EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-33169. July 30, 1982.]

GLICERIO JAVELLANA , petitioner, vs. HON. CESAR KINTANAR, Judge

of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, CITY OF BAGO,
CITY COUNCIL, CITY MAYOR, and CITY TREASURER, all of the City of
Bago , respondents.

[G.R. No. L-33212. July 30, 1982.]

GLICERIO JAVELLANA , petitioner, JUANITO NOVILLAS, ET AL. ,

petitioners-intervenors, vs. HON. CESAR KINTANAR, Judge of the
Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, CITY OF BAGO, CITY
COUNCIL, CITY MAYOR, and CITY TREASURER, all of the City of
Bago , respondents.

San Juan, Africa, Gonzales & San Agustin Law Offices for petitioner.
Feliciano E. Escaran, Rolando N. Medalla, Fernando C. Divinagracia and Yulo &
Associates for respondents.

SYNOPSIS

Javellana is the owner of a market (building and lot) in Bago City which, has served the
general population of that city and the adjoining municipalities for 20 years under a
Mayor's permit. In 1968, the City Treasurer refused to accept Javellana's payment for a
municipal license due to the enactment of Ordinance No. 150 which prohibits the
establishment, maintenance or operation of a public market in that city by any person
other than the city government of Bago. Javellana, joined later by the store owners and
peddlers in his market, filed a petition seeking the declaration of nullity not only of
Ordinance No. 150 but also of Ordinance No. 142 which requires vendors to pay inspection
and other market fees; and Ordinance No. 145 which requires prior inspection by the City
Health Officer of all foodstuff to be sold to the public. The trial court dismissed the
petition. Hence these appeals. Appellants claim that the ordinances are unreasonable and
that the City of Bago has no power to enact them.
The Supreme Court held that Ordinances Nos. 142 and 145 are manifestly valid, because
the former is a regulatory and revenue ordinance and the latter is promotive of general
welfare, and are both authorized by the Charter of Bago City; that Ordinance No. 150 it
likewise enacted pursuant to the said Charter; and that appellant's market, although owned
privately, is a public market within the contemplation of the Charter and Ordinance No. 150
because the test of a "public market" is its dedication to the service of the general public
and not its ownership.

SYLLABUS

1. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; PUBLIC CORPORATIONS; MUNICIPAL BOARD; POWER TO

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 ENACT ORDINANCES. — Ordinances Nos. 142 and 145 are manifestly valid; No. 142
because it is a regulatory and revenue ordinance; No. 145 because is it promotive of
general welfare and both are authorized by Section 15 of R. A. No. 4382, otherwise known
as the Charter of Bago, which spells out in detail the general powers and duties of the
Municipal Board of City. There is also no question that Ordinance No. 150 was enacted
pursuant to Section 15, paragraph (cc) of the Charter of Bago which empowers the
Municipal Board ". . . to prohibit the establishment or operation within the city limits of
public markets by any person, entity, association, or corporation other than the city."
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ORDINANCE PROHIBITING OPERATION OF PUBLIC MARKETS BY
PRIVATE PERSONS; TEST OF A "PUBLIC MARKET"; CASE AT BAR. — The test of a "public
market" is its dedication to the service of the general public and not its ownership. A
scrutiny of the charter provision will readily show that by public market is meant one that is
intended to serve the public in general. This is the only conclusion which can be drawn
when it used the word "public" to modify the word "market" for if the meaning sought to be
conveyed is the ownership thereof then the phrase "by any person, entity, association, or
corporation other than the city" will serve no useful purpose.

DECISION

ABAD SANTOS , J : p

These are appeals from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental
dated January 12, 1971, which dismissed a petition that sought a declaration of nullity of
Ordinances Nos. 142, 145 and 150, Series of 1968, of the City of Bago, and to enjoin their
enforcement.
Glicerio Javellana is the owner of a market (building and lot) in Crossing Bago, Bago City,
which consists of store spaces and of permanent and movable stalls all leased to vendors.
Serving the general population of the City of Bago and of the adjoining municipalities, for
more than twenty years, said market had been operating under a Mayor's permit of the City
of Bago up to the second quarter of 1968 when the Treasurer of that city refused to
accept the payment of Javellana for a municipal license for the third quarter on the ground
that Ordinance No. 150 had been enacted prohibiting the establishment, maintenance or
operation of a public market in the City of Bago by any person, entity, association or
corporation other than the city government of Bago. This prompted Javellana, as owner of
said market, to file the petition aforementioned. cdphil

Juanito Novillas and other store owners, stall holders and fish vendors in Javellana's
market joined in the petition by means of a complaint in intervention.
The appeal of Javellana is docketed as G.R. No. L-33169 while that of Novillas, et al. is
docketed as G.R. No. L-33212.
The ordinances which are the subject of the petition and the present appeal were enacted
by the Municipal Board of Bago City in 1968 and insofar as relevant are couched in the
following language:
Ordinance No. 142.

"SECTION 1. — Section 1 of Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1954, as amended by

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Resolution No. 39, Series of 1955, and adopted by Ordinance No. 4, Series of
1966, is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Section 1. — No person or persons, except peddlers thereof who have paid the
corresponding inspection and other market fee, shall sell or offer for sale, fish,
meat and other foodstuffs which are perishable in nature, outside of the public
markets within the City Proper of the City of Bago and its barrios."

"SECTION 2. — This ordinance shall take effect upon its approval."

Ordinance No. 145.

"SECTION 1. — Section 3, Paragraph C of City Ordinance No. 134, Series of 1968,

is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Section 3. ...

