Case Digest (G.R. No. 157568)
Facts:
In 723 Phil. 90 (2013), the consolidated petitions involved Valentino L. Legaspi and Bienvenido P. Jaban, Sr. with his son, Bienvenido Douglas Luke Bradbury Jaban, as petitioners, and the City of Cebu, its Mayor Alvin Garcia, the Sangguniang Panlungsod chaired by Renato V. Osmeña, and various CITOM officials as respondents. On January 27, 1997, the Cebu City Council enacted Ordinance No. 1664, empowering traffic enforcers to clamp and tow vehicles violating parking rules under Ordinance No. 801. Between May and November 1997, the Jaban father and son and Legaspi suffered tire clamping and impoundment of their properly parked cars without prior hearing, and were compelled to pay fines ranging from ₱1,400.00 to ₱4,200.00 for release. In July and August 1997, they filed separate suits before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, which were consolidated and, on January 22, 1999, declared Ordinance No. 1664 unconstitutional for violating due process. On appeal, the Court of ApCase Digest (G.R. No. 157568)
Facts:
- Enactment of Ordinance No. 1664
- On January 27, 1997, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cebu City enacted Ordinance No. 1664 to clamp and tow vehicles violating parking restrictions under the Traffic Code (Ordinance No. 801).
- Section 1 declared the policy of immobilizing offending vehicles to ensure smooth traffic; Section 2 authorized traffic enforcers to clamp any tire with a denver boot or similar device; Section 3 imposed penalties, including payment of accumulated fines plus an administrative P500 fee, before release.
- RTC Proceedings and Petitions
- On July 29, 1997, Bienvenido P. Jaban Sr. and Bienvenido Douglas Luke Bradbury Jaban filed suit for unconstitutionality of Ordinance No. 1664, claiming due process violations in their cars’ clamping and payment of fines without hearing.
- On August 11, 1997, Valentino L. Legaspi brought a separate suit challenging the same ordinance after his car was clamped and towed, seeking nullity of the Traffic Code, return of property, and damages.
- RTC Decision
- Branch 58, RTC Cebu City, consolidated the cases and, after trial, held on January 22, 1999 that Ordinance No. 1664 deprived owners of property without due process, noting that traffic enforcers acted as arresting officers, prosecutors, judges, and collectors.
- The RTC declared the ordinance unconstitutional and awarded nominal and temperate damages to the petitioners.
- Court of Appeals Decision
- On June 16, 2003, the CA reversed the RTC, ruling that Ordinance No. 1664 was a valid exercise of the City’s police power under Sections 16 and 458 of the Local Government Code (LGC).
- The CA found the ordinance reasonable, non‐discriminatory, related to general welfare, and compliant with due process given available administrative remedies and recognized exceptions to prior hearing.
Issues:
- Whether Ordinance No. 1664 was enacted within the legislative powers of the City of Cebu under the LGC.
- Whether Ordinance No. 1664 complied with constitutional and statutory requirements, especially the due process and equal protection clauses.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)