G.R. No. 7830 - People vs Abendan

The appellant, Gregorio Abendan, was convicted for violating Municipal Ordinance No. 105 of the city of Cebu.
The charge stemmed from his failure to comply with an order issued by the Department of Sanitation to perform necessary repairs on his house.
The order was issued on or about October 26, under the premise of preserving sanitary conditions.

Installation of a ventilator in the closet located in the upper part of the house.
Installation of a closet in the lower part of the house.
Placement of a bell-trap in the kitchen of the lower part of the house.
Placement of a bell-trap in the kitchen of the upper part of the house.
Although the appellant complied with some parts of the order, he failed to execute the entire scope of the mandated repairs.

Pauly testified that he inspected the appellant’s house and found it unsanitary, warranting the repairs.
The inspector attested that:

The house had living quarters for different families—the lower part housed a Chinese tinner with his family and a Filipino silversmith with his family, while the upper part housed an American family.
Despite partial compliance, the appellant had neglected to install the required ventilator and closets, as well as the bell-traps in one of the required areas.
Additional issues such as improper drainage causing water discharge onto adjacent lots were noted.

He had no record of issuing any subsequent order.
There was no evidence during his inspections of dirt, excrement, or nuisances caused by the residents, aside from the building’s deficiencies.
A specific construction for water discharge was also deemed necessary due to water accumulation.

Article 6 of the municipal ordinances of Cebu, as amended, requires property owners to comply with orders for repairs, improvements, or necessary construction to promote sanitary conditions.
Paragraph (jj) of Section 39 of the Municipal Code authorizes the creation of ordinances and regulations deemed necessary for public health, safety, and order.
The municipality of Cebu was empowered by the Legislature to enact ordinances on sanitation and public health, lending validity to the ordinance in question.

Whether Municipal Ordinance No. 105, as enforced in this case, was within the legislative authority granted to the city of Cebu.
Whether the ordinance contradicted any provisions of the fundamental law or any act of the Philippine Legislature.

The appellant’s contention that the ordinance was unreasonable, oppressive, and discriminatory.
Whether the manner of its application in his case deviated from the standard treatment of other residents.
Whether the evidence supported or refuted claims of oppression or unfair treatment under the ordinance.

Whether the evidence, mainly the testimony of the chief sanitary inspector, was substantial and undisputed enough to justify the order and subsequent conviction.