ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 
 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
March-1916 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 10649 March 1, 1916 - BENITO AFRICA v. KURT W. GRONKE

    034 Phil 50

  • G.R. No. 10838 March 1, 1916 - ALFONSA CARLOS ET AL. v. MLA. ELECTRIC RAILROAD & LIGHT COMPANY

    034 Phil 55

  • G.R. No. 11148 March 1, 1916 - LIM BUN SU v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. 10563 March 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO BONIFACIO

    034 Phil 65

  • G.R. No. 11262 March 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO T. GIMENEZ

    034 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. 7676 March 3, 1916 - JOSE LINO LUNA v. ESTEBAN ARCENAS

    034 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. 10265 March 3, 1916 - EUTIQUIANO CUYUGAN v. ISIDORO SANTOS

    034 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. 10918 March 4, 1916 - WILLIAM FRESSEL ET AL. v. MARIANO UY CHACO SONS & COMPANY

    034 Phil 122

  • G.R. No. 10971 March 4, 1916 - BEAUMONT & TENNEY v. BERNARD HERSTEIN

    034 Phil 127

  • G.R. No. 11216 March 6, 1916 - COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONERS

    034 Phil 136

  • G.R. No. 8473 March 7, 1916 - SANTIAGO YASON v. JULIO MAGSAKAY

    034 Phil 143

  • G.R. No. 10437 March 7, 1916 - JESUSA LAUREANO v. EUGENIO KILAYCO

    034 Phil 148

  • G.R. No. 10729 March 7, 1916 - UY PO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 153

  • G.R. No. 10793 March 17, 1916 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ILOILO

    034 Phil 157

  • G.R. No. 11196 March 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. EUSTAQUIO YUMUL

    034 Phil 169

  • G.R. No. 11321 March 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SY BUN KUE

    034 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. 10051 March 9, 1916 - ERLANGER & GALINGER v. SWEDISH EAST ASIATIC CO.

    034 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. 11115 March 10, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SILVESTRE YU TUICO

    034 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. 10297 March 11, 1916 - AGAPITO BONZON v. STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORK ET AL.

    034 Phil 211

  • G.R. No. 8135 March 13, 1916 - FRED J. LEGARE ET AL. v. ANTONIA CUERQUES

    034 Phil 221

  • G.R. No. 10449 March 13, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ACLEMANDOS BLEIBEL

    034 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 8092 March 14, 1916 - RUFINA BONDAD ET AL. v. VENANCIO BONDAD ET AL.

    034 Phil 232

  • G.R. No. 10578 March 14, 1916 - PACIFIC COMMERCIAL COMPANY v. MAURICIA SOTTO

    034 Phil 237

  • G.R. No. 11000 March 14, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. VALERIO MENDIETA

    034 Phil 242

  • G.R. No. 9497 March 15, 1916 - SIMONA GALICIA v. TEODORA NAVARRO

    034 Phil 245

  • G.R. No. 11467 March 15, 1916 - NG HIAN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 248

  • G.R. No. 10462 March 16, 1916 - ANDREA DUMASUG v. FELIX MODELO

    034 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. 9164 March 17, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. VY BO TEC

    034 Phil 260

  • G.R. No. 10354 March 17, 1916 - FELIPE DORADO v. AGRIPINO VIRIÑA

    034 Phil 264

  • G.R. No. 10718 March 17, 1916 - United States v. Ramon FERRER

    034 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. 11464 March 17, 1916 - VICTOR BIUNAS v. BENITO MORA

    034 Phil 282

  • G.R. No. 8954 March 21, 1916 - DOROTEA CABANG v. MARTIN DELFINADO

    034 Phil 291

  • G.R. No. 9340 March 21, 1916 - MARGARITO PENALOSA LO INTONG v. ISIDORA JAMITO ET AL.

    034 Phil 303

  • G.R. No. 10889 March 21, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. VALERIO MARTINEZ

    034 Phil 305

  • G.R. No. 11098 March 21, 1916 - CO PAIN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 310

  • G.R. No. 11154 March 21, 1916 - E. MERRITT v. GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS

    034 Phil 311

  • G.R. No. 8979 March 22, 1916 - ADRIANO PANLILIO v. PROVICIAL BOARD OF PAMPANGA ET AL.

