G.R. No. L-48125, L-48126, L-48127; November 25, 1941
EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS, querellante y apelado, vs. FELIX CABADDU, acusado y apelante.

EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS, querellante y apelado, vs. LEON GONZALES, acusado y apelante.
EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS, querellante y apelado, vs. ROSENDO BALINGIT, acusado y apelante.

FACTS

The three appellants were motormen or conductors of streetcars (Nos. 147, 200, and 202) of the Manila Electric Railroad & Light Co. They were separately charged with violating Municipal Ordinance No. 2754 of Manila.
1. Felix Cabaddu: On February 15, 1940, at about 4:42 p.m., he voluntarily and without just cause maneuvered his streetcar along Juan Luna Street, between the intersecting streets of Solis and Pampanga, to change its direction or terminus. He stopped his streetcar in that portion of Juan Luna Street to return to Plaza Goiti, when his duty was to continue his trip toward Maypajo. He disconnected his trolley and steering wheel to prepare the car to return, and after starting back toward Plaza Goiti, he picked up passengers for other points along the way.
2. Leon Gonzales: On February 14, 1940, at about 4:46 p.m., he committed an infraction of the same nature, maneuvering his streetcar on the same portion of Juan Luna Street (between Solis and Pampanga) for the same purpose as Cabaddu.
3. Rosendo Balingit: On February 15, 1940, at about 4:42 p.m., he maneuvered his streetcar in the same manner as the other appellants.
The Court of First Instance of Manila found each guilty of violating Ordinance No. 2754 and sentenced them to pay fines (Cabaddu, P10; Gonzales, P10; Balingit, P20) plus costs. They appealed.

ISSUE

The main issues raised by the appellants (particularly Cabaddu, whose arguments are addressed and applied to the others) are:
1. Whether the appellants’ acts constituted the maneuvering prohibited by Municipal Ordinance No. 2754.
2. Whether Ordinance No. 2754 conflicts with the franchise conditions granted to the Manila Electric Railroad & Light Co.
3. Whether the ordinance is invalid for being indefinite, uncertain, unreasonable, and oppressive.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences in all three cases.
1. On the violation: The Court held that the appellants’ acts were precisely what the ordinance prohibited. Cabaddu changed his route or line by turning back before passing Pampanga Street, which was clearly forbidden. The purpose of the ordinance is to prevent obstruction or interruption of traffic on that specific, relatively narrow, and heavily trafficked portion of Juan Luna Street between Solis and Pampanga by prohibiting streetcars from stopping there to maneuver during specified hours, except in cases of emergency or as directed by police. No such exceptional circumstances existed when the appellants committed the acts.
2. On conflict with the franchise: The Court found no merit in the claim that Ordinance No. 2754 conflicts with the conditions of the company’s franchise (Ordinances Nos. 44, 70, 71, 73, and 81). Nothing in those franchise ordinances exempts the company’s personnel from complying with Ordinance No. 2754, nor is there anything that prevents the City of Manila from enacting an ordinance of this nature.
3. On validity of the ordinance: The Court rejected the argument that the ordinance is invalid. By its spirit and letter, the ordinance aims to prevent traffic obstruction on a busy and narrow street during peak hours. The City of Manila, vested with police power, had perfect authority to approve an ordinance like Ordinance No. 2754. It is not indefinite, uncertain, unreasonable, or oppressive.
The trial court committed no error in applying Ordinance No. 2754 and imposing the corresponding fines. The appealed judgments are in accordance with law and are confirmed in all respects. The appellants are to pay the costs of both instances.