HON. MA. LOURDES C. FERNANDO (representing City Government of Marikina), Vs. ST. SCHOLASTICA'S COLLEGE-MARIKINA

GR. No. 161107, March 12, 2013

FACTS:

The SSC is the owner of four (4) parcels of land located in Marikina City. The property is enclosed by a tall concrete perimeter fence built some thirty (30) years ago.

In adversity with the City Government of Marikina, it enacted an Ordinance No. 192, series of 1994, Ordering SSC to demolish and rebuilt their fence in accordance with the standard of heights of fences regulated by the City Government. 

The SSC filed a petition for prohibition with an application for a writ of preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order before the Regional Trial Court.  They asserted that the implementation of the ordinance to their property would be tantamount to an appropriation of property without due process of law. 

On the other hand, the City Government of Marikina, countered that the ordinance was a valid exercise of police power, by virtue of which, they could restrain property rights for the protection of public safety, health, morals, or the promotion of public convenience. 

RULING OF THE RTC:

The RTC, rendered a Decision, granting the petition and ordering the issuance of a writ of prohibition commanding the petitioners to permanently desist from enforcing or implementing Ordinance No. 192, series of 1994 on the respondents’ property.

The City Government of Marikina, appaled to CA, but such appeals was denied and CA affirmed the TRC’s Decision.  

ISSUE: 

Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in declaring that City Ordinance no. 192, series of 1994 is not a valid exercise of Police Power

COURT’S RULING:  

A valid ordinance is well established, upon conformity to the following substantive requirements:

(1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute; 

(2) must not be unfair or oppressive; 

(3) must not be partial or discriminatory; 

(4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade; 

(5) must be general and consistent with public policy; and 

(6) must not be unreasonable.

 

Ordinance No. 192, series of 1994 must be struck down for not being reasonably necessary to accomplish the City’s purpose. More importantly, it is oppressive of private rights.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The writ of prohibition is hereby issued commanding the respondents to permanently desist from enforcing or implementing of Ordinance No. 192, Series of 1994. 

SO ORDERED.