People v. Felisarta
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Rogelio Felisarta was apprehended for driving a rig without a driver's license in Cebu City, violating City Ordinance No. 65, Section 42. He was convicted and fined P5.00 in the Municipal Court, a decision later sustained and the fine increased to P15.00 by the Court of First Instance. Procedural History: Felisarta appealed to the Court of First Instance, which affirmed the conviction. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court on a question of law regarding the ordinance's validity. The Petition: The appellant argued that the City of Cebu's charter (Commonwealth Act No. 58), specifically Section 17, did not enumerate rig drivers among the occupations subject to licensing, and that the ordinance's validity could not be sustained under the general welfare clause (Section 2238 of the Revised Administrative Code).
Issue(s)
Whether Section 42 of Cebu City Ordinance No. 65, which requires a license for rig drivers, is a valid exercise of municipal power under the City Charter and the General Welfare Clause.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance, upholding the validity of City Ordinance No. 65 and the conviction of Rogelio Felisarta.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the ordinance is valid as a legitimate exercise of police power. While it is true that 'rig drivers' are not specifically enumerated in the licensing section of the Cebu City Charter (CA 58), the Court found authority in Section 17, sub-section (ee), which empowers the Municipal Board to enact ordinances for the safety, comfort, convenience, and general welfare of the city. The Court reasoned that the occupation of rig driving directly impacts public safety and traffic order on municipal streets, thereby falling within the scope of regulatory police power. Applying the doctrine in Cu Unjieng v. Patstone, the Court distinguished three types of licenses: those for useful occupations, those for non-useful occupations, and those for revenue. The Court clarified that the P1.00 annual fee was intended only to defray the administrative costs of registration and surveillance, rather than to generate revenue. Because the fee was regulatory in nature and not a tax, it did not require an express statutory grant of taxing power to be valid. Thus, the reliance of Felisarta on cases involving unauthorized taxation, such as Santos Lumber Co. v. City of Cebu, was deemed misplaced because the current case involved police power regulation.
Main Doctrine
A municipal ordinance imposing a license fee on rig drivers for regulation and to cover expenses of registration and police surveillance is a valid exercise of police power, even if the specific occupation is not explicitly enumerated in the city charter, provided it falls under the general welfare clause and the fee is not excessive or primarily for revenue.