. All that petitioners would have to do is to apply once more for licenses to operate night clubs. A refusal to grant licenses, because no such businesses could legally open, would be subject to judicial correction. That is to comply with the legislative will to allow the operation and continued existence of night clubs subject to appropriate regulations. In the meanwhile, to compel petitioners to close their establishments, the necessary result of an affirmance, would amount to no more than a temporary termination of their business. During such time, their employees would undergo a period of deprivation. Certainly, if such an undesirable outcome can be avoided, it should be. The law should not be susceptible to the reproach that it displays less than sympathetic concern for the plight of those who, under a mistaken appreciation of a municipal power, were thus left without employment. Such a deplorable consequence is to be avoided. If it were not thus, then the element of arbitrariness enters the picture. That is to pay less, very much less, than full deference to the due process clause with its mandate of fairness and reasonableness.

4. The conclusion reached by this Court is not to be interpreted as a retreat from its resolute stand sustaining police power legislation to promote public morals. The commitment to such an Ideal forbids such a backward step. Legislation of that character is deserving of the fullest sympathy from the judiciary. Accordingly, the judiciary has not been hesitant to lend the weight of its support to measures that can be characterized as falling within that aspect of the police power. Reference is made by respondents toErmita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association, Inc. v. City Mayor of Manila.28There is a misapprehension as to what was decided by this Court. That was a regulatory measure. Necessarily, there was no valid objection on due process or equal protection grounds. It did not prohibit motels. It merely regulated the mode in which it may conduct business in order precisely to put an end to practices which could encourage vice and immorality. This is an entirely different case. What was involved is a measure not embraced within the regulatory power but an exercise of an assumed power to prohibit. Moreover, while it was pointed out in the aforesaid Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association, Inc. decision that there must be a factual foundation of invalidity, it was likewise made clear that there is no need to satisfy such a requirement if a statute were void on its face. That it certainly is if the power to enact such ordinance is at the most dubious and under the present Local Government Code non-existent.

WHEREFORE, the writ of certiorari is granted and the decision of the lower court dated January 15, 1976 reversed, set aside, and nullied. Ordinance No. 84, Series of 1975 of the Municipality of Bocaue is declared void and unconstitutional. The temporary restraining order issued by this Court is hereby made permanent. No costs.Teehankee, Aquino, Concepcion Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, Plana, Escolin Relova and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.

Makasiar, J, reserves his right to file a dissent.

De Castro, Melencio-Herrera and Vasquez, JJ., are on leave.Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

FIRST DIVISIONG.R. No. L-34915 June 24, 1983

CITY GOVERNMENT OF QUEZON CITY and CITY COUNCIL OF QUEZON CITY,petitioners,vs.HON. JUDGE VICENTE G. ERICTA as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City, Branch XVIII; HIMLAYANG PILIPINO, INC.,respondents.City Fiscal for petitioners.

Manuel Villaruel, Jr. and Feliciano Tumale for respondents.GUTIERREZ, JR.,J.:This is a petition for review which seeks the reversal of the decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch XVIII declaring Section 9 of Ordinance No. 6118, S-64, of the Quezon City Council null and void.

Section 9 of Ordinance No. 6118, S-64, entitled "ORDINANCE REGULATING THE ESTABLISHMENT, MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF PRIVATE MEMORIAL TYPE CEMETERY OR BURIAL GROUND WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF QUEZON CITY AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR THE VIOLATION THEREOF" provides:

Sec. 9. At least six (6) percent of the total area of the memorial park cemetery shall be set aside for charity burial of deceased persons who are paupers and have been residents of Quezon City for at least 5 years prior to their death, to be determined by competent City Authorities. The area so designated shall immediately be developed and should be open for operation not later than six months from the date of approval of the application.

For several years, the aforequoted section of the Ordinance was not enforced by city authorities but seven years after the enactment of the ordinance, the Quezon City Council passed the following resolution:RESOLVED by the council of Quezon assembled, to request, as it does hereby request the City Engineer, Quezon City, to stop any further selling and/or transaction of memorial park lots in Quezon City where the owners thereof have failed to donate the required 6% space intended for paupers burial.

