GR L 6815; (November, 1954) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-6815 December 29, 1954
LUCAS V. UMALI, BELEN R. TOLENTINO, NESTOR LAMTECSON AND RAYMUNDO O. MARTINEZ, petitioners-appellants, vs. THE CITY OF NAGA and THE CITY TREASURER, respondents-appellees.
FACTS
Petitioners, lessees of lots in the Naga City market, filed a special civil action for preliminary injunction, prohibition, and mandamus in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur. They sought to enjoin the City of Naga and its Treasurer from enforcing Ordinance No. 4, which raised the rentals for market lots, and to compel acceptance of the old rental rates they had consigned in court. Petitioners alleged the increase was excessive, oppressive, unreasonable, and unconstitutional, constituting grave abuse of discretion by the municipal board. They also claimed the ordinance violated the city charter by taking effect the day after its passage (December 31, 1948), instead of ten days later. Respondents countered that the municipal board had authority under the Naga City Charter ( Republic Act No. 305 ) to enact the ordinance; that the new rentals were reasonable given the concrete-paved, galvanized-iron-roofed market; that some petitioners had paid the new rates and were thus estopped; and that petitioners had an adequate remedy by appealing to the Secretary of the Interior. The trial court dismissed the petition, finding the ordinance not unreasonable or oppressive. Only four petitioners appealed.
ISSUE
1. Whether Ordinance No. 4, which increased rentals for city market lots, is unreasonable, oppressive, and unconstitutional.
2. Whether the ordinance is invalid for taking effect immediately, contrary to a charter provision requiring ordinances to be passed ten days before effectivity.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, upholding the validity of Ordinance No. 4.
1. The ordinance is not unreasonable or oppressive. The determination of rentals for municipal property lies within the discretion of the city municipal board, and courts should not interfere unless it is ultra vires or clearly unreasonable. Comparing the new rentals (e.g., Umali: from P51 to P120 for 40 sq.m.; Tolentino: from P51 to P120; Lamtecson: from P84.50 to P150; Martinez: from P25.20 to P63 for 21 sq.m.) with rentals paid for private properties around the market (e.g., P160 for 32 sq.m., P100 for 9 sq.m., P150 for a lot), the Court found the rates not unreasonable. The percentage increase alone is not a sound method; factors like rentals for comparable premises, business volume, profits, and currency purchasing power must be considered.
2. The ordinance is not invalid for taking effect immediately. Section 14 of the Naga City Charter authorizes the municipal board to fix the date of an ordinance’s effectivity. Thus, making it effective the day after passage was within statutory authority.
The petition was dismissed, without pronouncement as to costs.