G.R. No. L-6016, March 25, 1911
ANDRES PUNZALAN, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SISENANDO FERRIOLS, municipal president of Batangas, and the PROVINCIAL BOARD OF BATANGAS, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

The plaintiff, Andres Punzalan, owned a horse that was shot and killed pursuant to Section 12(a) of Provincial Ordinance No. 601, enacted by the Provincial Board of Batangas on August 31, 1909. The ordinance aimed to suppress infectious animal diseases (e.g., glanders, surra, rinderpest) by authorizing municipal presidents, upon written notification from a Bureau of Agriculture veterinary inspector that an animal was incurably infected, to order the killing of such animal and the disposal of its remains. Punzalan sued for damages, claiming the horse was wrongfully killed. The trial court ruled in his favor, ordering the Province of Batangas to pay P120 as the horse’s value. The defendants appealed, arguing the ordinance was a valid exercise of police power under Section 13(k) of Act No. 83 (as amended by Act No. 133 ), which empowered provincial boards to adopt regulations for suppressing cattle diseases.

ISSUE

Whether Provincial Ordinance No. 601, particularly its provision authorizing the killing of diseased animals without compensation to the owner, is a valid exercise of police power and within the authority granted to provincial boards under Act No. 83 .

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision and dismissed Punzalan’s complaint. The Court held that:
1. The ordinance is a valid exercise of police power. The slaughter of animals afflicted with contagious or infectious diseases is a necessary and reasonable measure to protect public welfare and agriculture, akin to the state’s power to condemn property for public use. Compensation is not required when property is destroyed under police power to prevent imminent danger to the community, as distinguished from taking for public use under eminent domain.
2. The ordinance is reasonable and fair. It includes safeguards against arbitrary action, such as requiring a veterinary inspector’s written declaration of incurable infection and municipal president authorization, thus balancing efficiency with protection of property rights.
3. The provincial board had authority to enact the ordinance. Section 13(k) of Act No. 83 , as amended, granted provincial boards the same power as the Philippine Commission to adopt regulations for suppressing cattle diseases, without limitations. This delegation was valid under the state’s inherent police power to promote general welfare.
Costs were not awarded.