Title
Javellana vs. Kintanar
Case
G.R. No. L-33169
Decision Date
Jul 30, 1982
A private market owner challenged Bago City ordinances prohibiting private operation of public markets; the Supreme Court upheld the ordinances, ruling the market served the public.

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-33169)

Facts:

  • Background of the Case
    • The case involves appeals from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental dated January 12, 1971.
    • The petition sought a declaration of nullity of Ordinances Nos. 142, 145, and 150, Series of 1968, enacted by the Municipal Board of Bago City.
    • The petition also aimed to enjoin the enforcement of these ordinances.
  • Parties Involved
    • Petitioners:
      • Glicerio Javellana, the owner of a market (building and lot) in Crossing Bago, Bago City.
      • Juanito Novillas and other store owners, stall holders, and fish vendors, who joined the petition by filing a complaint in intervention.
    • Respondents:
      • Hon. Cesar Kintanar, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental.
      • The City Council, City Mayor, and City Treasurer of Bago City.
  • Operational Details of the Market
    • Javellana’s market comprised a building and lot with store spaces as well as permanent and movable stalls.
    • The market had been operational for more than twenty years serving the general population of Bago City and adjacent municipalities.
    • Prior to the second quarter of 1968, the market operated under a Mayor’s permit of the City of Bago.
    • In the third quarter of 1968, the city treasurer refused Javellana’s payment for a municipal license based on the enactment of Ordinance No. 150, which prohibited non-government entities from operating a public market within the city.
  • Relevant Ordinances and Their Provisions
    • Ordinance No. 142
      • Amended provisions regarding the sale of perishable goods outside designated public markets, limiting such activities to persons who have complied with inspection and fee requirements.
      • Taken as a regulatory and revenue ordinance.
    • Ordinance No. 145
      • Modified inspection and fee requirements for selling perishable foodstuffs within the city, requiring submission for inspection by the City Health Officer at the city-owned public market.
      • Enacted to promote general welfare and public health.
    • Ordinance No. 150
      • Prohibited any person, entity, association, or corporation other than the City Government of Bago from establishing, maintaining, or operating a public market within the city limits.
      • Provided penalties in the form of fines and/or imprisonment for violations, establishing a regulatory framework for market operations.
  • Central Contention
    • The appellants contended that the ordinances, particularly Ordinance No. 150, were unreasonable and beyond the power of Bago City.
    • A key argument was that Javellana’s market, being privately owned, should not be classified as a public market subject to Ordinance No. 150.
    • The dispute thus hinged on the interpretation of the term “public market” – whether it is determined by the ownership or by its service to the general public.
  • Statutory and Legal Basis
    • The ordinances were enacted under authority granted by Section 15 of R.A. No. 4382 (the Charter of Bago City).
    • Specific provisions in the Charter empowered the Municipal Board to:
      • Regulate and fix license fees for various businesses.
      • Establish, maintain, and regulate the use of public markets.
      • Enact ordinances necessary for the general welfare of the city.
    • The lower court, as well as the appellate court, referenced relevant jurisprudence (e.g., Vda. de Salgado vs. De la Fuente) in discussing the definition of a public market.

Issues:

  • Jurisdictional and Regulatory Authority
    • Whether the Municipal Board of Bago City had the power under the City Charter (R.A. No. 4382) to enact ordinances regulating and prohibiting the operation of markets by non-government entities.
  • Definition of “Public Market”
    • Whether the legal and functional definition of a public market is determined by its dedication to serving the general public rather than its ownership status.
    • Whether Javellana’s market, although privately owned, qualifies as a public market based on its extensive service to the general population.
  • Validity of the Ordinances
    • Whether Ordinances Nos. 142 and 145 are valid on the grounds of being regulatory and welfare-promoting measures.
    • Whether Ordinance No. 150 is valid and properly applicable to the market in question given its statutory basis and public function.
  • Application of the Ordinance to the Case
    • Whether the application of Ordinance No. 150 to Javellana’s market is appropriate, considering the market’s operational characteristics and its role in serving the public.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

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.