Pursuant to this petition, the Quezon City Engineer notified respondent Himlayang Pilipino, Inc. in writing that Section 9 of Ordinance No. 6118, S-64 would be enforced

Respondent Himlayang Pilipino reacted by filing with the Court of First Instance of Rizal Branch XVIII at Quezon City, a petition for declaratory relief, prohibition and mandamus with preliminary injunction (Sp. Proc. No. Q-16002) seeking to annul Section 9 of the Ordinance in question The respondent alleged that the same is contrary to the Constitution, the Quezon City Charter, the Local Autonomy Act, and the Revised Administrative Code.

There being no issue of fact and the questions raised being purely legal both petitioners and respondent agreed to the rendition of a judgment on the pleadings. The respondent court, therefore, rendered the decision declaring Section 9 of Ordinance No. 6118, S-64 null and void.

A motion for reconsideration having been denied, the City Government and City Council filed the instant petition.

Petitioners argue that the taking of the respondent's property is a valid and reasonable exercise of police power and that the land is taken for a public use as it is intended for the burial ground of paupers. They further argue that the Quezon City Council is authorized under its charter, in the exercise of local police power, " to make such further ordinances and resolutions not repugnant to law as may be necessary to carry into effect and discharge the powers and duties conferred by this Act and such as it shall deem necessary and proper to provide for the health and safety, promote the prosperity, improve the morals, peace, good order, comfort and convenience of the city and the inhabitants thereof, and for the protection of property therein."

On the other hand, respondent Himlayang Pilipino, Inc. contends that the taking or confiscation of property is obvious because the questioned ordinance permanently restricts the use of the property such that it cannot be used for any reasonable purpose and deprives the owner of all beneficial use of his property.

The respondent also stresses that the general welfare clause is not available as a source of power for the taking of the property in this case because it refers to "the power of promoting the public welfare by restraining and regulating the use of liberty and property." The respondent points out that if an owner is deprived of his property outright under the State's police power, the property is generally not taken for public use but is urgently and summarily destroyed in order to promote the general welfare. The respondent cites the case of a nuisance per se or the destruction of a house to prevent the spread of a conflagration.

We find the stand of the private respondent as well as the decision of the respondent Judge to be well-founded. We quote with approval the lower court's ruling which declared null and void Section 9 of the questioned city ordinance:

The issue is: Is Section 9 of the ordinance in question a valid exercise of the police power?

An examination of the Charter of Quezon City (Rep. Act No. 537), does not reveal any provision that would justify the ordinance in question except the provision granting police power to the City. Section 9 cannot be justified under the power granted to Quezon City to tax, fix the license fee, andregulatesuch other business, trades, and occupation as may be established or practised in the City.' (Subsections 'C', Sec. 12, R.A. 537).

The power to regulate does not include the power to prohibit (People vs. Esguerra, 81 PhiL 33, Vega vs. Municipal Board of Iloilo, L-6765, May 12, 1954; 39 N.J. Law, 70, Mich. 396). A fortiori, the power to regulate does not include the power to confiscate. The ordinance in question not only confiscates but also prohibits the operation of a memorial park cemetery, because under Section 13 of said ordinance, 'Violation of the provision thereof is punishable with a fine and/or imprisonment and that upon conviction thereof the permit to operate and maintain a private cemetery shall be revoked or cancelled.' The confiscatory clause and the penal provision in effect deter one from operating a memorial park cemetery. Neither can the ordinance in question be justified under sub- section "t", Section 12 of Republic Act 537 which authorizes the City Council to-

'prohibit the burial of the dead within the center of population of the city and provide for their burial in such proper place and in such manner as the council may determine, subject to the provisions of the general law regulating burial grounds and cemeteries and governing funerals and disposal of the dead.' (Sub-sec. (t), Sec. 12, Rep. Act No. 537).

There is nothing in the above provision which authorizes confiscation or as euphemistically termed by the respondents, 'donation'

We now come to the question whether or not Section 9 of the ordinance in question is a valid exercise of police power. The police power of Quezon City is defined in sub-section 00, Sec. 12, Rep. Act 537 which reads as follows:

(00) To make such further ordinance and regulations not repugnant to law as may be necessary to carry into effect and discharge the powers and duties conferred by this act and such as it shall deem necessary and proper to provide for the health and safety, promote, the prosperity, improve the morals, peace, good order, comfort and convenience of the city and the inhabitants thereof, and for the protection of property therein; and enforce obedience thereto with such lawful fines or penalties as the City Council may prescribe under the provisions of subsection (jj) of this section.