    034 Phil 323

  • G.R. No. 10978 March 22, 1916 - SIXTO MANLAGNIT v. ALFONSO SANCHEZ DY PUICO

    034 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. 11315 March 22, 1916 - DIONISION CHANCO v. CARLOS IMPERIAL

    034 Phil 329

  • G.R. No. 8941 March 23, 1916 - GUILLERMO VELOSO v. LORENZO BECERRA

    034 Phil 334

  • G.R. No. 9984 March 23, 1916 - PETRONA JAVIER v. LAZARO OSMEÑA

    034 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 10769 March 23, 1916 - RAYMUNDO MELLIZA v. F. W. TOWLE

    034 Phil 345

  • G.R. No. 11119 March 23, 1916 - JUANA RIVERA v. RICHARD CAMPBELL

    034 Phil 348

  • G.R. No. 8642 March 24, 1916 - STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORK v. ANTONIO BABASA ET AL.

    034 Phil 354

  • G.R. Nos. 8765 & 10920 March 24, 1916 - PEDRO DIMAGIBA v. ANSELMO DIMAGIBA

    034 Phil 357

  • G.R. No. 8806 March 24, 1916 - ALEJANDRO BALDEMOR v. EUSEBIA MALANGYAON

    034 Phil 367

  • G.R. No. 9919 March 24, 1916 - ELISA TORRES DE VILLANUEVA v. STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORD ET AL.

    034 Phil 370

  • G.R. No. 9974 March 24, 1916 - CANG YUI v. HENRY GARDENER

    034 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. 10560 March 24, 1916 - IN RE: Tan Po Pic v. JUAN L. JAVIER

    034 Phil 382

  • G.R. No. 10624 March 24, 1916 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 385

  • G.R. No. 10663 March 24, 1916 - JOSEPH E. FOX v. MANILA ELECTRIC RAILROAD AND LIGHT COMPANY

    034 Phil 389

  • G.R. No. 11384 March 24, 1916 - ANTONIO GUEVARA v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 394

  • G.R. No. 10045 March 25, 1916 - PHIL. RAILWAY COMPANY v. WILLIAM T. NOLTING

    034 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. 10777 March 25, 1916 - ALEJANDRA v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF PANGASINAN

    034 Phil 404

  • G.R. No. 11157 March 25, 1916 - POLICARPIO RAMIREZ v. FRANCISCO DE OROZCO

    034 Phil 412

  • G.R. No. 10510 March 27, 1916 - LEONCIO ZARATE v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS ET AL.

    034 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. 10580 March 27, 1916 - TEODORO DE LOS REYES v. MAXIMINO PATERNO

    034 Phil 420

  • G.R. No. 11607 March 27, 1916 - PHIL. SUGAR ESTATES DEV. CO. (LTD.) v. ARMANDO CAMPS Y CAMPS

    034 Phil 426

  • G.R. No. 9845 March 28, 1916 - J. C. RUYMANN v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    034 Phil 428

  • G.R. No. 10054 March 28, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ATANASIO CLARAVALL

    034 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. 10264 March 28, 1916 - CHOA TEK HEE v. PHIL. PUBLISHING CO.

    034 Phil 447

  • G.R. No. 10595 March 28, 1916 - TEODORO KALAMBAKAL v. VICENTE PAMATMAT ET AL.

    034 Phil 465

  • G.R. No. 10810 March 28, 1916 - MUNICIPALITY OF AGOO v. GABRIEL TAVORA

    034 Phil 475

  • G.R. No. 10902 March 28, 1916 - SERAPIA DE JESUS v. PABLO PALMA

    034 Phil 483

  • G.R. No. 11156 March 28, 1916 - IN RE: DU TEC CHUAN. M. G. VELOSO

    034 Phil 488

  • G.R. No. 11363 March 28, 1916 - BERNARDO MOLDEN v. INSULAR COLLETOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. 11366 March 28, 1916 - INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS v. GOERGE R. HARVEY

    034 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. 9550 March 29, 1916 - BACHRACH GARAGE v. HOTCHKISS & CO.

