GR L 2811; (January, 1950) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-2811; January 28, 1950
PRESCILA S. EBOÑA, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. THE MUNICIPALITY OF DAET, defendant-appellee.
FACTS
The Municipal Council of Daet, Camarines Norte, enacted Municipal Ordinance No. 7, prescribing zonification of the public market. It allocated Market Building No. 1 for dry goods and general merchandise, Building No. 2 for cafeterias, carenderias, and sari-sari stores, and the newly completed Building No. 3 for fish, meat, and vegetable vendors. The ordinance prohibited vendors from selling in a zone not allocated for their type of goods. Prior to this ordinance, the plaintiffs, who operated cafeterias and carenderias, were occupants of stalls in Building No. 1. They were required to transfer to Building No. 2 under the new zonification. The plaintiffs filed a complaint, assailing the ordinance as unconstitutional, illegal, unjust, discriminatory, unreasonable, and confiscatory, and sought to enjoin their eviction from Building No. 1. The Court of First Instance upheld the ordinance and dismissed the complaint.
ISSUE
Whether Municipal Ordinance No. 7 of Daet is a valid and constitutional exercise of the municipal corporation’s police power and regulatory authority over the public market.
RULING
Yes, the ordinance is valid and constitutional. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s judgment. The municipal council is empowered under the general welfare clause (Section 2238 of the Revised Administrative Code) to enact ordinances for the peace, order, health, morals, comfort, convenience, and general welfare of the municipality and its inhabitants. The zonification and classification under the ordinance are reasonable exercises of this power. They serve the public interest by enabling consumers to locate goods easily and by grouping similar businesses together for the comfort and convenience of both vendors and the public. The ordinance is not arbitrary, discriminatory, or confiscatory, as it applies uniformly to all market vendors based on the type of goods they sell and does not deprive the plaintiffs of their stalls but merely regulates their location. The Court cited precedents (Seng Kee & Co. vs. Earnshaw; U.S. vs. Salaveria; Lorenzo and Estrella vs. Municipal Council of Naic) upholding similar municipal regulations. The plaintiffs’ reliance on Republic Act No. 37 (on preference to Filipino citizens in leasing market stalls) was found inapplicable, as nationality was not an issue in the ordinance.
AI Generated by Armztrong.