You are on page 1of 7

City of Batangas v.

Philippine Shell Petroleum of evidence than the actual experience of the


Corporation inhabitants in the area."44

AGUIOA, J.: On May 28, 2009, the CA Fourth Division issued


a Joint Decision45 resolving the JG Summit and
First Gas appeals. The Joint Decision affirmed the
The policy of ensuring the autonomy of local RTC's decisions in SP Civil Case Nos. 7924-7925
governments was not intended to create an (involving JG Summit and PSPC) and 7926
imperium in imperio and install intra-sovereign (involving First Gas).46
political subdivisions independent of the
On October 15, 2009, the CA Tenth Division
sovereign state.2 As agents of the state, local
directed Batangas City and the Sangguniang
governments should· bear in mind that the
Panlungsod on one hand, and PSPC and SPEX on
police power devolved to them by law must be,
the other, to file their respective memoranda on
at all times, exercised in a manner consistent
the filing of separate appeals, and the
with the will of their principal.
implications of the Joint Decision of the CA
FACTS (see: digest) Fourth Division on the resolution of the PSPC
Appeal.47
Proceedings before the CA
In their Joint Memorandum, 48 PSPC and SPEX
Batangas City and the Sangguniang Panlungsod averred that the Joint Decision in the JG Summit
filed separate notices of appeal from the and First Gas appeals bars a contrary decision in
decisions resolving the PSPC, JG Summit and First the PSPC Appeal, pursuant to the principle of
Gas petitions.42 judicial stability.49 PSPC and SPEX further
The appeals against JG Summit and First Gas contended that the filing of multiple appeals
were raffled to the Fourth Division (CA Fourth involving the same issues and parties was
Division) and were docketed as CA-G.R. CV Nos. tantamount to forum shopping. 50
90324 (JG Summit Appeal) and 90365 (First Gas In their defense, Batangas City and the
Appeal), respectively. Meanwhile, the appeal Sangguniang Panlungsod claimed that the filing
filed against PSPC and SPEX was raffled to the of separate appeals was made necessary by the
Tenth Division (CA Tenth Division), and docketed fact that the separate decisions of the RTC in SP
as CA-G.R. CV No. 90373 (PSPC Appeal). Civil Case Nos. 7924-7925 and 7926 were issued
In the PSPC Appeal, Batangas City and the more than fifteen (15) days apart.51
Sangguniang Panlungsod, as appellants, averred On the basis of the submissions of the parties,
that the R TC failed to consider the testimonies the CA Tenth Division issued the Assailed
of barangay captains Joel Caaway and Calixto Decision dismissing the appeal filed against PSPC
Villena of Barangays Tabangao Aplaya and and SPEX for lack of merit. The relevant portions
Pinamucan, respectively, who testified that of the Assailed Decision read:
some wells in their areas had dried up, while
others had begun to produce salt water.43 These City Ordinance No. 3, S.2001 contravenes
testimonies, according to Batangas City and the Presidential Decree No. 1067, better known as
Sangguniang Panlungsod, serve as sufficient "The Water Code of the Philippines" as it is an
factual bases for the enactment of the Assailed encroachment into the authority of the [NWRB].
Ordinance, as "there could be no higher degree The use of water resources is under the
regulatory power of the national government.
This is explicit from the provisions of the Water other means less intrusive of private rights that
Code which states that - would equally be effective for the
accomplishment of the same purpose.
"The utilization, explo[i]tation, development,
conservation and protection of water resources
shall be subject to the control and regulation of
With the foregoing premises considered, there is
the government through the [NWRB]".
no more necessity to address the other errors
Although respondents-appellants insist that the raised in the instant appeal.
city ordinance is not an absolute prohibition but
merely a regulation on the use of fresh
groundwater for cooling systems and industrial WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The
purposes the argument cannot justify the Decision dated 29 June 2007 rendered by the
attempt to usurp the NWRB' s power to regulate Regional Trial Court of Batangas City, Branch 84,
and control water resources. Moreover, not only in SP Civil Case No. 7924, declaring invalid City
does the city ordinance prohibit or regulate the Ordinance No. 3, S.2001 is hereby AFFIRMED.
use of fresh groundwater in disregard of
previously granted water permits from the
NWRB but also directs the installation of SO ORDERED. 52 (Emphasis supplied)
desalination plants for purposes of utilizing sea
water, without the requisite water permit from
the NWRB. Batangas City and the Sangguniang Panlungsod
filed a Motion for Reconsideration53 (MR) dated
June 21, 2010, which the CA Tenth Division
x x x The police power of the Sangguniang subsequently denied through the Assailed
Panglungsod is subordinate to the constitutional Resolution. The CA Tenth Division found that the
limitations that its exercise must be reasonable MR merely reiterated the arguments relied upon
and for the public good. Without the in the appeal, which were already passed upon
concurrence of these two requisites, the in the Assailed Decision. 54
ordinance will not muster the test of a valid
police measure and should be struck down. The
trial court aptly examined the city ordinance Batangas City and the Sangguniang Panlungsod
against the requirement of reasonable necessity received a copy of the Assailed Resolution on
and correctly concluded that the subject January 13, 2011.
ordinance failed to prove that it was reasonably
necessary to prohibit heavy industries from using
ground water and requiring them instead to
On January 25, 2011, Batangas City filed the
construct desalination plants. There must be a
present Petition. 55 Notably, the Petition does
reasonable relation between the purposes of the
not name the Sangguniang Panlungsod as
police measure and the means employed for its
party,56 and only the signature of then city
accomplishment. Arbitrary invasion of personal
mayor Severina Vilma Abaya appears on the
rights and those pertaining to private property
Verification and Certification of Non-Forum
will not be allowed even under the guise of
Shopping attached thereto.57
protecting public interest. It has not been
sufficiently demonstrated that there exists no
PSPC and SPEX filed a Motion for Additional Further, Batangas City insists that there is factual
Time58 dated April 1, 2011, praying for a period basis to justify the enactment of the Assailed
of ten (10) days therefrom to file their comment. Ordinance. 66 As testified to by barangay
captains Joel Caaway and Calixto Villena, a
gradual change in the quality and quantity of
Thereafter, PSPC and SPEX filed a Second Motion ground water had taken place due to the
for Additional Time59 dated April 11, 2011, increase in the number of industrial plants along
praying for an additional period of seven (7) days Batangas Bay.67 According to Batangas City,
to file said comment. Finally, PSPC and SPEX filed these testimonies should be given more weight,
their Joint Comment on and/or Opposition to the since they are based on "actual facts and
Petition for Review on Certiorarz- 60 (Joint experience."68
Comment/Opposition) dated April 25, 2011 on
These assertions lack merit.
even date.
The amendment of the Petition should be
Batangas City failed to timely file its reply to the
allowed in the interest of justice.
Joint Comment/Opposition, prompting them to
file a Manifestation and Motion for Extension of At the outset, the Court notes that Batangas City
Time to File a Reply (Manifestation and Motion) erroneously referred to the 'Joint Decision issued
dated December 12, 2011.61 The Manifestation by the CA Fourth Division in the JG Summit and
and Motion prayed that it be granted twenty (20) First Gas appeals as the subject of this Petition,
days therefrom to file its reply.62 Accordingly, instead of the Decision issued by the CA Tenth
Batangas City filed its Reply dated December 21, Division resolving the PSPC Appeal. Batangas City
2011 on even date. 63 sought to correct this error in its Reply, thus:

The Issue 1. After diligent and careful review [of] the


Petition for Review submitted by the
The sole issue for this Court's determination is
undersigned, it was found out that there was an
whether the CA erred in affirming the RTC
error which was inadvertently committed in the
Decision which declared the Assailed Ordinance
first paragraph of the fifth (5th) page of the
invalid.
Petition;

2. The first paragraph on page 5 of the Petition


The Court's Ruling for Review on Certiorari x x x;

Batangas City contends that it has the legal


authority to enact ordinances in the exercise of
xxxx
its police power for the purpose of promoting
the general welfare of its inhabitants. 64 Thus, it
asserts that it has the power to regulate PSPC's
Should be amended to appear as:
and SPEX's right to use ground water, as
continued use would be injurious to public "On June 13, 2007, herein Petitioner City
interest. 65 Government of Batangas received the decision
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 84 of
Batangas City ruling in favor of Respondents,
[PSPC] and Intervenor [SPEX] x x x. Petitioner policy to foster genuine and meaningful local
filed its Notice of Appeal x x x on 26 July 2007. autonomy, the national legislature delegated the
The case was elevated to the Court of Appeals exercise of police power to local government
and the Tenth Division rendered the 25 May units (LGUs) as agents of the State.72 Such
2010 favoring [PSPC] and SPEx x x x. The City delegation can be found in Section 1673 of the
Government of Batangas filed a Motion for LGC, which embodies the general welfare clause.
Reconsideration x x x. The motion was denied by 74
the Tenth Division of the Court of Appeals in its
Since LGUs exercise delegated police power as
resolution dated 30 December 2010 x x x. Hence,
agents of the State, it is incumbent upon them to
now this Petition."69 (Emphasis omitted)
act in conformity to the will of their principal, the
Considering the nature of the issues involved in State.75 Necessarily, therefore, ordinances
the present Petition, and the lack of any enacted pursuant to the general welfare clause
evidence showing that Batangas City's error may not subvert the State's will by contradicting
resulted from anything more than inadvertence, national statutes. Thus, in Batangas CATV, Inc. v.
the Court resolves to permit the amendment of Court of Appeals, 76 the Court struck down an
the Petition in the interest of substantial justice. ordinance enacted by Batangas City which
granted the Sangguniang Panlungsod the power
The Assailed Ordinance is void for being ultra
to fix subscriber rates charged by CATV providers
vires, for being contrary to existing law, and for
operating within the former's territory, as this
lack of evidence showing the existence of factual
directly violated a general law which grants such
basis for its enactment.
power exclusively to the National
The requisites for a valid ordinance are well Telecommunications Commission. In so ruling,
established. Time and again, the Court has ruled the Court stressed that municipalities are
that in order for an ordinance to be valid, it must precluded from regulating conduct already
not only be within the corporate powers of the covered by a statute involving the same subject
concerned LGU to enact, but must also be passed matter, hence:
in accordance with the procedure prescribed by
In De la Cruz vs. Paraz, we laid the general rule
law. Moreover, substantively, the ordinance (i)
"that ordinances passed by virtue of the implied
must not contravene the Constitution or any
power found in the general welfare clause must
statute; (ii) must not be unfair or oppressive; (iii)
be reasonable, consonant with the general
must not be partial or discriminatory; (iv) must
powers and purposes of the corporation, and not
not prohibit, but may regulate trade; (v) must be
inconsistent with the laws or policy of the State."
general and consistent with public policy; and
(vi) must not be unreasonable.70