We start the discussion with a restatement of certain basic principles. Occupying the forefront in the bill of rights is the provision which states that 'no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law' (Art. Ill, Section 1 subparagraph 1, Constitution).

On the other hand, there are three inherent powers of government by which the state interferes with the property rights, namely-. (1) police power, (2) eminent domain, (3) taxation. These are said to exist independently of the Constitution as necessary attributes of sovereignty.

Police power is defined by Freund as 'the power of promoting the public welfare by restraining and regulating the use of liberty and property' (Quoted in Political Law by Tanada and Carreon, V-11, p. 50). It is usually exerted in order to merely regulate the use and enjoyment of property of the owner. If he is deprived of his property outright, it is not taken for public use but rather to destroy in order to promote the general welfare. In police power, the owner does not recover from the government for injury sustained in consequence thereof (12 C.J. 623). It has been said that police power is the most essential of government powers, at times the most insistent, and always one of the least limitable of the powers of government (Ruby vs. Provincial Board, 39 PhiL 660; Ichong vs. Hernandez, 1,7995, May 31, 1957). This power embraces the whole system of public regulation (U.S. vs. Linsuya Fan, 10 PhiL 104). The Supreme Court has said that police power is so far-reaching in scope that it has almost become impossible to limit its sweep. As it derives its existence from the very existence of the state itself, it does not need to be expressed or defined in its scope. Being coextensive with self-preservation and survival itself, it is the most positive and active of all governmental processes, the most essential insistent and illimitable Especially it is so under the modern democratic framework where the demands of society and nations have multiplied to almost unimaginable proportions. The field and scope of police power have become almost boundless, just as the fields of public interest and public welfare have become almost all embracing and have transcended human foresight. Since the Courts cannot foresee the needs and demands of public interest and welfare, they cannot delimit beforehand the extent or scope of the police power by which and through which the state seeks to attain or achieve public interest and welfare. (Ichong vs. Hernandez, L-7995, May 31, 1957).

The police power being the most active power of the government and the due process clause being the broadest station on governmental power, the conflict between this power of government and the due process clause of the Constitution is oftentimes inevitable.

It will be seen from the foregoing authorities that police power is usually exercised in the form of mere regulation or restriction in the use of liberty or property for the promotion of the general welfare. It does not involve the taking or confiscation of property with the exception of a few cases where there is a necessity to confiscate private property in order to destroy it for the purpose of protecting the peace and order and of promoting the general welfare as for instance, the confiscation of an illegally possessed article, such as opium and firearms.

It seems to the court that Section 9 of Ordinance No. 6118, Series of 1964 of Quezon City is not a mere police regulation but an outright confiscation. It deprives a person of his private property without due process of law, nay, even without compensation.

In sustaining the decision of the respondent court, we are not unmindful of the heavy burden shouldered by whoever challenges the validity of duly enacted legislation whether national or local As early as 1913, this Court ruled inCase v. Board of Health(24 PhiL 250) that the courts resolve every presumption in favor of validity and, more so, where the ma corporation asserts that the ordinance was enacted to promote the common good and general welfare.

In the leading case ofErmita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association Inc. v. City Mayor of Manila(20 SCRA 849) the Court speaking through the then Associate Justice and now Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando stated

Primarily what calls for a reversal of such a decision is the a of any evidence to offset the presumption of validity that attaches to a statute or ordinance. As was expressed categorically by Justice Malcolm 'The presumption is all in favor of validity. ... The action of the elected representatives of the people cannot be lightly set aside. The councilors must, in the very nature of things, be familiar with the necessities of their particular ... municipality and with all the facts and lances which surround the subject and necessitate action. The local legislative body, by enacting the ordinance, has in effect given notice that the regulations are essential to the well-being of the people. ... The Judiciary should not lightly set aside legislative action when there is not a clear invasion of personal or property rights under the guise of police regulation. (U.S. v. Salaveria (1918], 39 Phil. 102, at p. 111. There was an affirmation of the presumption of validity of municipal ordinance as announced in the leading Salaveria decision in Ebona v. Daet, [1950]85 Phil. 369.)

