Bastida v. City Council of Baguio
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner F. Bastida is the owner of lots 8 and 9, business section A, in the City of Baguio, along with a one-story wooden building erected thereon. Around the end of February 1929, Bastida sought to use his building as a skating rink, but his application for a permit was denied by respondent E. J. Halsema, Mayor and City Engineer of Baguio, on the ground that the building's location in a commercial zone required it to be two stories high for such use. Consequently, Bastida decided to undertake alterations, adding two new stories at an estimated cost of P65,000, with P45,000 already expended. The first new story was intended for a skating rink, and the other two for a cinematograph and a boxing stadium. During the alterations, Bastida received an advantageous offer from a cinematographic concern in Manila for the use of the second floor, which he intended to accept. Procedural History: Shortly after Bastida's plans for a cinematograph became public, the City Council of Baguio adopted Ordinance No. 332, which amended city ordinances relating to buildings. This ordinance stipulated that no building intended for theater, cinematograph projections, or circus, either wholly or partially, shall be constructed or occupied unless made of reinforced concrete and steel throughout, with approved height, thickness, and reinforcing, and provided with sufficient exit doors. Section II of Ordinance No. 332 stated that it would not affect permits already granted at the time of its passage. Subsequently, on May 6, 1929, the City Council passed Ordinance No. 334, requiring concrete fire walls for buildings constructed within two meters from adjacent lot lines and mandating that existing buildings rebuilt or reconstructed comply with its provisions. The Petition: On June 15, 1929, Bastida applied to the City Engineer for a building permit to add two floors to his building, submitting his plans. On June 17, 1929, he further applied to the Mayor for a license to conduct a cinematograph and boxing stadium upon completion of the alterations. On June 18, 1929, the City Engineer returned Bastida's plans, informing him that they could not be approved as they did not conform to Ordinances Nos. 332 and 334. Bastida then filed an original application for mandamus in the Supreme Court, seeking to compel the City Engineer to issue the building permit and the City Council and Mayor to issue the license. He alleged that Ordinance No. 332 was partial and discriminatory because it exempted an existing cinematograph establishment operating in a wooden building under an existing permit, and further attacked the ordinance as unreasonable, oppressive, and violative of private rights and freedom of trade.
Issue(s)
Whether that portion of Ordinance No. 332 requiring buildings intended for theatrical performances, cinematographic projections, or circuses to be built of reinforced concrete and steel throughout is valid. Whether Ordinance No. 332 is partial and discriminatory due to its exemption of existing permits. Whether mandamus is the proper remedy in this case.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Court found the ordinance valid and not discriminatory.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that the City Council of Baguio had ample power under its charter, specifically Administrative Code, Section 2553, subsections k and ll, to enact Ordinance No. 332. This power falls squarely within the ambit of the "police power," which is intended to ensure public safety from conflagrations and other public calamities. The Court recognized the wisdom of requiring fireproof materials for buildings housing cinematographic performances, citing the disastrous records of fires in populous centers. It referenced standard encyclopedia treatises, such as 43 C. J., pp. 368, 369, which affirm the municipal power to enact regulations for fire prevention and protection, including prohibiting or regulating the erection or use of buildings of a dangerous character. The Court emphasized that police power is of a privileged nature, and ordinary constitutional guarantees are not to be interpreted as unduly restrictive of such power, especially when the authority to make adequate provisions for community safety has been expressly conferred. On Issue 2: The Court found the contention that Ordinance No. 332 is invalid due to its exemption of existing permits untenable. It reasoned that the City Council may have had very good reasons for exempting the single cinematographic establishment operating under a permit when the ordinance was passed, and the Court was not informed of the specific conditions relating to its location and construction. Furthermore, the Court noted that existing permits have to be renewed from time to time, implying that the exemption is not perpetual. The Court suggested that the ordinance might have been more questionable if it had failed to make an exception in favor of an establishment already running under a paid license at the time of enactment. The Court also rejected the argument that the ordinance was unreasonable and discriminatory for not applying to all establishments, including churches, schools, and hotels, recognizing that theaters and cinematographs require greater safeguards due to potential congestion and the inflammable nature of performance materials. On Issue 3: The Court opted to pretermit the question of whether mandamus would lie in such a case, acknowledging that the power conferred by law upon the respondents regarding building permits and licenses involves the exercise of discretion. Instead of ruling on the procedural remedy, the Court chose to decide the case on the more fundamental question of the validity of the ordinances, which had a direct bearing on the merits of the petitioner's claim. This approach allowed the Court to address the substantive legal challenge without getting entangled in the procedural technicalities of the specific writ sought.
Main Doctrine
The City Council of Baguio possesses ample power, derived from its charter and the general police power of the state, to enact ordinances ensuring public safety from conflagrations and other public calamities. This authority extends to regulating building construction, including mandating the use of fireproof materials like reinforced concrete and steel for establishments such as theaters and cinematographs, which pose a higher risk due to congestion and inflammable materials. Such ordinances are considered a valid exercise of police power and are not deemed unreasonable or discriminatory merely because they exempt existing establishments operating under prior permits, provided there is a rational basis for such exemption and the permits are subject to renewal.