GR 159110; (December, 2013) (Digest)
G.R. No. 159110 & G.R. No. 159692; December 10, 2013
VALENTINO L. LEGASPI, Petitioner, vs. CITY OF CEBU, T.C. (TITO) SAYSON AND RICARDO HAPITAN, Respondents. / BIENVENIDO P. JABAN, SR., and BIENVENIDO DOUGLAS LUKE BRADBURY JABAN, Petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, CITY OF CEBU, CITY MAYOR ALVIN GARCIA, SANGUNIANG PANLUNSOD OF CITY OF CEBU, HON. RENATO V. OSMEÑA, AS PRESIDING OFFICER OF THE SANGGUNIANG PANLUNSOD and CITOM CHAIRMAN ALAN GAVIOLA, AS CITOM CHIEF, CITOM TRAFFIC ENFORCER E. A. ROMERO, and LITO GILBUENA, Respondents.
FACTS
On January 27, 1997, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cebu City enacted Ordinance No. 1664, authorizing traffic enforcers to immobilize by clamping (using a “denver boot”) any motor vehicle violating city parking prohibitions or restrictions, particularly under Ordinance No. 801 (Traffic Code of Cebu City). The ordinance required payment of all accumulated penalties for prior unpaid traffic violations plus a ₱500.00 administrative penalty for immobilization before the clamp could be removed, unless ordered released by specified city officers.
Petitioners, vehicle owners, challenged the ordinance’s constitutionality. Atty. Bienvenido Jaban, Sr. alleged his properly parked car was clamped on June 23, 1997, and he was required to pay ₱4,200.00 for its release without a hearing. He and his son, Atty. Bienvenido Jaban, Jr., filed a suit (G.R. No. 159692) seeking to declare Ordinance No. 1664 unconstitutional for violating due process. Valentino Legaspi (G.R. No. 159110) separately sued after his car, parked partially on a sidewalk outside his house gate to allow an exterminator to unload, was clamped and later towed on July 29, 1997.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) declared Ordinance No. 1664 null and void. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC’s decision. The cases were consolidated on appeal to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether Ordinance No. 1664 of Cebu City is unconstitutional for violating the due process clause of the Constitution.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that Ordinance No. 1664 is VALID and CONSTITUTIONAL. The petition was DENIED, and the CA decision was AFFIRMED.
The Court held that the ordinance is a valid exercise of the City’s police power and its delegated authority under the Local Government Code to regulate traffic and prohibit illegal parking. The immobilization or clamping of illegally parked vehicles is a reasonable means to achieve the public welfare objective of ensuring smooth traffic flow. The requirement to pay fines for prior violations before release is a legitimate exercise of the city’s power to collect revenues and enforce its ordinances. The process does not violate substantive or procedural due process. The ordinance provides sufficient standards for implementation, and the immobilization is not a taking without due process but a permissible regulation under the city’s police power. The fines are not excessive penalties but justified administrative measures to deter violations and ensure compliance with traffic laws.