Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1948 > May 1948 Decisions > G.R. No. L-501-512 May 21, 1948 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TIMOTEO ESGUERRA, ET AL.

081 Phil 33:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-501-512. May 21, 1948.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TIMOTEO ESGUERRA ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

Assistant Solicitor General Roberto A. Gianzon and Solicitor Jose G. Bautista for Appellant.

SYLLABUS


MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS; POWER OF MUNICIPAL COUNCIL TO REGULATE SALE, GIVING AWAY AND DISPENSING OF LIQUOR EXCLUDES POWER TO PROHIBIT. — Under the general welfare clause, section 2238 of the Revised Administrative Code, a municipal council may enact such ordinances, not repugnant to law, as shall seem necessary and proper to provide for the health and safety, etc., of the inhabitants of the municipality. But as the ordinance in question prohibiting the selling, giving away and dispensing of liquor is repugnant to the provision of section 2242 (g) of the same Revised Administrative Code, the municipal council of Tacloban had no power under said section 2238 to enact said ordinance. The prohibition is contrary to the power granted by section 2242 (g) "to regulate the selling, giving away and dispensing of intoxicating malt, vinous, mixed or fermented liquors at retail;" because the word "regulate" means and includes the power to control, to govern and to restrain; and can not be construed as synonymous with "suppress" or "prohibit" (Kwong Sing v. City of Manila, 41 Phil., 103). Since the municipality of Tacloban is empowered only to regulate, it cannot prohibit, for that which is prohibited or does not legally exist can not be regulated. The powers conferred upon a municipal council in the general welfare clause, or section 2238 of the Revised Administrative Code, refers to matters not covered by the other provisions of the same Code, and therefore it can not be applied to intoxicating liquors, for the power to regulate the selling, giving away and dispensing thereof is granted specifically by section 2242 (g) to municipal councils.


D E C I S I O N


FERIA, J.:


The defendants in these twelve cases were each charged with violation of municipal ordinance No. 4, series 1944, enacted by the municipal council of Tacloban, Leyte, which provides the following:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SECTION 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, association, or firm, to manufacture, distill, produce, cure, sell, barter, offer or give or dispose of in favor of another, possess or to have under control any intoxicating liquor, drink or beverage, locally manufactured, distilled, produced or cured wine, whiskey, gin, brandy and other drink containing liquor including tuba.

"SEC. 2. All permits and licenses issued for the manufacture, production or establishment or distilleries and sale of tuba, wine, whiskey, and other alcoholic beverages, are hereby revoked and cancelled.

"SEC. 3. Any person, association or firm, who violates the provisions of this ordinance, shall be punished upon conviction by competent court, by a fine of not less than one hundred pesos nor more than two hundred pesos and imprisonment of not less than three months nor more than six months. In case of a reincidence or second offense committed, the violator shall suffer the maximum penalty herein prescribed, and in the event of insolvency, the violator shall suffer imprisonment of one day for each one peso fine imposed in addition to the imprisonment already imposed thereof by the court.

"SEC. 4. Any provisions of municipal ordinance, rules and regulations, which are inconsistent hereof, are hereby repealed, void and null.

"SEC. 5. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its approval.

"Approved, December 2, 1944."cralaw virtua1aw library

The informations filed against Timoteo Esguerra, criminal case No. 2 of the Court of First Instance of Leyte, G. R. No. L-501, and against Teofilo Decatoria, criminal case No. 4 of the same court, G. R. No. L-502, charged that each of said defendants did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously sell, barter, convey, offer, give, or dispose of whisky or intoxicating liquor to or in favor of soldiers of the United States Army, which wine or intoxicating liquor the accused had then in their possession and under their custody and control without any legal authority to do so.

The informations against Jose Chan, criminal case No. 7 of the Court of First Instance of Leyte, G. R. No. L-505, Felix Labordo, criminal case No. 15, G. R. No. L-510, and Pilar E. Pascual, criminal case No. 16 G. R. No. L-511, and against the defendants in other seven (7) separate cases, charged the defendants with having, wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, had in their possession and under their control and custody "tuba" or intoxicating liquor without any legal authority to do so.

The cases against Timoteo Esguerra, Jose Chan, Felix Labordo, and Pilar E. Pascual were jointly heard, and the defendants moved for the dismissal of the charge on the ground that the ordinance No. 4, series 1944, which, according to the information, was by them violated is null and void, because the municipal council of Tacloban, Leyte, had no power to enact it. The lower court, after hearing the arguments of the prosecution and the defense, declared the ordinance in question null and void, and dismissed the cases against the said defendants; and also dismissed the cases against the defendants in all other cases, presumably because the ordinance which penalizes as an offense the selling, bartering, offering, giving away or dispensing of liquors, having been declared null and void, the part of the same ordinance which penalizes the possession, custody and control of liquors had to be declared null and void also, since the latter cannot be separated from the former.

The prosecuting attorney, in behalf of the plaintiff, The People of the Philippines, appealed from the decision of the lower court in the twelve cases, and all of them are now before us on appeal.

The appellant contends that the ordinance at bar was enacted by virtue of the police power of the municipality of Tacloban conferred by the general welfare clause, section 2238 of the Revised Administrative Code, and is therefore valid. Said section reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEC. 2238. General power of council to enact ordinances and make regulations. — The municipal council shall enact such ordinances and make such regulations, not repugnant to law, as may be necessary to carry into effect and discharge the powers and duties conferred upon it by law and such as shall seem necessary and proper to provide for the health and safety, promote the prosperity, improve the morals, peace, good order, comfort, and convenience of the municipality and the inhabitants thereof, and for the protection of property therein."cralaw virtua1aw library

We are of the opinion, and so hold, that the lower court has not erred in declaring the ordinance No. 44, series 1944, ultravires and therefore null and void. Under the general welfare clause, section 2238 of the Revised Administrative Code, a municipal council may enact such ordinances, not repugnant to law, as shall seem necessary and proper to provide for the health and safety, etc., of the inhabitants of the municipality. But as the ordinance in question prohibiting the selling, giving away and dispensing of liquor is repugnant to the provision of section 2242 (g) of the same Revised Administrative Code, the Municipal council of Tacloban had no power under said section 2238 to enact the ordinance under consideration. The prohibition is contrary to the power granted by section 2242 (g) "to regulate the selling, giving away and dispensing of intoxicating malt, vinous, mixed or fermented liquors at retail" ; because the word "regulate" means and includes the power to control, to govern and to restrain; and can not be construed as synonymous with "suppress" or "prohibit" (Kwong Sing v. City of Manila, 41 Phil., 103). Since the municipality of Tacloban is empowered only to regulate, it cannot prohibit the selling, giving away and dispensing of intoxicating liquors, for that which is prohibited or does not legally exist can not be regulated.

The powers conferred upon a municipal council in the general welfare clause, or section 2238 of the Revised Administrative Code, refers to matters not covered by the other provisions of the same Code, and therefore it can not be applied to intoxicating liquors, for the power to regulate the selling, giving away and dispensing thereof is granted specifically by section 2242 (g) to municipal councils. To hold that, under the general power granted by section 2238, a municipal council may enact the ordinance in question, notwithstanding the provision of section 2242 (g), would be to make the latter superfluous and nugatory, because the power to prohibit, includes power to regulate, the selling, giving away and dispensing of intoxicating liquors.

Under the charters of municipal corporations in the States of the Union, from which the provisions of the Organic Act of our cities and municipalities were taken, municipal corporations are general]y granted, not only the specific power to regulate the sale or traffic of intoxicating liquors, but also the general welfare power similar to that conferred by section 2238 of the Revised Administrative Code. And the courts of last resort in the said States have uniformly held that the "legislative authority to license or regulate the sale of intoxicating liquors does not authorize a municipality to prohibit it, either in express terms or by imposing prohibitive license fees." (15 R. C. L,. p. 262.) And the general power granted in the general welfare clause does not authorize a municipal council to prohibit the sale of intoxicants, because, as stated in American Jurisprudence, vol. 30, p. 367, "as a general rule when a municipal corporation is specifically given authority or power to regulate or to license and regulate the liquor traffic, power to prohibit is impliedly withheld."cralaw virtua1aw library

In view of the foregoing, the appealed orders or resolutions of the lower court dismissing the informations in the above entitled cases, are affirmed, without pronouncement as to costs. So ordered.

