G.R. No. L-2345; August 31, 1949
SEGUNDO AGUSTIN, ISAURO SANTIAGO, JOSEFINA PHODACA, AMADO HERNANDEZ, VICENTE CRUZ, and SALVADOR MARINO, petitioners, vs. MANUEL DE LA FUENTE, Mayor of City of Manila, respondent.

FACTS

The Mayor of Manila, to address the nuisance caused by street vendors, recommended converting buildings in Osmeña Park into a central market. The Municipal Board approved the project in principle and suggested the immediate release of funds. The Mayor authorized the expenditure, and the remodeling was completed. Subsequently, a majority of the Municipal Board, opposing the Mayor and heeding vendor protests, amended the proposed ordinance to reallocate the funds for school buildings instead. The Mayor vetoed this amendment. The opposing board members then filed a petition for prohibition to prevent the Mayor from using the remodeled buildings as a market, arguing that the power to establish public markets resides solely in the Municipal Board under the Revised Administrative Code.

ISSUE

Whether the writ of prohibition is the proper remedy to restrain the Mayor from using the already remodeled buildings as a central market.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition. The writ of prohibition is a preventive remedy intended to restrain an act about to be done, not to undo acts already accomplished. At the time the petition was filed, the remodeling of the buildings for use as a central market was complete, vendors had been cleared from the streets, and many were already occupying and doing business in the new market. The establishment of the market was a consummated act. Therefore, prohibition was no longer an available remedy. The Court did not rule on the substantive issue of the Mayor’s authority, as the case was disposed of on this procedural ground.

AI Generated by Armztrong.