    034 Phil 506

  • G.R. No. 10019 March 29, 1916 - THOMAS A. WALLACE v. PUJALTE & CO.

    034 Phil 511

  • G.R. No. 10202 March 29, 1916 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS Ex Rel. MUN. OF CARDONA v. MUN. OF BINANGONAN ET AL.

    034 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. 10474 March 29, 1916 - FRANCISCO OSORIO Y GARCIA v. SOLEDAD OSORIO

    034 Phil 522

  • G.R. No. 10493 March 29, 1916 - FREDERICK L. COHEN v. BENGUET COMMERCIAL CO. (Ltd.)

    034 Phil 526

  • G.R. No. 10751 March 29, 1916 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. MARIA CABALLERO Y APARICI

    034 Phil 540

  • G.R. No. 10778 March 29, 1916 - MUNICIPALITY OF DUMANGAS v. ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF JARO

    034 Phil 541

  • G.R. No. 11008 March 29, 1916 - MARIANO REAL ET AL. v. CESAREO MALLARI

    034 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 11068 March 29, 1916 - FERNANDEZ HERMANOS v. HAROLD M. PITT

    034 Phil 549

  • G.R. No. 11274 March 29, 1916 - RAFAELA DALMACIO v. ALBERTO BARRETTO

    034 Phil 554

  • G.R. No. 11585 March 29, 1916 - PABLO PERLAS v. PEDRO CONCEPCION

    034 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. 8697 March 30, 1916 - M. GOLDSTEIN v. ALIJANDRO ROCES ET AL.

    034 Phil 562

  • G.R. No. 8988 March 30, 1916 - HARTFORD BEAUMONT v. MAURO PRIETO, ET AL.

    041 Phil 670

  •  




     
     

    G.R. No. 11119  March 23, 1916 - JUANA RIVERA v. RICHARD CAMPBELL<br /><br />034 Phil 348

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 11119. March 23, 1916. ]

    JUANA RIVERA, Petitioner, v. RICHARD CAMPBELL, judge of the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila, Appellees.

    Vicente Santiago for Petitioner.

    Prosecuting Attorneys Paredes and De Joya for Respondent.

    SYLLABUS


    1. MANILA, CITY OF; ORDINANCE; PROTECTION OF WATER SUPPLY. — Held: Under the power and authority expressly conferred upon the city of Manila, by paragraphs (w) and (cc) of section 17 of Act No. 183, in relation with paragraph (i) of section 3 of Act No. 1150, that said city had ample power and authority to adopt subsection (f) of section 4 of Ordinance No. 149.

    2. ID.; ID.; ID.; JURISDICTION OF MUNICIPAL COURT. — Held: That, by express provisions of Ordinance No. 149 of the city of Manila, its municipal court had full power and authority to take jurisdiction of cases for a violation of said ordinance and to try and sentence persons charged with its violation.

    3. MUNICIPALITIES; PROTECTION OF WATER SUPPLY. — Held: That municipal governments, under proper authority, may adopt ordinances to protect and control the purity of their water supply, and that such protection and control is not limited to the municipal territorial limits, but may extend beyond such limits. Public water supply is not limited to water supply owned and controlled by a municipal corporation, but should be construed as meaning a supply of water for public and domestic use, furnished or to be furnished from waterworks.

    4. STATUTES; CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION. — Every statute must be construed with reference to the object intended to be accomplished by it. In order to ascertain this object, it is proper to consider the occasion and necessity of its enactment; and the statute should be given that construction which is best calculated to advance its object, by suppressing the mischief and securing the benefits intended.

