Sunday, December 9, 2012

ernst

EN BANC
JUAN F. FAJARDO, ET AL
G.R. No. L-12172 August 29, 1958
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
JUAN F. FAJARDO, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

Assistant Solicitor General Esmeraldo Umali and Higinio V. Catalan for appellee.
Prila, Pardalis and Pejo for appellants.
REYES, J. B. L., J.:

FACTS: On February 26, 1954, appellants were charged before and convicted by the justice of the peace court of Baao, Camarines Sur, for violation of Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1950, of the Municipality of Baao, Camarines Sur, for having constructed without a permit from the municipal mayor a building that destroys the view of the public plaza.

ISSUE: Whether or not Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1950, of the Municipality of Baao, Camarines Sur is unconstitutional.

Whether or not the Public officer of the Municipality of Baao, Camarines Sur executed a grave abuse of discretion in line with the aforesaid Municipal Ordinance.

Ruling: Yes, the said ordinance is unconstitutional with no effect, SEC. 2243. Certain legislative powers of discretionary character. — The municipal council shall have authority to exercise the following discretionary powers:
(c) To establish fire limits in populous centers, prescribe the kinds of buildings that may be constructed or repaired within them, and issue permits for the creation or repair thereof, charging a fee which shall be determined by the municipal council and which shall not be less than two pesos for each building permit and one peso for each repair permit issued. The fees collected under the provisions of this subsection shall accrue to the municipal school fund.
Yes, there is a clear manifestation of the Municipal Council of Baao, Camarines Sur enacting the Ordinance has no authority to enact, As there is absolutely no showing in this case that the municipal council had either established fire limits within the municipality or set standards for the kind or kinds of buildings to be constructed or repaired within them before it passed the ordinance in question, it is clear that said ordinance was not conceived and promulgated under the express authority.
. Hence, the conviction of herein appellants is reversed, and said accused are acquitted.

No comments:

IN THE MATTER OF THE ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED IN THE COLUMNS OF MR. AMADO P. MACASAET PUBLISHED IN MALAYA DATED SEPTEMBER 18, 19, 20 AND 21, 2007. D E C I S I O N

  Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC A.M. No. 07-09-13-SC             August 8, 2008 IN THE MATTER OF THE ALLEGATIONS ...