We have likewise considered the principles earlier stated in Case v. Board of Healthsupra:

... Under the provisions of municipal charters which are known as the general welfare clauses, a city, by virtue of its police power, may adopt ordinances to the peace, safety, health, morals and the best and highest interests of the municipality. It is a well-settled principle, growing out of the nature of well-ordered and society, that every holder of property, however absolute and may be his title, holds it under the implied liability that his use of it shall not be injurious to the equal enjoyment of others having an equal right to the enjoyment of their property, nor injurious to the rights of the community. An property in the state is held subject to its general regulations, which are necessary to the common good and general welfare. Rights of property, like all other social and conventional rights, are subject to such reasonable limitations in their enjoyment as shall prevent them from being injurious, and to such reasonable restraints and regulations, established by law, as the legislature, under the governing and controlling power vested in them by the constitution, may think necessary and expedient. The state, under the police power, is possessed with plenary power to deal with all matters relating to the general health, morals, and safety of the people, so long as it does not contravene any positive inhibition of the organic law and providing that such power is not exercised in such a manner as to justify the interference of the courts to prevent positive wrong and oppression.

but find them not applicable to the facts of this case.

There is no reasonable relation between the setting aside of at least six (6) percent of the total area of an private cemeteries for charity burial grounds of deceased paupers and the promotion of health, morals, good order, safety, or the general welfare of the people. The ordinance is actually a taking without compensation of a certain area from a private cemetery to benefit paupers who are charges of the municipal corporation. Instead of building or maintaining a public cemetery for this purpose, the city passes the burden to private cemeteries.

The expropriation without compensation of a portion of private cemeteries is not covered by Section 12(t) of Republic Act 537, the Revised Charter of Quezon City which empowers the city council to prohibit the burial of the dead within the center of population of the city and to provide for their burial in a proper place subject to the provisions of general law regulating burial grounds and cemeteries. When the Local Government Code, Batas Pambansa Blg. 337 provides in Section 177 (q) that a Sangguniang panlungsod may "provide for the burial of the dead in such place and in such manner as prescribed by law or ordinance" it simply authorizes the city to provide its own city owned land or to buy or expropriate private properties to construct public cemeteries. This has been the law and practise in the past. It continues to the present. Expropriation, however, requires payment of just compensation. The questioned ordinance is different from laws and regulations requiring owners of subdivisions to set aside certain areas for streets, parks, playgrounds, and other public facilities from the land they sell to buyers of subdivision lots. The necessities of public safety, health, and convenience are very clear from said requirements which are intended to insure the development of communities with salubrious and wholesome environments. The beneficiaries of the regulation, in turn, are made to pay by the subdivision developer when individual lots are sold to home-owners.

As a matter of fact, the petitioners rely solely on the general welfare clause or on implied powers of the municipal corporation, not on any express provision of law as statutory basis of their exercise of power. The clause has always received broad and liberal interpretation but we cannot stretch it to cover this particular taking. Moreover, the questioned ordinance was passed after Himlayang Pilipino, Inc. had incorporated. received necessary licenses and permits and commenced operating. The sequestration of six percent of the cemetery cannot even be considered as having been impliedly acknowledged by the private respondent when it accepted the permits to commence operations.

WHEREFORE, the petition for review is hereby DISMISSED. The decision of the respondent court is affirmed.

SO ORDERED.Teehankee (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Vasquez and Relova, JJ., concur.Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

EN BANCG.R. No. L-38429 June 30, 1988

CARLOS BALACUIT, LAMBERTO TAN and SERGIO YU CARCEL,petitioners-appellants,vs.COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF AGUSAN DEL NORTE AND BUTUAN CITY, Branch 11, and the CITY OF BUTUAN,respondents-appellees.Romeo B. Sanchez, Eduardo Deza Mercado and Wilfred D. Asis for petitioners.