    5. MUNICIPALITIES; POLICE POWERS; EXTENT OF TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION. — Held: That, while for ordinary purposes municipal governments are limited to their territorial jurisdiction, they are not always so limited in the exercise of their police powers. They may be granted the right to exercise their police powers beyond their territorial jurisdiction. Corporation boundaries usually mark the limit for the exercise of the police power by the municipality; but in many instances, because essential to the statutory performance of police functions, and especially for the preservation of the public health, the municipality is granted police power beyond its boundaries. Thus it has been held that the grant of power to acquire territory for water supply beyond the limits of the municipality is within the competency of the legislature, and that the municipality may exercise police power in the protection of the territory thus acquired, to insure cleanliness, and prevent any business and conduct likely to corrupt the foundation of water supply for the city. (28 Cyc., 703, 704.)


    D E C I S I O N


    JOHNSON, J. :


    The petition in the present case was presented for the purpose of obtaining the writ of certiorari. The record shows that the petitioner had been convicted of a violation of subsection (f) of section 4 of Ordinance No. 149, first by the municipal court of the city of Manila and again by the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila. She alleged in each court that the same was without jurisdiction to try her for the crime committed. She admitted that she had committed the acts charged in the complaint, but denied that the courts of the city of Manila had jurisdiction to try her for the same. Each of said courts overruled her objection to the jurisdiction, each found her guilty of the crime charged, and each sentenced her to pay a fine.

    Upon the presentation of the petition in this court the respondent was ordered to appear and show cause why the writ should not issue. In response to said order a demurrer was presented.

    The facts upon which the present proceeding are based seem to be as follows: That the said Juana Rivera was charged with having willfully and unlawfully in the waters of that part of the Mariquina River lying between the Santolan pumping station and the Boso-Boso dam, in the Province of Rizal, a place then occupied by duly authorized representatives and employees of the city of Manila, on or about May 11th, 1915, in violation of subsection (f) of section 4 of Ordinance No. 149 of the city of Manila, in relation with the provisions of sections 6 and 7 of the same Ordinance.

    Upon said complaint the municipal court found the plaintiff guilty. She appealed to the Court of First Instance where she was again found guilty of a violation of said Ordinance.

    The simple question presented in the present case is whether or not the courts of the city of Manila have jurisdiction over the crime committed by the petitioner at the place it was committed.

    Said section 4 of paragraph (f) of said Ordinance provides as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Section 4. The following regulations shall be observed upon all lands occupied by any duly authorized representative, officer, or employee of the city of Manila:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    x       x       x


    "(f) Bathing in water courses. — All persons are prohibited from bathing in the river and water courses. The washing of garments, articles of clothing, and fabrics in the waters of any river or water course is prohibited."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Said section of said Ordinance was adopted by the municipal board of the city of Manila in pursuance of the power conferred upon it by authority of the provisions of paragraphs (w) and (cc) of section 17 of Act No. 183, and paragraph (i) of section 3 of Act No. 1150 of the Philippine Commission.

    Section 17 and paragraphs (w) and (cc) provide:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Sec. 17. . . . In addition to the foregoing the board (municipal) shall have the following general powers:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    x       x       x


    "(w) To maintain waterworks for the purpose of supplying water to the inhabitants of the city (of Manila), to purify the source of supply, and regulate the control and use of the water, and to fix and collect rents therefor; to regulate the construction, repair, and use of hydrants, pumps, cisterns, and reservoirs, and to prevent the waste of water.

    x       x       x


    "(cc) To extend and enforce all its ordinance over all waters within the city, . . . and for the purpose of protecting and insuring the purity of the water supply of the city, to extend and enforce ordinances to that end over all territory within the drainage area of such water supply, or within one hundred meters of any reservoir, conduit, canal, aqueduct, or pumping station used in connection with the city water service."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The municipal board was further authorized to protect the purity of the water supply of the city of Manila, by Act No. 1150 of the Philippine Commission. Section 3 of said Act provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Sec. 3. (Act No. 1150.) The ordinances drafted by the Board of Health may provide for:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    x       x       x


    "(i) Protection from infection of all public and private water supplies and sources, and prohibition of the use of water of dangerous character for domestic purposes. Ordinances enacted for the purpose of protecting the purity of the water supply of Manila shall apply to and be enforced over all territory within the drainage area of such water supply or within one hundred meters of any reservoir, conduit, canal, aqueduct, or pumping station used in connection with the city water service."cralaw virtua1aw library

    It is admitted that during the dry season, the city of Manila was obliged to use, in addition to the natural water supply from Boso-Boso dam, the water from Mariquina River; that the water was taken out of the Mariquina River by means of a pumping station located some distance below Boso-Boso dam, and that the petitioner was found washing her clothing between the said pumping station and Boso-Boso dam. It is clear, therefore, that she was guilty of interfering with the purity of the water which was supplied to the city of Manila by said pumping station.

