Title
Jaban vs. Garcia
Case
G.R. No. 138336-37
Decision Date
Feb 16, 2004
Lawyers challenged Cebu City traffic ordinances after their cars were clamped and fined, alleging unconstitutionality. Supreme Court denied petition, citing improper remedy, lack of jurisdiction, and forum shopping.
traffic code ordinance
clamping vehicles
prior court hearing
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 138336-37)

Facts:

  • Parties Involved and Vehicle Clamping Incidents
    • The petitioners, Atty. Bienvenido P. Jaban, Sr. and Atty. Bienvenido Douglas Luke B. Jaban, Jr., are practicing lawyers in Cebu City and hold non-professional driver’s licenses.
    • They own a Daewoo Sedan Car Racer Model 1995 (Plate No. GEU-992) and a Ford Telstar 5 Speed (Plate No. GOF-758) respectively.
    • On June 23, 1997, Atty. Jaban, Sr. parked his car near the GAW Department Store and, upon returning, discovered that his vehicle had been clamped by a denver boat immobilizer with a notice warning that breaking the clamp would constitute a criminal offense.
    • His car was brought to the Cebu City Traffic Operations Management (CITOM) office and was released only after he paid a fine of P4,200.00.
    • Similarly, on May 19, 1997, Atty. Jaban, Jr. had his car clamped and was forced to pay P1,400.00 for its release, despite parking in an area without any “No Parking” sign.
  • Filing of the Civil Complaint and Legal Allegations
    • On July 29, 1997, the petitioners filed a Civil Complaint for Damages and to declare Cebu City Traffic Code Ordinance No. 801 (as amended by Ordinances No. 1642 and 1664) as unconstitutional.
    • The complaint alleged that the ordinances were oppressive, arbitrary, discriminatory, and inconsistent with the objectives of public welfare and order.
    • It further contended that the clamping of vehicles was exploited to coerce drivers into paying fines without the benefit of a prior court hearing.
    • The case was consolidated with a similar complaint (Civil Case No. CEB-20700) filed by Atty. Valentino Legaspi, whose vehicle experienced an analogous clamping incident.
  • Proceedings in the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
    • The trial court issued a Pre-Trial Order on February 12, 1998, limiting the issues to:
      • The validity and constitutionality of Ordinance No. 1664, and if valid, whether the petitioners violated it.
      • The entitlement of the petitioners to damages versus the counterclaim of the respondents.
    • Both parties submitted testimonial and documentary evidence.
    • The petitioners argued that Ordinance No. 801 was unconstitutional, also citing a conflict with Section 62 of Republic Act No. 4163 (the Traffic Code of the Philippines).
    • After trial, on January 22, 1999, the RTC declared Ordinance No. 1664 unconstitutional and awarded damages to the petitioners and Atty. Legaspi.
  • Motions, Appeals, and Joint Order Issued by the RTC
    • The respondents filed a motion for reconsideration of the RTC decision, while the petitioners simultaneously submitted an Omnibus Motion to extend the decision to declare Ordinance No. 801 unconstitutional and to issue a permanent injunction in its favor.
    • On April 8, 1999, the RTC issued a Joint Order denying both motions. The court justified the denial on the ground that the issue of the unconstitutionality of Ordinance No. 801 was not part of the Pre-Trial Order and that no writ of preliminary injunction had been issued.
    • The respondents subsequently appealed the decision, with the RTC ordering the elevation of the records to the Court of Appeals (CA).
    • Arguments arose regarding whether the appeal should have been directed to the Supreme Court, as the petitioners contended that questions involving the constitutionality of ordinances fall under the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction.
  • Court of Appeals Proceedings and Subsequent Developments
    • The respondents’ appeal was docketed in the CA as CA-G.R. CV No. 63566.
    • The petitioners moved to dismiss the CA appeal on jurisdictional grounds, arguing that the proper remedy was through a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
    • The CA denied the petitioners’ motion to dismiss, holding that both factual and legal issues were involved and that the CA possessed appellate jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to ordinances.
    • The petitioners’ subsequent petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court was filed on May 11, 1999, alleging that the RTC erred by not addressing Ordinance No. 801 and by not issuing a permanent injunction pending appeal.
  • Allegations of Forum Shopping and Final Resolution
    • The petitioners’ remedy sought to nullify the RTC’s April 8, 1999 Joint Order, subsequently invoking the issue of the constitutionality of Ordinance No. 801, despite its absence in the RTC’s original issues.
    • The respondents contended that the petitioners engaged in forum shopping by simultaneously pursuing identical relief in CA-G.R. CV No. 63566.
    • On June 16, 2003, the CA reversed the RTC decision by ruling Ordinance No. 1664 constitutional, and the petitioners’ subsequent motions were denied.
    • Ultimately, the Supreme Court, sitting en banc, denied the petition on the grounds that the proper recourse was through the appellate process and that the petitioners’ engagement in forum shopping precluded a favorable ruling.

Issues:

  • Proper Remedy and Appealability
    • Whether the petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 was the proper remedy to challenge the RTC’s Joint Order denying the omnibus motion.
    • Whether the petitioners should have instead pursued an appeal directly to the Court of Appeals.
  • Jurisdiction Over Constitutional Issues
    • Whether the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction to resolve the constitutional issue regarding Ordinance No. 801, despite its absence from the pre-trial issues.
    • Whether the RTC was obligated to rule on the constitutionality of Ordinance No. 801, given that it was raised in the parties’ pleadings but not included in the Pre-Trial Order.
  • Forum Shopping
    • Whether the petitioners engaged in forum shopping by simultaneously pursuing litigation in the RTC/CA and through a petition for review on certiorari in the Supreme Court.
    • Whether the identical issues and reliefs sought in CA-G.R. CV No. 63566 and the present petition constituted a violation of the prohibition against forum shopping.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)
Unlock Full Case Digest

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms