Case Digest (G.R. No. L-15759)
Facts:
Pampanga Bus Company, Inc. and La Mallorca v. Municipality of Tarlac, G.R. No. L-15759, December 30, 1961, the Supreme Court En Banc, Padilla, J., writing for the Court.On May 6, 1952, plaintiffs-appellees Pampanga Bus Company, Inc. (a corporation) and La Mallorca (a partnership) filed suit in the Court of First Instance of Tarlac against the Municipality of Tarlac (defendant-appellant) seeking to annul Ordinance No. 1 (adopted January 21, 1952) and Resolution No. 323 (adopted October 27, 1952) and to enjoin their enforcement. The plaintiffs simultaneously moved for a preliminary injunction to restrain the municipality, its officers and agents from enforcing the ordinance and resolution, alleging that they operated an authorized public-utility bus terminal on F. Tanedo Street and that the challenged measures improperly proscribed bus or freight terminals along a designated portion of that street, giving existing terminals only thirty days to remove (later contested as modified by provincial action), and prescribing fines or imprisonment for violations.
The municipality answered on December 3, 1952, denying material averments and asserting special defenses that the ordinance was a valid exercise of municipal powers (citing provisions of the Revised Administrative Code, the Public Service Act, and the Revised Motor Vehicle Law), and that the plaintiffs’ terminal constituted a public nuisance subject to abatement; it counterclaimed for P10,000 in damages for an allegedly malicious suit. After hearing, the trial court granted the plaintiffs’ application for preliminary injunction on November 10, 1952 upon bond.
After trial and memoranda, the Court of First Instance rendered final judgment on March 17, 1958. The trial court found that the plaintiffs’ terminal was constructed of strong materials, provided modern sanitary facilities, had personnel to keep premises and sidewalk clean, and permitted ingress and egress without maneuvering on the public street; that the terminal relieved pedestrian congestion rather than creating one; and that the real causes of traffic obstruction on F. Tanedo Street were U‑turns, loading and unloading, and parking by various other vehicles. The trial court therefore held the ordinance and resolution discriminatory, unreasonable and oppressive, not a proper zoning measure, and unrelated to health, safety or public welfare, and declared Ordinance No. 1 and Resolution No. 323 null and void and made the preliminary injunction final.
The m...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Municipal Council validly enact Ordinance No. 1 and Resolution No. 323, or are they void as discriminatory, unreasonable, and not within the municipality’s powers?
- Was the issuance and the making final of the preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the ordinance a...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)