    With reference to the jurisdiction of the courts of the city of Manila over said territory, it may be noted that section 6 of said Ordinance No. 149, expressly confers upon the municipal court of the city of Manila power to try any ordinance provides the penalty for its violation.

    When the question of the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila was presented to the lower court, Judge Campbell, the respondent herein, in a very well-reasoned opinion, reached the conclusion that the court had jurisdiction over the petitioner and the offense committed, and sentenced her to pay a fine of P50 and costs, and in case of insolvency to suffer subsidiary imprisonment. In the course of his opinion, Judge Campbell said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "It is beyond question that by washing garments, articles of clothing, and fabrics in the Mariquina River, as shown above, the defendant committed a violation of paragraph (f) of section 4 of Ordinance No. 149 of the city of Manila, in connection with sections 6 and 7 thereof. The Santolan pumping station is a part of the public water supply of the city with water taken from that part of the Mariquina River during the dry season, in the waters of which the defendant washed articles of clothing. According to American authorities, the true meaning of the phrase public water supply is as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Public water supply is not limited to water supply owned and controlled by a municipal corporation, but should be construed as meaning a supply of water for public and domestic use, furnished or to be furnished from water works.’ (State v. Township etc., 52 N. J. law, 496; 19 Atl. Rep., 975.)

    "The provisions of Ordinance No. 149 of the city of Manila and the Acts of the Philippine Commission upon which it is based would be meaningless and almost absurd if made applicable only to the Santolan pumping station and not to that part of the Mariquina River immediately above it and from which the said pumping station draws water for the use of the inhabitants of the city of Manila during the dry season, considering that the policy and purpose of said ordinance is the protection of the public health in the said city.

    "According to American decisions on the construction of statutes: "Every statute must be construed with reference to the object intended to be accomplished by it. In order to ascertain this object it is proper to consider the occasion and necessity of its enactment, . . . and the statute should be given that construction which is best calculated to advance its object, by suppressing the mischief and securing the benefits intended.’ (36 Cyc., 1110, 1111.)

    "That the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila has jurisdiction to try the offense under consideration, although committed in the Province of Rizal, by virtue of the provisions of said ordinance (149), based upon paragraphs (w) and (cc), of section 17 of Act No. 183, and paragraph (i) of section 3 of Act No. 1150 of the Philippine Commission can not be disputed, if we simply take into consideration the following rule, which has been pronounced on many occasions, in relation to the same question, by many courts:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "The corporation boundaries usually mark the limit for the exercise of the police power by the municipality; but in many instances because essential to the statutory performance of police functions, and especially for the preservation of the public health, the municipality is granted police power beyond its boundaries. Thus it has been held that the grant of power to acquire territory for water supply beyond the limits of the municipality is within the competency of the legislature, and that the municipality may exercise police power in the protection of the territory thus acquired to insure cleanliness, and prevent any business and conduct likely to corrupt the fountain of water supply for the city.’ (28 Cyc., 703, 704.)"

    After a consideration of the facts and the law applicable thereto and the general power conferred upon the city of Manila, we are fully persuaded that the municipal court of the city of Manila, as well as the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila, has jurisdiction to hear and determine the question presented by the complaint originally presented against the petitioner. Therefore the petition for the writ of certiorari is hereby denied, with costs. So ordered.

    Torres, Moreland, Trent and Araullo, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 11119  March 23, 1916 - JUANA RIVERA v. RICHARD CAMPBELL<br /><br />034 Phil 348




    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED