G.R. No. L-7852; August 18, 1913
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CHAN TIENCO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On September 14, 1911, in San Fernando, La Union, Chan Tienco slaughtered a bovine animal without the permission of the president of the municipal board of health, in violation of Article 41 of Municipal Ordinance No. 12 of San Fernando. He was convicted by the justice of the peace and, on appeal, by the Court of First Instance, which sentenced him to pay a fine. Chan Tienco appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the municipal ordinance was illegal and unconstitutional because its subject (slaughtering cattle without a permit) was already covered by a general law, Section 33 of Act No. 1147.

ISSUE

Whether Municipal Ordinance No. 12 of San Fernando, which prohibits slaughtering cattle without a permit from the municipal board of health president, is invalid for being repugnant to or in conflict with the general law (Act No. 1147, Section 33) which requires a permit from the municipal treasurer for the same act.

RULING

The municipal ordinance is valid and constitutional. A municipality may adopt ordinances on subjects already covered by general law, provided the ordinance is not repugnant or in conflict with such law. The ordinance and the general law are not repugnant merely because they share a general purpose. Their specific purposes are distinct: the ordinance (based on the municipal charter powers to regulate food inspection and prevent disease under Act No. 82, Section 39(r) and (s)) aims to protect public health by ensuring meat inspection; the general law (Act No. 1147) aims to maintain a record of cattle and prevent theft. Both permits may be required for the same act, as violating each constitutes a distinct offense. The evidence required for conviction under each law differs (lack of health permit vs. lack of treasurer’s permit). The appeal was dismissed, and the lower court’s sentence was affirmed.