G.R. No. 156052 ; February 13, 2008
SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY (SJS), VLADIMIR ALARIQUE T. CABIGAO and BONIFACIO S. TUMBOKON, petitioners, vs. HON. JOSE L. ATIENZA, JR., in his capacity as Mayor of the City of Manila, respondent. CHEVRON PHILIPPINES INC., PETRON CORPORATION and PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, movants-intervenors. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, movant-intervenor.

FACTS

Petitioners filed an original petition for mandamus to compel then Manila Mayor Jose L. Atienza, Jr. to enforce Ordinance No. 8027, enacted on November 20, 2001, which reclassified certain areas in Pandacan and Sta. Ana from Industrial II to Commercial I. Section 3 of the ordinance gave owners/operators of disallowed businesses six months from its effectivity (December 28, 2001) to cease operations. The Pandacan oil terminals of Chevron, Shell, and Petron (the oil companies) were among the businesses situated in the area.
Subsequently, on June 26, 2002, the City of Manila, the Department of Energy (DOE), and the oil companies entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) agreeing that scaling down the terminals was the most viable option. The Sangguniang Panlungsod ratified this MOU in Resolution No. 97, declaring it effective for six months from July 25, 2002, and later extended its validity to April 30, 2003, via Resolution No. 13.
In its March 7, 2007 Decision, the Supreme Court ruled that Mayor Atienza had a ministerial duty under the Local Government Code to enforce Ordinance No. 8027 and that the MOU and subsequent resolutions, being effective only until April 30, 2003, did not legally hinder its enforcement.
After this decision, the oil companies and the DOE filed motions for leave to intervene and for reconsideration. They brought to the Court’s attention several subsequent developments: (1) The oil companies had filed separate cases in various Regional Trial Court (RTC) branches in Manila assailing the validity of Ordinance No. 8027, wherein writs of preliminary injunction and orders to maintain the status quo were issued. (2) The city council enacted Ordinance No. 8119 (the Manila Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance of 2006) in 2006, which was also challenged by the oil companies in the RTC, resulting in a Temporary Restraining Order. (3) One of the cases against Ordinance No. 8027 (civil case no. 03-106379) was withdrawn by joint motion of the parties in April 2007.
During oral arguments, the parties submitted to the Supreme Court’s power to rule on the constitutionality and validity of Ordinance No. 8027 despite the pending RTC cases.

ISSUE

1. Whether the movants-intervenors (oil companies and DOE) should be allowed to intervene.
2. Whether the following are impediments to the execution of the Court’s March 7, 2007 decision:
(a) The enactment of Ordinance No. 8119.
(b) The writs of preliminary injunction and status quo orders issued by the RTC.
3. Whether the implementation of Ordinance No. 8027 will unduly encroach upon the DOE’s powers and functions involving energy resources.
4. The constitutionality and validity of Ordinance No. 8027.

RULING

1. On Intervention: The Supreme Court granted the motions for intervention. The oil companies have a direct and substantial legal interest as their businesses are directly affected by Ordinance No. 8027. The DOE, as the government agency tasked with energy security, also has a legal interest in the outcome of the case.
2. On Alleged Impediments to Execution:
(a) Ordinance No. 8119: The enactment of a subsequent zoning ordinance (Ordinance No. 8119) does not automatically repeal or nullify Ordinance No. 8027. The validity of Ordinance No. 8119 is itself the subject of separate court challenges. Its existence does not bar the enforcement of a prior valid ordinance unless it is shown to have expressly or impliedly repealed it, which was not established.
(b) RTC Injunctions and Orders: The injunctive writs and orders issued by the RTC branches cannot bind or impede the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s decision, which has become final and executory, prevails over contrary orders from lower courts. The principle of judicial hierarchy and the Supreme Court’s role as the final arbiter mandate that its rulings be followed.
3. On Encroachment on DOE Powers: The implementation of Ordinance No. 8027, a valid exercise of police power and local zoning authority under the Local Government Code, does not unduly encroach upon the powers of the DOE. The DOE’s mandate over energy planning and policy is national in scope, but it does not divest local government units of their delegated power to enact zoning ordinances for the health, safety, and welfare of their constituents. The two authorities can coexist, and the ordinance is not inconsistent with national energy policies.
4. On Constitutionality and Validity of Ordinance No. 8027: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality and validity of Ordinance No. 8027. It is a valid exercise of the City of Manila’s police power and its delegated authority under the Local Government Code to enact zoning ordinances for the purpose of promoting sound urban planning, health, public safety, and general welfare. The ordinance underwent the proper legislative process and was based on a report from the city’s committee on housing and urban development. The Court found no evidence that it was enacted arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion.
DISPOSITIVE:
The motions for intervention were granted. The motions for reconsideration of the March 7, 2007 Decision were denied. The Court affirmed its previous ruling ordering respondent Mayor to enforce Ordinance No. 8027.