The City Legal Officer for respondents-appeliees.GANCAYCO,J.:At issue in the petition for review before Us is the validity and constitutionality of Ordinance No. 640 passed by the Municipal Board of the City of Butuan on April 21, 1969, the title and text of which are reproduced below:

ORDINANCE--640

ORDINANCE PENALIZING ANY PERSON, GROUP OF PERSONS, ENTITY OR CORPORATION ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SELLING ADMISSION TICKETS TO ANY MOVIE OR OTHER PUBLIC EXHIBITIONS, GAMES, CONTESTS OR OTHER PERFORMANCES TO REQUIRE CHILDREN BETWEEN SEVEN (7) AND TWELVE (12) YEARS OF AGE TO PAY FULL PAYMENT FOR TICKETS INTENDED FOR ADULTS BUT SHOULD CHARGE ONLY ONE-HALF OF THE SAID TICKET

xxx xxx xxxBe it ordained by the Municipal Board of the City of Butuan in session assembled, that:SECTION 1It shall beunlawfulfor any person, group of persons, entity, or corporation engaged in the business of selling admission tickets to any movie or other public exhibitions, games, contests, or other performances to require children between seven (7) and twelve (12) years of age to pay full payment for admission tickets intended for adults but should charge only one-half of the value of the said tickets.

SECTION 2Any person violating the provisions of this Ordinance shall upon conviction be punished by a fine of not less than TWO HUNDRED PESOS (P200.00) but not more than SIX HUNDRED PESOS (P600.00) or an imprisonment of not less than TWO (2) MONTHS or not more than SIX (6) MONTHS or both such firm and imprisonment in the discretion of the Court.

If the violator be a firm or corporation the penalty shall be imposed upon the Manager, Agent or Representative of such firm or corporation.

SECTION 3This ordinance shall take effect upon its approval.

Petitioners are Carlos Balacuit Lamberto Tan, and Sergio Yu Carcel managers of the Maya and Dalisay Theaters, the Crown Theater, and the Diamond Theater, respectively. Aggrieved by the effect of Ordinance No. 640, they filed a complaint before the Court of First Instance of Agusan del Norte and Butuan City docketed as Special Civil Case No. 237 on June 30, 1969 praying,inter alia, that the subject ordinance be declared unconstitutional and, therefore, void and unenforceable.1Upon motion of the petitioners,2a temporary restraining order was issued on July 14, 1969 by the court a quo enjoining the respondent City of Butuan and its officials from enforcing Ordinance No. 640.3On July 29, 1969, respondents filed their answer sustaining the validity of the ordinance.4On January 30, 1973, the litigants filed their stipulation of facts.5On June 4, 1973, the respondent court rendered its decision,6the dispositive part of which reads:

IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Court hereby adjudges in favor of the respondents and against the petitioners, as follows:

1. Declaring Ordinance No. 640 of the City of Butuan constitutional and valid: Provided, however, that the fine for a single offense shall not exceed TWO HUNDRED PESOS, as prescribed in the aforequoted Section 15 (nn) of Rep. Act No. 523;

2. Dissolving the restraining order issued by this Court; and;

3. Dismissing the complaint, with costs against the petitioners.

4. SO ORDERED. 7

Petitioners filed their motion for reconsideration8of the decision of the court a quo which was denied in a resolution of the said court dated November 10, 1973.9Hence, this petition.

Petitioners attack the validity and constitutionality of Ordinance No. 640 on the grounds that it isultra viresand an invalid exercise of police power.

Petitioners contend that Ordinance No. 640 is not within the power of' the Municipal Board to enact as provided for in Section 15(n) of Republic Act No. 523, the Charter of the City of Butuan, which states:

Sec. 15. General powers and duties of the Board Except as otherwise provided by law, and subject to the conditions and limitations thereof, the Municipal Board shall have the following legislative powers:

xxx xxx xxx

(n) To regulate and fix the amount of the license fees for the following; . . . theaters, theatrical performances, cinematographs, public exhibitions and all other performances and places of amusements ...

xxx xxx xxx

Respondent City of Butuan, on the other hand, attempts to justify the enactment of the ordinance by invoking the general welfare clause embodied in Section 15 (nn) of the cited law, which provides:

(nn) To enact all ordinances it may deem necessary and proper for the sanitation and safety, the furtherance of the prosperity, and the promotion of the morality, peace, good order, comfort, convenience, and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, and such others as may be necessary to carry into effect and discharge the powers and duties conferred by this Act, and to fix the penalties for the violation of the ordinances, which shall not exceed a two hundred peso fine or six months imprisonment, or both such fine and imprisonment, for a single offense.

