G.R. No. L-6762; February 28, 1955
CO KIAM and LEE BAN, in their own behalf and in behalf of all meat dealers selling outside public markets, plaintiffs-appellees, vs. THE CITY OF MANILA, THE MAYOR, and THE CHIEF OF POLICE, defendants-appellants; FILOMENA BRIONES ET AL., intervenors-appellants.

FACTS

Plaintiffs, Chinese citizens, are meat dealers selling fresh and refrigerated meat in their stores located outside Manila’s public markets, specifically at distances over 200 meters from market boundaries to comply with existing Ordinance No. 3555. The City of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 3563 in March 1953, which repealed the prior ordinance and prohibited the sale of fresh meat anywhere outside the city’s public markets. This new ordinance made plaintiffs’ continued sale of fresh meat in their stores illegal. Plaintiffs filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Manila seeking to declare Ordinance No. 3563 null and void, to enjoin its enforcement, and to compel the Mayor to issue them licenses to continue selling under the terms of the former ordinance. The city authorities, joined by intervenors (vendors in city market stalls and trade organizations advocating retail trade nationalization), defended the ordinance’s validity. The lower court declared the ordinance null and void, enjoined its enforcement, and ordered the Mayor to issue licenses to plaintiffs. The city and intervenors appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether Ordinance No. 3563 of the City of Manila, which prohibits the sale of fresh meat outside of the city’s public markets, is a valid exercise of police power.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision and dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint. The Court held that Ordinance No. 3563 is a valid exercise of the police power granted to the City of Manila under its charter (Republic Act 409). The ordinance does not prohibit the business of selling fresh meat but merely localizes it within public markets to facilitate inspection and supervision in the interest of public health, aiming to suppress the clandestine sale of meat from diseased animals. The Court cited precedents (People vs. Montil and People vs. Sabarre) upholding similar municipal ordinances. The argument that the ordinance deprives plaintiffs of their livelihood was rejected, as they could still sell refrigerated meat (permitted under the ordinance’s proviso) or other commodities, and the exercise of police power is not precluded by such individual disadvantages. The claim of insufficient market facilities was also dismissed as a legislative matter, noting the city’s existing markets and the incentive to establish more if needed.