Macasiano v. Diokno
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Municipality of Parañaque passed Ordinance No. 86, Series of 1990, authorizing the closure of certain streets and the establishment of a flea market thereon. This ordinance was approved by the Metropolitan Manila Authority (MMA) subject to several conditions. The municipality then entered into an agreement with Palanyag Kilusang Bayan for Service (Palanyag) for the operation and management of the flea market. Subsequently, petitioner Brig. Gen. Macasiano, PNP Superintendent, ordered the destruction and confiscation of stalls and issued a letter giving Palanyag ten (10) days to discontinue the flea market. Procedural History: Respondents Municipality of Parañaque and Palanyag filed a joint petition for prohibition and mandamus with damages and prayer for preliminary injunction against petitioner. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati issued a temporary restraining order and later an order upholding the validity of the ordinance and enjoining petitioner from enforcing his letter-order. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC judge in issuing the order granting the preliminary injunction.
Issue(s)
Whether a municipal ordinance authorizing the lease and use of public streets as sites for flea markets is valid; and if the municipality complied with the conditions set by the Metropolitan Manila Authority (MMA) for its approval. Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction, effectively allowing the continued obstruction of public streets.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The decision of the respondent Regional Trial Court dated December 17, 1990, which granted the writ of preliminary injunction enjoining petitioner from enforcing the demolition of market stalls is RESERVED and SET ASIDE.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of the municipal ordinance and compliance with MMA conditions: The Court held that public streets are properties for public use and outside the commerce of man, thus cannot be leased. Article 424 of the Civil Code states that provincial roads and city streets are properties for public use. While Section 10, Chapter II of Batas Pambansa Blg. 337 grants local government units the power to close roads, this is limited to withdrawing the property from public use when no longer necessary for public service. The ordinance, by authorizing the lease of public streets for a flea market, contravened this principle. The Court reiterated the ruling in Francisco v. Dacanay that leases or licenses to occupy portions of public streets are null and void. Even assuming the municipality had the authority, it failed to comply with the conditions set by the MMA, including ensuring the streets were not used for vehicular traffic, resident approval, proper marking, designated hours, and temporary use. The respondent municipality failed to present proof of compliance. The Court noted the public knowledge of congestion in the Baclaran area, which the ordinance would exacerbate, contrary to the local government's duty to promote general welfare. On the RTC's issuance of the preliminary injunction: The RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in upholding the validity of the ordinance and enjoining the petitioner. By doing so, the RTC allowed the continued obstruction of public streets, which are intended for vehicular and pedestrian traffic and are vital for public safety and emergency services. The Court emphasized that the powers of local government units are not absolute and are subject to limitations imposed by the Constitution and laws, and their exercise must be subservient to paramount considerations of community health and well-being. The RTC's order effectively sanctioned an illegal act, infringing upon the public's right to use public thoroughfares.
Main Doctrine
Municipal ordinances authorizing the lease and use of public streets for flea markets are void and illegal for lack of basis and authority in law, as public streets are properties for public use, outside the commerce of man, and cannot be the subject of lease or contract by local government units.