GR 128509; (August, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 128509 August 22, 2006
ROBLE ARRASTRE, INC., Petitioner, vs. HON. ALTAGRACIA VILLAFLOR and THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Roble Arrastre, Inc., authorized by the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) to provide arrastre services at the Port of Hilongos, Leyte, applied for a business permit renewal from respondent Municipal Mayor Altagracia Villaflor. The mayor denied the application based on Municipal Resolution No. 93-27, which prohibited entities operating shipping lines on the Cebu-Hilongos route from engaging in arrastre services at the same port. The mayor asserted that petitioner, being owned by Roble Shipping Lines, was disqualified.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Mandamus with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), arguing that the mayor’s issuance of a business permit under the Local Government Code is a purely ministerial act for revenue generation once fees are paid, and that regulatory authority over arrastre operations rests solely with the PPA. The RTC granted the petition, ruling that the PPA has exclusive jurisdiction.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent mayor’s refusal to issue a business permit to petitioner is a proper subject of mandamus.
RULING
No, mandamus does not lie. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals in reversing the RTC. The issuance of a business permit or license by a local government unit is not a purely ministerial duty but a discretionary function involving the exercise of police power for regulation in the interest of public welfare, safety, and economic protection. Municipal Resolution No. 93-27, enacted to prevent monopoly and protect local shipping interests, is a valid exercise of this police power.
While the PPA has primary jurisdiction over the grant of arrastre service permits, this does not preclude the municipality from requiring a local business permit as a separate regulatory measure. The mayor’s denial, based on a valid municipal resolution, was a legitimate exercise of discretion. Mandamus is only available to compel the performance of a ministerial duty where there is a clear legal right and a corresponding duty to act. Since the act demanded involves discretion and the applicant failed to meet local qualifications, petitioner had no clear right to the permit. Therefore, the extraordinary writ of mandamus was improperly granted by the RTC.