Scribd
Upload
85 views2 pages

Chamber of Filipino Retailers, Inc. Vs Villegas 44 SCRA 405

This case involved a challenge to a city ordinance that raised market stall fees in Manila public markets. [1] The Supreme Court upheld the ordinance, finding that under the Local Autonomy Act, cities have authority to impose fees on those engaged in business or occupation within the city. [2] The court also found that public markets, while a public service, do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission, so the city did not need commission approval to set market fees. [3] The court affirmed the decision dismissing the challenge to the ordinance.

Uploaded by

Wren
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
85 views2 pages

Chamber of Filipino Retailers, Inc. Vs Villegas 44 SCRA 405

This case involved a challenge to a city ordinance that raised market stall fees in Manila public markets. [1] The Supreme Court upheld the ordinance, finding that under the Local Autonomy Act, cities have authority to impose fees on those engaged in business or occupation within the city. [2] The court also found that public markets, while a public service, do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission, so the city did not need commission approval to set market fees. [3] The court affirmed the decision dismissing the challenge to the ordinance.

Uploaded by

Wren
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Chamber of Filipino Retailers, Inc.

vs Villegas 44 SCRA 405

G.R. No. L-29819 April 14, 1972 CHAMBER OF FILIPINO RETAILERS, INC., NATIONAL MARKET
VENDORS ASSOCIATION, INC., AMBROSIO ILAO, and CRISPIN DE GUZMAN, petitioners-
appellants vs. HON. ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS, as Mayor of THE CITY OF MANILA, respondents-
appellees.

Facts: City Ordinance No. 6696 was approved raising the Market Stall fees to be charged in all
City Markets. Petitioners brought action questioning the legality of this ordinance on the ground
that the City Charter of Manila only authorizes the collection of "fees" and the rise in market
stall fees would make this a source of revenue. while this case was pending, the Municipal Board
approved Ordinance No. 6767 lowering the market stall fees as provided for by Ordinance No.
6696, but still much higher than the old rate.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the enactment of Ordinance No. 6767 was in the exercise of the
governmental or the proprietary function of the city
2. Whether or not the City of Manila can charge fees for the use of its public markets
without the approval of the Public Service Commission

HELD:

1. There is no merit in this appeal. Republic Act No. 2264 (the so-called Local Autonomy Act)
section 2 grants all chartered cities, municipalities and municipal districts authority to impose
municipal license taxes or fees upon persons engaged in any occupation or business or
exercising privileges in chartered cities, municipalities or municipal districts.

Since it is not deniable that persons selling in public markets are engaged in occupation or
business, it becomes plain that the city can impose at present upon market vendors or retailers’
fees designed to obtain revenue for the city, above or in addition to the amount needed to
reimburse it for strictly supervisory services. there is a clear difference between the license to
sell within the premises of public markets and the privilege of doing business at a definite
location or stall in said market for a definite period of time. The permit to exercise the latter
privilege partakes of the nature of a lease of the area occupied by the stall which is patrimonial
property of the City of Manila.

The renting by the City of its private property is a patrimonial activity or proprietary function,
and in this sphere, the city — “like any private owner, it is … free to charge such sums as it may
deem best, regardless of the reasonableness of the amount fixed, for the prospective lessees
are free to enter into the corresponding contract of lease, if they are agreeable to the terms
thereof, or, otherwise, not enter into such contract. Under the City Charter of Manila, public
markets are certainly not for public use so far as the appellant stall market vendors are
concerned, the city charter authorizing a charge for their use of public markets.

2. Yes. While a public market is a public service or utility,1 it is not one that falls under the
jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission, not being ejusdem generis with those public
services enumerated in Section 13(b) of the Public Service Act2 over which the Commission has
jurisdiction. Hence the approval by the Commission of the fees fixed by the City of Manila for
the use of its markets is not covered by Section 20 of the Public Service Act.

even if appellants had cited (which they did not) Republic Act 2677, amending the Public Service
Act, by exempting any instrumentality of the National Government from securing a certificate of
public convenience and necessity, but affirming the Commission's power of regulation over
public service utilities operated by government entities, except with respect to fixing of rates,
the amendatory statute could not have helped the theory of the appellants (that Manila cannot
fix fees for the use of its public markets without the approval of the Commission), for the reason
that public markets are not among (or not similar to) those utilities over which the Commission
was vested with jurisdiction.

Appealed decision is affirmed.

You might also like