CITY OF OZAMIS VS LUMAPAS

G.R. No. L-30727, 65 SCRA 33, July 15, 1975

FACTS:

This case is about a bus company, Romar Line, transporting passengers and cargo with Ozamis City and Pagadian City as terminal points. Said bus company is operated by the respondent SERAPIO LUMAPAS.

Then, the Municipal Board of Ozamis City enacted Ordinance No. 466 imposing parking fees for every motor vehicle parked on any parking space in Ozamis City.

Since Romar Line is affected of said ordinance, Lumapas paid said fee under protest for 2 years and 4 months. After 4 years, Lumapas filed a complained against City of Ozamis, with CFI-Misamis Occidental, for recovery of parking fees, alleging that the said ordinance is ULTRA VIRES.

CFI ruled in favor of Lumapas and held that the parking area where buses of Romar Lines are parked is part of the municipal street and the parking fee is in the nature of a toll fee for the use of a public road. As such, the enactment of said ordinance is in violation of Sec. 59 (b) of RA No. 4136 (Land Transportation and Traffic Code) for it has no prior approval by the president of the Philippines with recommendation of Secretary of Public Works and Communications, and is NULL & VOID.

Hence, this appeal by certiorari.

ISSUE (1) WON the Ordinance No. 466, which imposes parking fees in Ozamis, is valid.

HELD:

City of Ozamis has been clothed with full power to CONTROL and REGULATE its street to promote public health, safety and welfare.

The SC held that power to tax can only be exercised by the Congress, unless delegated or conferred to others as provided for by law. Included in said delegation is the express grant of powers, among others. And such delegation of power to tax are to be construed against the Municipality. In this case, RA 321 (Ozamis City Chapter) delegates to the Municipal Board the power to regulate the use of the streets, among other public places.

Said republic act delegates the police power to the municipal corporation to be exercised as a governmental functions for municipal purposes.

ISSUE (2) WON the fee charged is a parking fee and not a toll fee.

HELD:

The SC ruled that the word TOLL is defined as a DUTY imposed on goods and passengers travelling public roads, and not for use, as a parking place for vehicles.

In this case, the contested ordinance defined parking as the STOPPAGE of a motor vehicle on an existing parking areas to unload and load passengers or cargoes. Considering the use of the land, the fee paid is that of a PARKING FEE and not a toll fee, and which is imposed to cover the expenses for supervision, inspection and control, to ensure smooth flow of traffic in the environs of the public market, and for safety and convenience of the public.

SC reversed decision of CFI and declared Ordinance No. 466 VALID.