Batangas City claims that the enactment of the xxxx


Assailed Ordinance constitutes a valid exercise of
its police power. This claim is erroneous.
In this regard, it is appropriate to stress that
Police power is the power to prescribe
where the state legislature has made provision
regulations to promote the health, morals,
for the regulation of conduct, it has manifested
peace, education, good order, safety, and
its intention that the subject matter shall be fully
general welfare of the people.71 As an inherent
covered by the statute, and that a municipality,
attribute of sovereignty, police power primarily
under its general powers, cannot regulate the
rests with the State. In furtherance of the State's
same conduct.1avvphi1 In Keller vs. State, it was The Water Code governs the ownership,
held that: "Where there is no express power in appropriation, utilization, exploitation,
the charter of a municipality authorizing it to development, conservation and protection of
adopt ordinances regulating certain matters water resources. 78 Under Article 3 thereof,
which are specifically covered by a general water resources are placed under the control
statute, a municipal ordinance, insofar as it and regulation of the government through the
attempts to regulate the subject which is National Water Resources Council, now the
completely covered by a general statute of the NWRB. 79 In turn, the privilege to appropriate
legislature, may be rendered invalid. x x x Where and use water is one which is exclusively granted
the subject is of statewide concern, and the and regulated by the State through water
legislature has appropriated the field and permits issued by the NWRB.80 Once granted,
declared the rule, its declaration is binding these water permits continue to be valid save
throughout the State." A reason advanced for only for reasons spelled out under the Water
this view is that such ordinances are in excess of Code itself.81
the powers granted to the municipal
Conversely, the power to modify, suspend,
corporation.
cancel or revoke water permits already issued
Since E.O. No. 205, a general law, mandates that also rests with NWRB.82
the regulation of CATV operations shall be
On the other hand, the avowed purpose of the
exercised by the NTC, an LGU cannot enact an
Assailed Ordinance, as stated in its whereas
ordinance or approve a resolution in violation of
clauses, is the protection of local aquifers for the
the said law.
benefit of the inhabitants of Batangas City.83
It is a fundamental principle that municipal Accordingly, the Assailed Ordinance mandates
ordinances are inferior in status and subordinate all heavy industries operating along Batangas
to the laws of the state. An ordinance in conflict Bay to use seawater in the operation of their
with a state law of general character and respective facilities, and install desalination
statewide application is universally held to be plants for this purpose. Failure to comply with
invalid. The principle is frequently expressed in this mandatory requirement would have the
the declaration that municipal authorities, under effect of precluding continuous operation, and
a general grant of power, cannot adopt exposing noncompliant parties to penal and
ordinances which infringe the spirit of a state law administrative sanctions. 84
or repugnant to the general policy of the state.
There is no doubt, therefore, that the Assailed
In every power to pass ordinances given to a
Ordinance effectively contravenes the provisions
municipality, there is an implied restriction that
of the Water Code as it arrogates unto Batangas
the ordinances shall be consistent with the
City the power to control and regulate the use of
general law.x x x77 (Emphasis and underscoring
ground water which, by virtue of the provisions
supplied)
of the Water Code, pertains solely to the NWRB.
In this Petition, the Court is called upon to By enacting the Assailed Ordinance, Batangas
determine whether the control and regulation of City acted in excess of the powers granted to it
the use of water may be made subject of a city as an LGU, rendering the Assailed Ordinance
ordinance under the regime of the Water Code - ultra vzres.
a national statute governing the same subject
matter.
Being ultra vires, the Assailed Ordinance, in its It thus becomes apparent that the ordinance was
entirety, is null and void. Thus, it becomes come up with in an arbitrary manner, if not
unnecessary to still determine if it complies with based purely on emotive or flawed premises.
the other substantive requirements for a valid There was no scientific standard or any
ordinance - i.e., that the ordinance is fair and acceptable standard at all that the ordinance was
reasonable. based on. x x x85

