Tatel v.

Municipality of Virac

Facts: Petitioner Celestino Tatel owns a warehouse in barrio Sta. Elena, Villacorta v. Bernardo
Municipality of Virac. Complaints were received by the municipality
FACTS: Ordinance 22 entitled AN ORDINANCE REGULATING SUBDIVISION
concerning the disturbance caused by the operation of the abaca bailing
PLANS OVER PARCELS OF LAND IN THE CITY OFDAGUPAN was enacted by
machine inside petitioner’s warehouse. A committee was then appointed by
the municipal board of Dagupan City. The said ordinance was imposing
the municipal council, and it noted from its investigation on the matter that
additional requirements to that of thenational law Act 496. Ordinance 22
an accidental fire within the warehouse of the petitioner created a danger
was annulled by the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan and was affirmed
to the lives and properties of the people in the neighborhood. Resolution
by the Court of Appeals whosedecision reads as follows:Section 1 of said
No. 29 was then passed by the Municipal council declaring said warehouse
ordinance clearly conflicts with Section 44 of Act 496, because the latter law
as a public nuisance within a purview of Article 694 of the New Civil Code.
does not require subdivision plans to besubmitted to the City Engineer
According to respondent municipal officials, petitioner’s warehouse was
before the same is submitted for approval to and verification by the General
constructed in violation of Ordinance No. 13, series of 1952, prohibiting the
Land Registration Office or by theDirector of Lands as provided for in
construction of warehouses near a block of houses either in the poblacion
Section 58 of said Act. Section 2 of the same ordinance also contravenes the
or barrios without maintaining the necessary distance of 200 meters from
provisions of Section 44 of Act 496, the latter being silent on a service fee of
said block of houses to avoid loss of lives and properties by accidental fire.
PO.03 per square meter of every lot subject of such subdivision application;
On the other hand, petitioner contends that Ordinance No. 13 is
Section 3 of theordinance in question also conflicts with Section 44 of Act
unconstitutional.
496, because the latter law does not mention of a certification to be made
by the CityEngineer before the Register of Deeds allows registration of the
Issues: (1) Whether or not petitioner’s warehouse is a nuisance within the subdivision plan; and the last section of said ordinance imposes a penalty
meaning Article 694 of the Civil Code (2) Whether or not Ordinance No. 13, for its violation, which Section 44 of Act 496 does not impose. In other
series of 1952 of the Municipality of Virac is unconstitutional and void. words, Ordinance 22 of the City of Dagupan imposes upon a
subdivisionowner additional conditions.

Held: The storage of abaca and copra in petitioner’s warehouse is a ISSUE: Were the decisions of the CFI and CA to annul the said ordinance was
nuisance under the provisions of Article 694 of the Civil Code. At the same correct?
time, Ordinance No. 13 was passed by the Municipal Council of Virac in the
HELD: Yes. To sustain the ordinance would be to open the floodgates to
exercise of its police power. It is valid because it meets the criteria for a
other ordinances amending and so violating national laws in the guiseof
valid municipal ordinance: 1) must not contravene the Constitution or any
implementing them. Thus, ordinances could be passed imposing additional
statute, 2) must not be unfair or oppressive, 3) must not be partial or
requirements for the issuance of marriage licenses, to preventbigamy; the
discriminatory, 4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade, 5) must be
registration of vehicles, to minimize carnaping; the execution of contracts,
general and consistent with public policy, and 6) must not be unreasonable.
to forestall fraud; the validation of passports, to deter imposture; the
The purpose of the said ordinance is to avoid the loss of property and life in
exercise of freedom of speech, to reduce disorder; and so on.This advice is
case of fire which is one of the primordial obligation of government. The
especially addressed to the local governments which exercise the police
lower court did not err in its decision.
power only by virtue of a valid delegation from thenational legislature under
the general welfare clause. In the instant case, Ordinance No. 22 suffers
from the additional defect of violating thisauthority for legislation in HELD:No. First, the respondents neither acted in any judicial or quasi-judicial
contravention of the national law by adding to its requirements capacity nor arrogated unto themselves any judicial or quasi-judicial
prerogatives. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of
Liga ng mga Brgy v. Atienza Civil Procedure is a special civil action that may be invoked only against a
tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions.
FACTS: Petitioner Liga ng mga Barangay National is the national organization
Elsewise stated, for a writ of certiorari to issue, the following requisites
of all the barangays in the Philippines, which pursuant to Section 492 of
must concur: (1) it must be directed against a tribunal, board, or officer
Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as The Local Government Code of
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; (2) the tribunal, board, or
1991, constitutes the duly elected presidents of highly-urbanized cities,
officer must have acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave
provincial chapters, the metropolitan Manila Chapter, and metropolitan
abuse of discretion amounting lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (3) there is
political subdivision chapters. Section 493 of the LGC provides that the ligas
no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course
directly elect a president, a vice-president, and five (5) members of the
of law. A respondent is said to be exercising judicial function where he has
board of directors. All other matters not provided for in the law affecting
the power to determine what the law is and what the legal rights of the
the internal organization shall be governed by their respective constitution
parties are, and then undertakes to determine these questions and
and by-laws. The Liga then adopted and ratified its own Constitution and by-
adjudicate upon the rights of the parties. Quasi-judicial function, on the
laws to govern its internal organization.
other hand, is a term which applies to the actions, discretion, etc., of public
One the provisions was:
administrative officers or bodies required to investigate facts or ascertain
"There shall be nationwide synchronized elections for the provincial,
the existence of facts, hold hearings, and draw conclusions from them as a
metropolitan, and HUC/ICC chapters to be held on the third Monday of the
basis for their official action and to exercise discretion of a judicial nature.
month immediately after the month when the synchronized elections".
Before a tribunal, board, or officer may exercise judicial or quasi-judicial
acts, it is necessary that there be a law that gives rise to some specific rights
The Liga thereafter came out with its Calendar of Activities and Guidelines in
of persons or property under which adverse claims to such rights are made,
the Implementation of the Liga Election Code of 2002, setting on 21 October
and the controversy ensuing therefrom is brought before a tribunal, board,
2002 the synchronized elections for highly urbanized city chapters, such as
or officer clothed with power and authority to determine the law and
the Liga Chapter of Manila, together with independent component city,
adjudicate the respective rights of the contending parties. The Court agreed
provincial, and metropolitan chapters. Respondent then enacted enacted
that respondent's act was  in the exercise of legislative and executive
Ordinance No. 8039, Series of 2002, providing, among other things, for the
functions, respectively, and not of judicial or quasi-judicial functions. On this
election of representatives of the District Chapters in the City Chapter of
score alone, certiorari will not lie.
Manila and setting the elections for both chapters thirty days after the
Gordon v. Veridiano
barangay elections. The ordinance was transmitted to then Mayor Lito
Atienza, which he signed even if the Liga requested him to veto the FACTS: Private respondent Rosalinda Yambao owned two drug stores in
ordinance as it encroached upon, or even assumed, the functions of the Liga Olongapo City, the San Sebastian Drug Store and the Olongapo CityDrug
through legislation, a function which was clearly beyond the ambit of the Store. A joint team from the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) and
powers of the City Council.
Philippine Constabulary conducted a "test buy" at San Sebastian DrugStore
of Valium without a doctor's prescription. Consequently, Mayor Gordon
ISSUE: Whether respondent committed grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or in excess of jurisdiction when he signed and passed Ordinance No. (petitioner) issued a letter revoking mayor's permit of SanSebastian Drug
8039. Store for rampant violation of R.A. 5921, otherwise known as the Pharmacy
Law and R.A. 6425 or the Dangerous Drugs Act of1972. FDA Administrator
likewise directed the closure of the drug store for 3 days and its payment of
a fine and was allowed to resumeoperations after 3 days. Yambao wrote a upon hisascertainment that the conditions thereof as applied particularly to
letter to the petitioner seeking reconsideration of the revocation of mayor's Olongapo City have been complied with, it is only for the violation of
permit but got no reply.They filed with the Regional Trial Court of Olongapo suchconditions that the mayor may revoke the said permit.
City a complaint for mandamus. Meanwhile, Yambao’s request of
permission from the FDAto exchange the locations of the San Sebastian
Drug Store and the Olongapo City Drug was granted. But when petitioner
came to know aboutit, he disapproved it and suspended also the mayor’s
permit of the other drug store. A motion for reconsideration was filed by
the Yambaos tothe FDA was denied. The RTC judge rendered decision
declaring the revocation of the mayor’s permit for San Sebastian Drug Store
as null andvoid and thereafter denied the petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration.

ISSUE: May the mayor revoke the mayor’s permit of the San Sebastian Drug
Store based on the above-stated facts?

HELD: FDA was created under R.A. No. 3720 and vested with all drug
inspection functions in line with "the policy of the State to insure safeand
good quality supply of food, drug and cosmetics, and to regulate the
production, sale and traffic of the same to protect the health of thepeople.
P.D. No. 280 gave more teeth to the powers of the FDA in regulating the
drugstores in the sale or dispensation of drugs, or rules andregulations
issued pursuant thereto. For the mayor, it was granted by the charter of
Olongapo the power to to arrest violators of health laws,ordinances, rules
and regulations and to recommend the revocation or suspension of the
permits of the different establishments to the CityMayor for violation of
health laws, ordinances, rules and regulations.A study of the said laws will
show that the authorization to operate issued by the FDA is a condition
precedent to the grant of a mayor's permitto the drug store seeking to
operate within the limits of the city. This requirement is imperative. The
power to determine if the opening of thedrug store is conformable to the
national policy and the laws on the regulation of drug sales belongs to the
FDA. Hence, a permit issued by themayor to a drug store not previously
cleared with and licensed by the said agency will be a nullity. Thus, if the
FDA grants a license upon itsfinding that the applicant drug store has
complied with the requirements of the general laws and the implementing
administrative rules andregulations, it is only for their violation that the FDA
may revoke the said license. By the same token, having granted the permit