G.R. No. L-14864; November 23, 1960
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiffs-appellee, vs. JUANITO SOLON, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Juanito Solon, a rig driver in Cebu City, was convicted and fined one peso (P1.00) for violating City Ordinance No. 241, dated March 6, 1958. The ordinance requires drivers of animal-drawn vehicles to pick up, gather, and deposit in receptacles the manure discharged by their animals on any public highways, streets, plazas, parks, or alleys of the city. He was first convicted in the Municipal Court and, upon appeal, in the Court of First Instance of Cebu. In both courts, and now on appeal, Solon assails the legality of the ordinance as violative of the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws. He argues it is discriminatory, partial, and oppressive because its application is limited to owners and drivers of vehicle-drawing animals and does not equally apply to all owners and possessors of animals. He also contests the validity of Section 4 of the ordinance, which imposes as a penalty the suspension of the rig owner’s license, alleging it constitutes a deprivation of property without due process when the violation is committed by the driver.

ISSUE

1. Whether City Ordinance No. 241 violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws for being discriminatory in its application only to owners and drivers of vehicle-drawing animals.
2. Whether Section 4 of the ordinance, which provides for the suspension of the rig owner’s license for a violation committed by the driver, is valid.

RULING

1. On the equal protection challenge: The ordinance does not violate the constitutional guarantee of equal protection. The principle is well-established that limited application of a statute does not necessarily violate this guarantee. For a classification to be reasonable and not arbitrary, it must: (a) be based on substantial distinctions that make real differences; (b) be germane to the purpose of the law; (c) not be limited to existing conditions only; and (d) apply equally to each member of the class under similar conditions. The ordinance is a health measure designed to eliminate animal wastes from city streets and public places. The classification limiting it to vehicle-drawing animals is reasonable. The Municipal Board found that the unhealthy and unsightly condition was principally caused by the approximately 5,000 horse rigs for hire plying the city streets day and night, which discharge an estimated 5,000 kilos of waste daily. Their presence is regular and substantial. In contrast, non-vehicle-drawing animals that may pass through the streets are negligible in number and their appearance is merely occasional, not constituting a similar menace to community health. There is no proof that the ordinance grants favors or imposes restrictions on certain owners within the class that are not applied to others. Therefore, the classification is based on a substantial distinction and is germane to the law’s purpose of promoting public health.
2. On the validity of the penalty provision: The Court finds the issue regarding the suspension of the rig owner’s license untenable and academic in this case. First, there was no showing that appellant Solon was not the owner of the rig he was driving at the time of the violation. If he was the owner, the issue does not affect him. If he was not the owner, he has no standing to raise the issue as he is not personally affected by that specific penalty. Second, the decision of the Court of First Instance appealed from did not impose the suspension of licenses, although the Municipal Court’s decision had included it. Therefore, the question is moot.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The decision of the Court of First Instance is affirmed, with costs against the appellant.