Acebedo Optical Company v. Hon. CA

Acebedo Optical Company, Inc. vs.
The Honorable Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 100152
March 31, 2000
Petitioner: Acebedo Optical Company, Inc.

Respondent: The Honorable Court of Appeals
Facts: Petitioner applied with the Office of the City Mayor of Iligan for a business
permit. After consideration of petitioner's application and the opposition interposed
thereto by local optometrists, respondent City Mayor issued Business Permit No.
5342 subject to the following conditions: (1) Since it is a corporation, Acebedo cannot
put up an optical clinic but only a commercial store; (2) It cannot examine and/or
prescribe reading and similar optical glasses for patients, because these are functions
of optical clinics; (3) It cannot sell reading and similar eyeglasses without a
prescription having first been made by an independent optometrist or independent
optical clinic. Acebedo can only sell directly to the public, without need of a
prescription, Ray-Ban and similar eyeglasses; (4) It cannot advertise optical lenses
and eyeglasses, but can advertise Ray-Ban and similar glasses and frames; (5) It is
allowed to grind lenses but only upon the prescription of an independent optometrist.
On December 5, 1988, private respondent Samahan ng Optometrist Sa Pilipinas
(SOPI lodged a complaint against the petitioner alleging that Acebedo had violated
the conditions set forth in its business permit and requesting the cancellation and/or
revocation of such permit. On July 19, 1989, the City Mayor sent petitioner a Notice
of Resolution and Cancellation of Business Permit effective as of said date and giving
petitioner three (3) months to wind up its affairs.
Issue: Whether the City Mayor has the authority to impose special conditions, as a
valid exercise of police power, in the grant of business permits
Ruling: Police power as an inherent attribute of sovereignty is the power to prescribe

regulations to promote the health, morals, peace, education, good order or safety and
general welfare of the people. It is essentially regulatory in nature and the power to
issue licenses or grant business permits, if exercised for a regulatory and not revenueraising purpose, is within the ambit of this power. The authority of city mayors to
issue or grant licenses and business permits is beyond cavil. However, the power to
grant or issue licenses or business permits must always be exercised in accordance
with law, with utmost observance of the rights of all concerned to due process and
equal protection of the law.
In the case under consideration, the business permit granted by respondent City
Mayor to petitioner was burdened with several conditions. Petitioner agrees with the
holding by the Court of Appeals that respondent City Mayor acted beyond his
authority in imposing such special conditions in its permit as the same have no basis
in the law or ordinance. Public respondents and private respondent SOPI are one in
saying that the imposition of said special conditions is well within the authority of the
City Mayor as a valid exercise of police power.
The issuance of business licenses and permits by a municipality or city is essentially
regulatory in nature. The authority, which devolved upon local government units to
issue or grant such licenses or permits, is essentially in the exercise of the police
power of the State within the contemplation of the general welfare clause of the Local
Government Code.
What is sought by petitioner from respondent City Mayor is a permit to engage in the
business of running an optical shop. It does not purport to seek a license to engage in
the practice of optometry. The objective of the imposition of subject conditions on
petitioner's business permit could be attained by requiring the optometrists in
petitioner's employ to produce a valid certificate of registration as optometrist, from
the Board of Examiners in Optometry. A business permit is issued primarily to
regulate the conduct of business and the City Mayor cannot, through the issuance of
such permit, regulate the practice of a profession. Such a function is within the
exclusive domain of the administrative agency specifically empowered by law to
supervise the profession, in this case the Professional Regulations Commission and
the Board of Examiners in Optometry.

Acebedo Optical Company v. Hon. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Acebedo Optical Company v. Hon. CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Acebedo Optical Company v. Hon. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Acebedo Optical Company, Inc. vs.

The Honorable Court of Appeals

March 31, 2000

Petitioner: Acebedo Optical Company, Inc.

Ruling: Police power as an inherent attribute of sovereignty is the power to prescribe

You might also like