"C — Inspection and Inspection Fees:

I — All fish, seafoods and other foodstuffs which are perishable in

nature to be sold or offered for sale within the jurisdiction of the City of
Bago shall first be submitted for inspection of the City Health Officer of the
City and/or his duly authorized representatives before the same shall be
sold or offered for sale to the public; and such inspection shall be made in
the city-owned public market within the City Proper of the City of Bago and
the corresponding inspection fee of P0. 20 is hereby imposed on every
case of fresh fish thus inspected payable by the fish wholesalers, dealers
or 'commissionists' concerned.

"SECTION 2. — This Ordinance shall take effect upon its approval."

Ordinance No. 150.

"Section 1. — It shall be unlawful for any person, entity, association or corporation

other than the City Government of Bago to establish, maintain or operate a public
market or markets within the city limits or territorial jurisdiction of the City of
Bago.
"Section 2. — Any person found guilty of violation of the provisions of this
ordinance shall be punished by a fine of not more than Two Hundred Pesos
(P200.00) or imprisonment of not more than six (6) months, or both such fine and
imprisonment in the discretion of the Court. In case the offender is a juridical
person, the president, manager, chief or head of the entity, association or
corporation shall be liable.

"Section 3. — This Ordinance shall take effect upon its approval."

The appellants claim that the ordinances are unreasonable and Bago City has no power to
enact them.
It is obvious that the key ordinance is No. 150 for if the appellants do not succeed in
assailing it, their assault on the other ordinances becomes moot and academic. Stated
differently, the principal concern of the appellants is the continued operation of Javellana's
market and if it is adjudged that the operation be discontinued they should have no further
interest in the other ordinances. However, it would not be amiss for Us to state that We do
not hesitate and see no need for an extended discussion in holding that Ordinances Nos.
142 and 145 are manifestly valid; No. 142 because it is a regulatory and revenue
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 ordinance; No. 145 because it is promotive of general welfare and both are authorized by
Section 15 of R.A. No. 4382, otherwise known as the Charter of Bago, which spells out in
detail the general powers and duties of the Municipal Board of Bago City. And as the lower
court said: cdll

"The enactment of these ordinances by the City Council of the City of Bago is
clearly authorized under Section 15 of the said City Charter, as follows:

(a) Paragraph (n) which authorizes said Board 'to regulate and
fix the amount of the license fees for peddlers, and the keeping,
preservation and sale of meat, poultry, fish, game, butter, cheese, lard,
vegetables, bread, and other provisions;'

(b) Paragraph (cc) which authorizes said Board 'to provide for
the establishment, maintenance and regulation, and to fix the fees for the
use of public markets;'
(c) Paragraph (jj) which authorizes said Board 'to regulate any
other business or occupation, not specifically mentioned in the preceding
paragraphs, and to impose a license fee upon all persons engaged in the
same or who enjoy privileges in the city;' and

(d) Paragraph (mm), the general welfare clause, which

authorizes said Board 'to enact all ordinances it may deem necessary and
proper for the sanitation and safety, the furtherance of the prosperity, and
the promotion of the morality, peace, good order, comfort, convenience,
and general welfare of the city, and its inhabitants, and such others as may
be necessary to carry into effect and discharge the powers and duties
conferred by this Charter."

Coming now to Ordinance No. 150, there is no question that it was enacted pursuant to
Section 15, paragraph (cc) of the Charter of Bago which empowers the Municipal Board ". .
. to prohibit the establishment or operation within the city limits of public markets by any
person, entity, association, or corporation other than the city."

The appellants claim that Javellana's market is not covered by the charter provision nor by
the ordinance because it is not a public market. They assert that Javellana's market is a
private market because Javellana "owns the land and the building on which the market is
being maintained and operated." In other words, to the appellants whether or not a market
is "public" depends on who owns it. It thus appears that the resolution of the appeals
hinges on the meaning of the term "public market." The appellants claim that a public
market is one that is not owned privately; whereas the appellees say that it is one that
serves the general public. Viewed in this light, the validity of Ordinance No. 150, whether on
the basis of its reasonableness or on the power of the City of Bago to enact it, is not in
issue; what has to be resolved is only its application to the appellants. LLjur

We agree with trial court that the test of a "public market" is its dedication to the service of
the general public and not its ownership. Thus this Court has had occasion to state:
"Petitioners allege that the Aranque Market Extension is not a public market within
the meaning of all laws, ordinances, orders and regulations governing public
markets because said market stands on private property and its building was
erected with private funds. This contention is not well taken. A market is a 'public
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 market' when it is dedicated to the service of the general public and is operated
under government control and supervision as a public utility, whether it be owned
by the government or any instrumentality thereof or by any private individual."
(Vda. de Salgado vs. De la Fuente, 87 Phil. 343, 345 [1950].)

Also, a scrutiny of the charter provision will readily show that by public market is meant
one that is intended to serve the public in general. This is the only conclusion which can be
drawn when it used the word "public" to modify the word "market" for if the meaning
sought to be conveyed is the ownership thereof then the phrase "by any, person, entity,
association, or corporation other than the city" will serve no useful purpose.
That Javellana's market is a public market is indubitable. According to the decision of the
lower court, "the petitioner himself so declared when he testified that his market is
engaged in servicing the public, not only in Bago City, but also those coming from other
municipalities; that he is renting stalls in his market to the public; that there are around 60
permanent stalls and 50 movable stalls being leased by him; and that his market services
about 3,000 people."
We hold that Javellana's market falls within the scope of Ordinance No. 150 and the trial
court committed no error in so holding and in dismissing the petition as well as the
complaint in intervention.
WHEREFORE, the appeals are dismissed for lack of merit. No special pronouncement as to
costs.
SO ORDERED.
Fernando, C.J., Teehankee, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, De Castro, Melencio-Herrera, Plana,
Escolin, Vasguez, Relova and Gutierrez, JJ., concur.
Makasiar, J., I reserve my vote.
Barredo and Aquino, JJ., took no part.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com