Hodges v. Ganzon
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners C. N. Hodges and Jose Custodio sought a writ of mandamus to compel the City Mayor of Iloilo to issue a license for a funeral parlor business and to allow the continuation of building work. The building was intended for a funeral parlor, and Custodio had applied for a permit to repair and alter the structure. The Mayor had stopped the work, citing that the permit issued was only for repair, not alteration, and had denied the license application due to Municipal Board Resolution No. 545, which prohibited funeral parlors on Ledesma Street. Procedural History: Petitioners filed a petition for mandamus in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo. The trial court upheld the validity of Municipal Board Resolution No. 545 and dismissed the petition. The Petition: The case was elevated to the Supreme Court on appeal. Petitioners-appellants argued that the trial court erred in refusing to admit evidence explaining the alteration of the permit and in upholding the validity of Resolution No. 545. They contended that the permit originally allowed for alteration and that Resolution No. 545, being a mere resolution and not an ordinance, was invalid and could not be the basis for denying their license.
Issue(s)
Whether the Mayor committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in refusing to allow petitioners to continue the work on the building. Whether Resolution No. 545 of the Municipal Board of Iloilo City is valid and binding.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court, dismissing the petition for mandamus. The Court held that the Mayor did not err in stopping the work and denying the permit, and that Resolution No. 545 was a valid zoning regulation. The Court ruled that mandamus would not lie to compel the issuance of the permit.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the trial court did not err in denying the writ of mandamus to compel the Mayor to allow petitioners to continue the work on the building. The evidence, including the permit itself (Exhibit E) and related documents (Exhibits E-1), indicated that the permit was for repair only, with the words 'construct' and 'reconstruct' crossed out. Furthermore, the fee paid was consistent with a repair permit, not an alteration permit. The testimony of Jovito Badayos also supported the finding that Custodio consented to the erasure of 'alteration' due to his failure to submit required plans, thus consenting to a permit for repair only. The Court found that the Mayor's action was justified based on the evidence and the petitioner's non-compliance with requirements for alteration. On Issue 2: The Supreme Court found that Resolution No. 545 of the Municipal Board, which prohibited funeral parlors on Ledesma Street, was a valid zoning regulation. The Court noted that such power is vested in the municipal board under its charter and the Local Autonomy Act (R.A. 2264). While petitioners argued that it should have been an ordinance and not a resolution, the Court deemed it unnecessary to rule on this specific point. The Court reasoned that even if the resolution were invalid, the Mayor still possessed discretion in issuing business permits, and the duty to be enforced by mandamus must be clear and specific, leaving no room for discretion. The Mayor's action was in conformity with the municipal board's expressed will, and the petitioners had already been justifiably stopped from making the necessary alterations to convert the building for funeral parlor use.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed that a writ of mandamus is only proper to compel the performance of a ministerial duty, not a discretionary one. In this case, the issuance of a business license involves discretion, especially when zoning regulations and building alterations are concerned. Furthermore, the Court upheld the validity of municipal resolutions as zoning regulations, provided they are enacted within the powers granted to the municipal board by law, such as under the Local Autonomy Act.