Case Digest (G.R. No. L-6762)
Facts:
Co Kiam and Lee Ban, in their own behalf and in behalf of all meat dealers selling outside public markets, plaintiffs and appellees, v. The City of Manila, the Mayor, and the Chief of Police, defendants and appellants; Fllomena Briones et al., intervenors and appellants, G.R. No. L-6762, February 28, 1955, Supreme Court En Banc, Reyes, A., J., writing for the Court.
The plaintiffs, Chinese citizens and retail dealers in Manila, operated stores outside the city public markets selling fresh and refrigerated (cold storage) meat. Prior to the challenged measure the city had Ordinance No. 3555, which forbade sale of fresh meat within 200 meters of any city market; plaintiffs' shops were located beyond that 200-meter limit and thus complied with Ordinance No. 3555.
In March 1953 the City of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 3563, which repealed Ordinance No. 3555 and made it unlawful to sell or offer for sale fresh meat outside the city public markets, with a limited exception for properly certified and aged cold storage meat. The ordinance was defended by the city as a valid exercise of the police power to protect public health by localizing meat sales so inspection could be concentrated and clandestine sale of diseased meat suppressed. The City Health Officer submitted a letter explaining difficulties in inspecting widely scattered meat sellers and endorsing sale only in public markets to facilitate inspection.
Plaintiffs filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Manila to annul Ordinance No. 3563, to enjoin its enforcement and to compel the Mayor to issue licenses permitting them to continue selling meat under the terms of the former ordinance. Intervenors—market stall vendors and trade organizations favoring nationalization of retail trade—joined in defending the ordinance. The trial court declared Ordinance No. 3563 null and void, permanently enjoined its enforcement, and ordere...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was Ordinance No. 3563 a valid exercise of the City of Manila’s police power and within the authority granted by the City Charter (Republic Act No. 409, sec. 18)?
- Did Ordinance No. 3563 unlawfully deprive the plaintiffs of their lawful occupation and means of livelihood by effectively prohibiting the sale of fresh mea...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)