0 évaluation0% ont trouvé ce document utile (0 vote)
251 vues1 page
1) Petitioners filed a petition for mandamus to compel the Mayor of Manila, respondent Atienza, to enforce Ordinance No. 8027 which ordered the removal of oil company terminals located in Pandacan within 6 months.
2) The respondent claimed the ordinance was superseded by a memorandum of understanding and resolutions allowing the terminals to remain. However, the resolutions only authorized the terminals to stay until April 2003.
3) The court ruled the respondent had a mandatory duty as Mayor to enforce valid city ordinances like No. 8027, and nothing currently prevents enforcement of the ordinance, so the petition was granted.
1) Petitioners filed a petition for mandamus to compel the Mayor of Manila, respondent Atienza, to enforce Ordinance No. 8027 which ordered the removal of oil company terminals located in Pandacan within 6 months.
2) The respondent claimed the ordinance was superseded by a memorandum of understanding and resolutions allowing the terminals to remain. However, the resolutions only authorized the terminals to stay until April 2003.
3) The court ruled the respondent had a mandatory duty as Mayor to enforce valid city ordinances like No. 8027, and nothing currently prevents enforcement of the ordinance, so the petition was granted.
1) Petitioners filed a petition for mandamus to compel the Mayor of Manila, respondent Atienza, to enforce Ordinance No. 8027 which ordered the removal of oil company terminals located in Pandacan within 6 months.
2) The respondent claimed the ordinance was superseded by a memorandum of understanding and resolutions allowing the terminals to remain. However, the resolutions only authorized the terminals to stay until April 2003.
3) The court ruled the respondent had a mandatory duty as Mayor to enforce valid city ordinances like No. 8027, and nothing currently prevents enforcement of the ordinance, so the petition was granted.
SJS vs Atienza legal right but to implement that which is already established.
Unless the right to
G.R. No. 156052 March 7, 2007 the relief sought is unclouded, mandamus will not issue. The Court has ruled in previous cases that when a mandamus proceeding Facts: concerns a public right and its object is to compel a public duty, the people who Nov. 20, 2001 - Sangguniang Panlungsod of Manila enacted Ordinance No. are interested in the execution of the laws are regarded as the real parties in 8027. interest and they need not show any specific interest. Besides, as residents of Ordinance No. 8027 reclassified some areas from industrial ii to commercial i Manila, petitioners have a direct interest in the enforcement of the city’s and directed the owners and operators of businesses disallowed under Section 1 ordinances. Respondent never questioned the right of petitioners to institute this to cease and desist from operating their businesses within six months from the proceeding. date of effectivity of the ordinance. Among the businesses situated in the area are On the other hand, the Local Government Code imposes upon respondent the the so-called "Pandacan Terminals" of the oil companies Caltex (Philippines), duty, as city mayor, to "enforce all laws and ordinances relative to the governance Inc., Petron Corporation and Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation. of the city." One of these is Ordinance No. 8027. As the chief executive of the June 26, 2002 – the City of Manila and DOE entered into a memorandum of city, he has the duty to enforce Ordinance No. 8027 as long as it has not been understanding with oil companies in which they agreed that "the scaling down repealed by the Sanggunian or annulled by the courts. He has no other choice. It of the Pandacan Terminals [was] the most viable and practicable option." is his ministerial duty to do so. In Dimaporo v. Mitra, Jr., we stated the reason The Sangguniang Panlungsod ratified the MOU in Resolution No. 97. for this: Petitioners then filed this original action for mandamus on praying that Mayor These officers cannot refuse to perform their duty on the ground of an alleged Atienza be compelled to enforce Ordinance No. 8027 and order the immediate invalidity of the statute imposing the duty. The reason for this is obvious. It might removal of the terminals of the oil companies. seriously hinder the transaction of public business if these officers were to be Petitioners contend that respondent has the mandatory legal duty, under the Local permitted in all cases to question the constitutionality of statutes and ordinances Government Code to enforce Ordinance No. 8027 and order the removal of the imposing duties upon them and which have not judicially been declared Pandacan Terminals of the oil companies. Instead, he has allowed them to stay. unconstitutional. Officers of the government from the highest to the lowest are Respondent’s defense is that Ordinance No. 8027 has been superseded by the creatures of the law and are bound to obey it. MOU and the resolutions. However, he also confusingly argues that the ordinance The question now is whether the MOU entered into by respondent with the oil and MOU are not inconsistent with each other and that the latter has not amended companies and the subsequent resolutions passed by the Sanggunian have made the former. He insists that the ordinance remains valid and in full force and effect the respondent’s duty to enforce Ordinance No. 8027 doubtful, unclear or and that the MOU did not in any way prevent him from enforcing and uncertain. This is also connected to the second issue raised by petitioners, that is, implementing it. He maintains that the MOU should be considered as a mere whether the MOU and Resolution Nos. 97, s. 2002 and 13, s. 2003 of guideline for its full implementation. the Sanggunian can amend or repeal Ordinance No. 8027. The Court need not resolve this issue. Assuming that the terms of the MOU were Issues: inconsistent with Ordinance No. 8027, the resolutions which ratified it and made W/N respondent has the mandatory legal duty to enforce Ordinance No. 8027 and it binding on the City of Manila expressly gave it full force and effect only until order the removal of the Pandacan Terminals – YES April 30, 2003. Thus, at present, there is nothing that legally hinders respondent from enforcing Ordinance No. 8027 Held: Ordinance No. 8027 was enacted right after the Philippines, along with the rest Under Rule 65, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, a petition for mandamus may be of the world, witnessed the horror of the September 11, 2001 attack on the Twin filed when any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City. The objective of the the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting ordinance is to protect the residents of Manila from the catastrophic devastation from an office, trust or station. Mandamus is an extraordinary writ that is that will surely occur in case of a terrorist attack on the Pandacan Terminals. No employed to compel the performance, when refused, of a ministerial duty that is reason exists why such a protective measure should be delayed. already imposed on the respondent and there is no other plain, speedy and WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The petitioner should have a well- defined, clear and certain legal right to the performance of the act and it must be the clear and imperative duty of respondent to do the act required to be done. Mandamus will not issue to enforce a right, or to compel compliance with a duty, which is questionable or over which a substantial doubt exists. The principal function of the writ of mandamus is to command and to expedite, not to inquire and to adjudicate; thus, it is neither the office nor the aim of the writ to secure a