In any case, it bears emphasizing that the While the Joint Decision resolves the JG Summit
measure of the substantive validity of an and First Gas appeals, these cases, pertain to the
ordinance is the underlying factual basis for same appeal filed by Batangas City and the
which it was enacted. Hence, without factual Sangguniang Panlungsod from the Decision of
basis, an ordinance will necessarily fail the the RTC nullifying the Assailed Ordinance. As
substantive test for validity. aptly put by the CA in the present case:

Batangas City's failure to prove the existence of The factual antecedents and legal issues in the
factual basis to justify the enactment of the present CA-G.R. CV No. 90373 are identical to
Assailed Ordinance had already been passed those of CA-G.R. CV Nos. 90324 and 90365. The
upon by the lower courts.1âwphi1 The Court assignment of errors in the present appeal are
quotes, with approval, the Joint Decision of the but a restatement of the errors raised in the two
CA Fourth Division: consolidated appeals cases, which errors have
already been exhaustively passed upon by the
To prohibit an act or to compel something to be
Court's Fourth Division in its Joint Decision dated
done, there must be a shown reason for the
May 28, 2009, weighing pieces of evidence that
same. The purpose must also be cogent to the
are now the very same pieces of evidence
means adopted by the law to attain it. In this
presented for consideration in this appeal. x x
case, as seen in the "whereas clause," the
x86 (Emphasis supplied)
purpose of the ordinance is to protect the
environment and prevent ecological imbalance, This Court, not being a trier of facts, accords the
especially the drying up of the aquifers of highest degree of respect to the findings of fact
Batangas City. In effect, the drying up of aquifers of the trial court, especially where, as here, they
is being blamed on the establishments and have been affirmed by the CA; accordingly, these
industries such as petitioners-appellees here. It findings will not be disturbed. To be sure, such
would have been acceptable had there been a findings are binding and conclusive upon this
specific study or findings that the local Court, 87 and it is not the Court's function in a
government conducted (sic) and not just its petition for review on certiorari to examine,
reliance on the complaints of some constituents evaluate or weigh anew the probative value of
who merely made its conclusion that the drying the evidence presented before the trial court. 88
up of wells or its salination was due to the "heavy While there are recognized exceptions to this
industries"' use of groundwater. rule, the Court finds that none is present in this
case.
In addition, if appellants were convinced that
those industries adversely affect the Consequently, since it has been established that
environment and specifically the water resource Batangas City did not have factual basis to justify
in Batangas City, there would be no exemptions, the purpose of the Assailed Ordinance, Batangas
as provided in Section 5 of the Ordinance, as it City cannot invoke the presumption of validity.
would negate the purpose of the Jaw. As held in Ermita-Ma/ate Hotel and Motel
Operators Association, Inc. v. City Mayor of
Manila, 89 which Batangas City itself cites in its
Petition, the presumption of validity ascribed to
an ordinance prevails only in the absence of
some factual foundation of record sufficient to
overthrow the assailed issuance.90 In this case,
the presumption of validity ascribed to the
Assailed Ordinance had been overturned by
documentary and testimonial evidence showing
that no substantial diminution in the supply of
ground water in the TabangaoMalitam
watershed had occurred in the last three (3)
decades, and that no threat of depletion of
ground water resources in said watershed
existed.91

Final Note

While the Assailed Ordinance has been struck


down as invalid, the pronouncements hereunder
should not be misconstrued by heavy industries
to be carte blanche to abuse their respective
water rights at the expense of the health and
safety of the inhabitants of Batangas City, the
environment within which these inhabitants live,
and the resources upon which these inhabitants
rely. The Court recognizes fresh ground water as
an invaluable natural resource, and deems it
necessary to emphasize that Batangas City is not
precluded from exercising its right to protect its
inhabitants from injurious effects which may
result from the misuse of natural water
resources within its territorial jurisdiction,
should these effects later arise, provided that
such exercise is done within the framework of
applicable national law, particularly, the Water
Code.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition


for review on certiorari is DENIED. The Decision
dated May 25, 2010 and Resolution dated
December 30, 2010 of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CV No. 90373 are AFFIRMED.

You might also like