Paras, Actg. C.J., Perfecto, Bengzon, and Tuason, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






May-1948 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-758 May 12, 1948 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. RUSTICO NOBLEZALA

    080 Phil 831

  • G.R. No. L-1347 May 12, 1948 - YELLOW TAXI, ET AL. contra. MANILA YELLOW TAXI CAB CO.

    080 Phil 833

  • G.R. No. L-1377 May 12, 1948 - LEYTE LAND TRANSPORTATION CO. v. LEYTE FARMERS’ & LABORERS’ UNION

    080 Phil 842

  • G.R. No. L-1505 May 12, 1948 - VALENTIN CAMACHO v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    080 Phil 848

  • G.R. No. L-2128 May 12, 1948 - MELENCIO SAYO, ET AL. v. CHIEF OF POLICE, ET AL.

    080 Phil 859

  • G.R. No. L-2139 May 12, 1948 - NG SIU TAM v. RAFAEL AMPARO

    080 Phil 921

  • G.R. No. 49308 May 13, 1948 - MARIA LUISA MARTINEZ v. MANUEL H. BARREDO, ET AL.

    081 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. CA-650 May 14, 1948 - NICANORA BERNAS, ET AL. v. ARCADIO M. BOLO, ET AL.

    081 Phil 16

  • G.R. No. L-1801 May 14, 1948 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO ALANO

    081 Phil 19

  • G.R. No. L-2008 May 17, 1948 - ENRIQUE PAREJA, ET AL. v. GREGORIO S. NARVASA, ET AL.

    081 Phil 22

  • G.R. No. L-2167 May 17, 1948 - HOSPICIO A. PACAL v. Hon. F. RAMOS, ET AL.

    081 Phil 30

  • G.R. No. L-501-512 May 21, 1948 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TIMOTEO ESGUERRA, ET AL.

    081 Phil 33

  • G.R. No. L-1254 May 21, 1948 - ALEJANDRO GONZALES y TOLENTINO, ET AL. v. MANUELA VDA. DE GONZALES, ET AL.

    081 Phil 38

  • G.R. No. L-2051 May 21, 1948 - BERNARDO TORRES v. MAMERTO S. RIBO, ET AL.

    081 Phil 44

  • C.A. No. 17 May 24, 1948 - SEVERINO ALBERTO v. M. DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL.

    081 Phil 52

  • G.R. No. L-1237 May 24, 1948 - BRICCIO B. TENORIO v. JOSE GOMBA, ET AL.

    081 Phil 54

  • G.R. No. L-1292 May 24, 1948 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO MOBE, ET AL.

    081 Phil 58

  • G.R. No. L-1293 May 24, 1948 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MACARIO MANZANARES

    081 Phil 64

  • G.R. No. L-1502 May 24, 1948 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGRIPINO BAUTISTA

    081 Phil 78

  • G.R. No. L-1613 May 24, 1948 - JUSTA G. VDA. DE GUIDO v. OSCAR CASTELO, ET AL.

    081 Phil 81

  • G.R. No. L-623 May 26, 1948 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GAUDENCIO ALIBAY ET AL.

    081 Phil 84

  • G.R. No. L-1236 May 26, 1948 - MARCELO E. INTON, ET AL. v. DANIEL QUINTANA

    081 Phil 97

  • G.R. No. L-1172 May 27, 1948 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SOBANON KALIM, ET AL.

    081 Phil 107

  • G.R. No. L-1431 May 27, 1948 - PABLO INDICO v. NATIVIDAD PARCON, ET AL.

    081 Phil 112

  • G.R. No. L-527 May 28, 1948 - PACIENCIA DE JESUS, ET AL. v. JUSTINA S. VDA. DE MANGLAPUS

    081 Phil 114

  • G.R. No. L-1228 May 28, 1948 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NORBERTO SILERIO, ET AL.

    081 Phil 124

  • G.R. No. L-1336 May 28, 1948 - POTENCIANA DEQUITO, ET AL. v. HUGO O. ARELLANO, ET AL.

    081 Phil 128

  • G.R. No. L-1504 May 28, 1948 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. KAPONAN GANI, ET AL.

    081 Phil 139

  • G.R. No. L-1913 May 28, 1948 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE ATIENZA, ET AL.

    081 Phil 144

  • G.R. No. 49081 May 28, 1948 - JUAN MALONDA v. JUSTINA INFANTE VDA. DE MALONDA, ET AL.

    081 Phil 149