G.R. No. L-48125, L-48126, L-48127; November 25, 1941
EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS, querellante y apelado, vs. FELIX CABADDU, acusado y apelante.

EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS, querellante y apelado, vs. LEON GONZALES, acusado y apelante.
EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS, querellante y apelado, vs. ROSENDO BALINGIT, acusado y apelante.

FACTS

The three appellants were motormen or conductors of streetcars (Nos. 147, 200, and 202) of the Manila Electric Railroad & Light Co. They were separately charged with violating Municipal Ordinance No. 2754 of Manila.
1. Felix Cabaddu: On February 15, 1940, at around 4:42 p.m., he maneuvered his streetcar along Juan Luna Street, between the intersecting streets of Solis and Pampanga, to change its direction or terminus. He stopped his streetcar in that portion of Juan Luna Street, disconnected its trolley and steering wheel to prepare to return to Plaza Goiti, and then proceeded back toward Plaza Goiti, picking up passengers along the way. His duty was to continue his trip toward Maypajo, his assigned route, or at least until he had passed Pampanga Street. The Court of First Instance of Manila found him guilty and sentenced him to pay a fine of P10 and costs.
2. Leon Gonzales: On February 14, 1940, at 4:46 p.m., he committed an infraction of the same nature, maneuvering his streetcar on the same portion of Juan Luna Street (between Solis and Pampanga) for the same purpose as Cabaddu.
3. Rosendo Balingit: On February 15, 1940, at around 4:42 p.m., he maneuvered his streetcar (No. 202) in the same manner as the other appellants.
The relevant provision of Municipal Ordinance No. 2754, Section 1, prohibits the maneuvering of any streetcar for the purpose of changing its line or route during specified hours (7:00 A.M. to 12:30 P.M. and 1:30 P.M. to 7:00 P.M.) except in cases of emergency (e.g., fires, floods, derailment) or when directed by the police, on listed streets/plazas, including “Juan Luna, from Solis to Pampanga.”

ISSUE

1. Whether the appellants’ acts constituted a violation of Municipal Ordinance No. 2754.
2. Whether Ordinance No. 2754 conflicts with the franchise conditions granted to the Manila Electric Railroad & Light Co.
3. Whether Ordinance No. 2754 is invalid for being indefinite, uncertain, unreasonable, or oppressive.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences of all three appellants.
1. On the violation of the ordinance: The Court held that the appellants’ acts precisely constituted what the ordinance prohibited. By turning back before passing Pampanga Street to change their route, they violated the clear prohibition. The ordinance’s purpose is to prevent obstruction or interruption of traffic on that relatively narrow and heavily trafficked portion of Juan Luna Street during the specified hours. The exceptions (emergencies or police direction) were not present when the appellants committed the acts.
2. On the alleged conflict with the franchise: The Court found no merit in the claim that Ordinance No. 2754 conflicts with the conditions of the Manila Electric Railroad & Light Co.’s franchise (contained in Ordinances Nos. 44, 70, 71, 73, and 81). Nothing in these franchise ordinances exempts the company’s personnel from complying with Ordinance No. 2754, nor is there anything in the franchise that prevents the City of Manila from enacting an ordinance of this nature.
3. On the validity of the ordinance: The Court rejected the argument that the ordinance is invalid for being indefinite, uncertain, unreasonable, or oppressive. The ordinance’s spirit and letter clearly aim to prevent traffic obstruction. The City of Manila, vested with police power, had perfect authority to approve an ordinance like Ordinance No. 2754 to regulate traffic for public safety and convenience.
DISPOSITIVE:
The appealed judgments were confirmed in all respects. The appellants were ordered to pay their respective costs in both instances. A copy of the decision was to be attached to each of the appellants’ cases.