Name: Fatima Mariam M.

Tawasil
Section: LAW01 A
Case Title: The Office of Solicitor General vs. Ayala Land, G.R. No. 177056
Petitioner: The Office of Solicitor General
Respondents: Ayala Land Incorporated, Robinson’s Land Corporation, Shang- Ri La
Plaza Corporation, SM Prime Holdings, Inc.
Thesis Statement: The Office of Solicitor General filed a case against Ayala Land
Incorporated, Robinson’s Land Corporation, Shang- Ri La Plaza Corporation, SM Prime
Holdings, Inc. on the ground of Illegal collection of parking fees.

Facts:
a) The following shopping malls provides parking spaces for different motor vehicles
b) They provide security personnel to protect the vehicles parked in their parking
facilities and maintain order within the area. In turn, they collect the following parking
fees from the persons making use of their parking facilities.
c) On weekdays Ayala Land Incorporated was collecting parking fees of ₱25.00 for the
first four hours and ₱10.00 for every succeeding hour; on weekends, flat rate of
₱25.00 per day
d) In Robinson’s Parking fees are in the amount of ₱20.00 for the first three hours and
₱10.00 for every succeeding hour Flat rate of ₱30.00 per day
e) Shangri-La Corporation collects a Flat rate of ₱30.00 per day
f) SM Prime collects parking fees of ₱10.00 to ₱20.00 (depending on whether the
parking space is outdoors or indoors) for the first three hours and 59 minutes, and
₱10.00 for every succeeding hour or fraction thereof
g) The Code merely requires malls to provide parking spaces, without specifying
whether it is free or not, both Committees believe that the reasonable and logical
interpretation of the Code is that the parking spaces are for free
h) According to the OSG collection of parking fees shall not be tolerated considering
that countries such as America where parking spaces provided in malls are free of
charge.
Issues:
1.) The Committees find that the collection of parking fees by shopping malls is contrary
to the National Building Code and is therefore [sic] illegal.
2.) After hearing, judgment be rendered declaring that the practice of respondents in
charging parking fees is violative of the National Building Code and its Implementing
Rules and Regulations and is therefore invalid.
Ruling:
No, the total prohibition against the collection by respondents of parking fees from
persons who use the mall parking facilities has no basis in the National Building Code or
its IRR. It Is considered void an denied by the court since there is no clear rule or law
stating that collection of parking fees are illegal. OSG attempted to argue by using the
National Building Code under section 803 which states that the complimentary parking
spaces are required to enhance light and ventilation, that is, to avoid traffic congestion
in areas surrounding the building, which certainly affects the ventilation within the
building itself, which otherwise, the annexed parking spaces would have served. Free-
of-charge parking avoids traffic congestion by ensuring quick and easy access of
legitimate shoppers to off-street parking spaces annexed to the malls, and thereby
removing the vehicles of these legitimate shoppers off the busy streets near the
commercial establishments. Thus the Court is unconvinced, regardless there’s payment
of parking fees or not parking spaces in mall can be full resulting vehicle owners to park
outside instead. With this it is concluded that the case being filed is hereby denied.