We can see from the aforecited Section 15(n) that the power to regulate and fix the amount of license fees for theaters, theatrical performances, cinematographs, public exhibitions and other places of amusement has been expressly granted to the City of Butuan under its charter. But the question which needs to be resolved is this: does this power to regulate include the authority to interfere in the fixing of prices of admission to these places of exhibition and amusement whether under its general grant of power or under the general welfare clause as invoked by the City?

This is the first time this Court is confronted with the question of direct interference by the local government with the operation of theaters, cinematographs and the like to the extent of fixing the prices of admission to these places. Previous decisions of this Court involved the power to impose license fees upon businesses of this nature as a corollary to the power of the local government to regulate them. Ordinances which required moviehouses or theaters to increase the price of their admission tickets supposedly to cover the license fees have been held to be invalid for these impositions were considered as not merely license fees but taxes for purposes of revenue and not regulation which the cities have no power to exact,10unless expressly granted by its charter.11Applying the ruling inKwong Sing v. City of Manila,12where the word "regulate" was interpreted to include the power to control, to govern and to restrain, it would seem that under its power to regulate places of exhibitions and amusement, the Municipal Board of the City of Butuan could make proper police regulations as to the mode in which the business shall be exercised.

While in a New York case,13an ordinance which regulates the business of selling admission tickets to public exhibitions or performances by virtue of the power of cities under the General City Law "to maintain order, enforce the laws, protect property and preserve and care for the safety, health, comfort and general welfare of the inhabitants of the city and visitors thereto; and for any of said purposes, to regulate and license occupations" was considered not to be within the scope of any duty or power implied in the charter. It was held therein that the power of regulation of public exhibitions and places of amusement within the city granted by the charter does not carry with it any authority to interfere with the price of admission to such places or the resale of tickets or tokens of admission.

In this jurisdiction, it is already settled that the operation of theaters, cinematographs and other places of public exhibition are subject to regulation by the municipal council in the exercise of delegated police power by the local government.14Thus, inPeople v. Chan,15an ordinance of the City of Manila prohibiting first run cinematographs from selling tickets beyond their seating capacity was upheld as constitutional for being a valid exercise of police power. Still in another case,16the validity of an ordinance of the City of Bacolod prohibiting admission of two or more persons in moviehouses and other amusement places with the use of only one ticket was sustained as a valid regulatory police measure not only in the interest of preventing fraud in so far as municipal taxes are concerned but also in accordance with public health, public safety, and the general welfare.

The City of Butuan, apparently realizing that it has no authority to enact the ordinance in question under its power to regulate embodied in Section 15(n), now invokes the police power as delegated to it under the general welfare clause to justify the enactment of said ordinance.

To invoke the exercise of police power, not only must it appear that the interest of the public generally requires an interference with private rights, but the means adopted must be reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individuals.17The legislature may not, under the guise of protecting the public interest, arbitrarily interfere with private business, or impose unusual and unnecessary restrictions upon lawful occupations. In other words, the determination as to what is a proper exercise of its police power is not final or conclusive, but is subject to the supervision of the courts.18Petitioners maintain that Ordinance No. 640 violates the due process clause of the Constitution for being oppressive, unfair, unjust, confiscatory, and an undue restraint of trade, and violative of the right of persons to enter into contracts, considering that the theater owners are bound under a contract with the film owners for just admission prices for general admission, balcony and lodge.

InHomeowners' Association of the Philippines, Inc. v. Municipal Board of the City of Manila,19this Court held:

The authority of municipal corporations to regulate is essentially police power, Inasmuch as the same generally entails a curtailment of the liberty, the rights and/or the property of persons, which are protected and even guaranteed by the Constitution, the exercise of police power is necessarily subject to a qualification, limitation or restriction demanded by the regard, the respect and the obedience due to the prescriptions of the fundamental law, particularly those forming part of the Constitution of Liberty, otherwise known as the Bill of Rights the police power measure must be reasonable. In other words, individual rights may be adversely affected by the exercise of police power to the extent only and only to the extent--that may be fairly required by the legitimate demands of public interest or public welfare.

