G.R. No. L-23305 June 30, 1966
BENEDICTO C. LAGMAN, doing business under the firm name and style “MARCO TRANSIT”, petitioner, vs. CITY OF MANILA, its officers and/or agents, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Benedicto C. Lagman was granted a certificate of public convenience by the Public Service Commission to operate fifteen auto trucks on the line Bocaue (Bulacan) — Parañaque (Rizal) via various points, passing through specific streets within Manila, including Rizal Avenue and Taft Avenue. He operated twelve passenger buses under the name “Marco Transit”. The Municipal Board of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 4986, approved on July 13, 1964, pursuant to Section 18(hh) of the Revised Charter of Manila ( Republic Act No. 409 ), which authorized the city to “prohibit and regulate the entrance of provincial utility vehicles into the city, except those passing thru the city.” The ordinance rerouted traffic to relieve congestion, defining “provincial passenger buses” as those with routes originating or destined beyond specified cities including Pasay and Quezon City. It allowed such buses to enter Manila only through designated entry points and routes from 6:30 AM to 8:30 PM, excluding Sundays and holidays, and permitted operators to provide a limited number of shuttle buses under strict conditions. The ordinance imposed penalties for violations. On August 17, 1964, the city began enforcing the ordinance, preventing Lagman from operating his buses along his authorized line except for two shuttle buses. Lagman filed a petition, originally for declaratory relief and later converted to prohibition, arguing the ordinance was unconstitutional, illegal, ultra vires, and void.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether Ordinance No. 4986 of the City of Manila is valid and enforceable against the petitioner, considering the powers granted to the city under its charter, the authority of the Public Service Commission, and the provisions of other relevant laws.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition for prohibition and upheld the validity of Ordinance No. 4986. The Court ruled that:
1. Republic Act No. 409 (the Revised Charter of Manila) is a special and later enactment compared to Commonwealth Act No. 548 (regulating national roads) and the Public Service Act ( Commonwealth Act No. 146 ), and thus prevails in case of conflict.
2. The power of the City of Manila under Section 18(hh) of its charter to regulate or prohibit the entrance of provincial utility vehicles is a valid exercise of police power, which is paramount and superior to the administrative powers of the Director of Public Works under Commonwealth Act No. 548 and the Public Service Commission under the Public Service Act. The ordinance is a traffic regulation that does not amend or modify the certificate of public convenience but merely controls the use of city streets.
3. Section 17(j) of the Public Service Act, which empowers the Commission to require compliance with ordinances, does not mean that only the Commission can enforce such ordinances; the Commission’s powers are supplementary, and primary enforcement rests with local authorities like the police.
4. The implementation of the ordinance is not arbitrary, oppressive, or unreasonable, as the petitioner was not totally banned but allowed to operate shuttle buses, and no evidence substantiated the charge of unreasonableness.
5. The petitioner cannot avail of the exception for vehicles “passing thru the city” under Section 18(hh) because his buses engaged in business within the city by picking up passengers, thus they did not merely pass through.
The petition was dismissed with costs against the petitioner.