Insular Motors v. City of Manila
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Insular Motor Inc. sought to construct a building on a parcel of land in Intramuros, Manila, which it had leased with an option to purchase. The company submitted building plans to the city officials for approval and a corresponding construction permit. 2. Procedural History: The application for a building permit was initially denied by the City of Manila and its City Engineer. Following correspondence, the denial was reiterated due to the petitioner's refusal to provide a written commitment to comply with a proposed zonification ordinance, which was then pending presidential approval. 3. The Petition: Insular Motor Inc. filed an original proceeding for a writ of mandamus with the Supreme Court, seeking to compel the City of Manila and its City Engineer to grant the building permit. The petitioner argued that the respondents had an imperative duty to issue the permit, while the respondents maintained that the issuance of such permits involved discretion that could not be controlled by mandamus except in cases of grave abuse.
Issue(s)
Whether a writ of mandamus lies to compel the City Engineer to issue a building permit when the petitioner has refused to make a written promise to comply with a proposed zonification ordinance pending final approval.
Ruling
The petition is denied. Mandamus will not lie to compel the issuance of a building permit when the exercise of discretion is involved, absent a clear legal right and an imperative duty, or grave abuse of discretion.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that a writ of mandamus issues only in cases where the petitioner has a clear legal right to the thing demanded and where the law imposes an imperative duty upon the defendant to perform the act desired. Citing Tabique vs. Duvall (16 Phil., 324) and Ynchausti Steamship Co. vs. Dexter and Unson (41 Phil., 289), the Court found that the petitioner had not clearly established its right to the building permit. Furthermore, it was not demonstrated that the issuance of the permit was an imperative duty imposed by law upon the respondents or any one of them. On the contrary, the function of the city engineer of the City of Manila, insofar as it relates to the granting of permits, was determined to be discretionary. Such discretionary power, as supported by Felismino vs. Gloria (47 Phil., 967) and Guanio vs. Fernandez (55 Phil., 814), may not be controlled by mandamus except in clear cases of grave abuse of discretion. The Court concluded that the fact that the proposed zonification ordinance was pending approval by the President of the Philippines did not alter the discretionary nature of the city engineer's function, thus not creating an imperative duty enforceable by mandamus.
Main Doctrine
Mandamus will not issue to compel the grant of a building permit when the issuance thereof involves the exercise of discretion by the city engineer, unless there is a clear legal right to the permit and an imperative duty on the part of the respondent to issue it, or a clear case of grave abuse of discretion.