What is the reason behind the enactment of Ordinance No. 640?

A reading of the minutes of the regular session of the Municipal Board when the ordinance in question was passed shows that a certain Councilor Calo, the proponent of the measure, had taken into account the complaints of parents that for them to pay the full price of admission for their children is too financially burdensome.

The trial court advances the view that "even if the subject ordinance does not spell out itsraison d'etrein all probability the respondents were impelled by the awareness that children are entitled to share in the joys of their elders, but that considering that, apart from size, children between the ages of seven and twelve cannot fully grasp the nuance of movies or other public exhibitions, games, contests or other performances, the admission prices with respect to them ought to be reduced.19aWe must bear in mind that there must be public necessity which demands the adoption of proper measures to secure the ends sought to be attained by the enactment of the ordinance, and the large discretion is necessarily vested in the legislative authority to determine not only what the interests of the public require, but what measures are necessary for the protection of such interests.20The methods or means used to protect the public health, morals, safety or welfare, must have some relation to the end in view, for under the guise of the police power, personal rights and those pertaining to private property will not be permitted to be arbitralily invaded by the legislative department.21We agree with petitioners that the ordinance is not justified by any necessity for the public interest. The police power legislation must be firmly grounded on public interest and welfare, and a reasonable relation must exist between purposes and means.22The evident purpose of the ordinance is to help ease the burden of cost on the part of parents who have to shell out the same amount of money for the admission of their children, as they would for themselves, A reduction in the price of admission would mean corresponding savings for the parents; however, the petitioners are the ones made to bear the cost of these savings. The ordinance does not only make the petitioners suffer the loss of earnings but it likewise penalizes them for failure to comply with it. Furthermore, as petitioners point out, there will be difficulty in its implementation because as already experienced by petitioners since the effectivity of the ordinance, children over 12 years of age tried to pass off their age as below 12 years in order to avail of the benefit of the ordinance. The ordinance does not provide a safeguard against this undesirable practice and as such, the respondent City of Butuan now suggests that birth certificates be exhibited by movie house patrons to prove the age of children. This is, however, not at all practicable. We can see that the ordinance is clearly unreasonable if not unduly oppressive upon the business of petitioners. Moreover, there is no discernible relation between the ordinance and the promotion of public health, safety, morals and the general welfare.

Respondent City of Butuan claims that it was impelled to protect the youth from the pernicious practice of movie operators and other public exhibitions promoters or the like of demanding equal price for their admission tickets along with the adults. This practice is allegedly repugnant and unconscionable to the interest of the City in the furtherance of the prosperity, peace, good order, comfort, convenience and the general well-being of its inhabitants.

There is nothing pernicious in demanding equal price for both children and adults. The petitioners are merely conducting their legitimate businesses. The object of every business entrepreneur is to make a profit out of his venture. There is nothing immoral or injurious in charging the same price for both children and adults. In fact, no person is under compulsion to purchase a ticket. It is a totally voluntary act on the part of the purchaser if he buys a ticket to such performances.

Respondent City of Butuan claims that Ordinance No. 640 is reasonable and necessary to lessen the economic burden of parents whose minor children are lured by the attractive nuisance being maintained by the petitioners. Respondent further alleges that by charging the full price, the children are being exploited by movie house operators. We fail to see how the children are exploited if they pay the full price of admission. They are treated with the same quality of entertainment as the adults. The supposition of the trial court that because of their age children cannot fully grasp the nuances of such entertainment as adults do fails to convince Us that the reduction in admission ticket price is justifiable. In fact, by the very claim of respondent that movies and the like are attractive nuisances, it is difficult to comprehend why the municipal board passed the subject ordinance. How can the municipal authorities consider the movies an attractive nuisance and yet encourage parents and children to patronize them by lowering the price of admission for children? Perhaps, there is some ,truth to the argument of petitioners that Ordinance No. 640 is detrimental to the public good and the general welfare of society for it encourages children of tender age to frequent the movies, rather than attend to their studies in school or be in their homes.

Moreover, as a logical consequence of the ordinance, movie house and theater operators will be discouraged from exhibiting wholesome movies for general patro