Legaspi v. City of Cebu

LEGASPI v. CITY OF CEBU (HENRY) null and void.
The violating vehicleis immobilized, thus, depriving its

December 10, 2013 | Bersamin, J. | Substantive Due Process owner of the use thereof at the sole determination of any traffic enforcer or
regular PNP personnel or Cebu City Traffic Law Enforcement Personnel.
PETITIONER: Valentino L. Legaspi Otherwise stated, the owner is deprived of his right to the use of his/her
RESPONDENT: City of Cebu, et al. vehicle and penalized without a hearing by a person who is not legally or
duly vested with such rights, power, or authority. The City of Cebu
SUMMARY: Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cebu enacted Ordinance No. 1644 appealed to the CA.
authorizing traffic enforcers to immobilize by clamping any vehicle in violation 6. CA overturned the RTC and reasoned that the passage of Ordinance 1664 is
of the Traffic Code. The Jabans and Legaspi, who both complained as to the in accordance with the police powers exercised by the City of Cebu through
clamping of their vehicles, assailed the ordinacne for being unconstitutional and the Sangguniang Panglungsod and granted by the LGC. MR likewise
violative of due process. They complain that there was no notice or hearing and denied, hence this petition.
that it deprives them of their property. RTC ruled in their favor. However, CA
overturned the RTC ruling and said that Ordinance No. 1644 is a valid exercise ISSUE/s:
of police power. Hence, this appeal. 1. WoN Ordinance No. 1664 is violative of the due process clause – NO
SC ruled and affirmed the CA decision upholding the validity of the said RULING: SC affirmed the CA decision.
ordinance. It passed the tests of valid ordinances and complied with the
Constitutional limitations. And as much as the exercise of police power is RATIO:
concerned, it’s objective is to serve public interest and advance general welfare. 1. IPolice power is regarded as the most essential, insistent, and the least
limitable of powers. Extending as it does to all the great public needs.
DOCTRINE: The tests of a valid ordinance: Indeed, the LGUs would be in the est position to craft their traffic caodes
1. Must not contravene the Constitution or any statute because of their familiarity with the conditions peculiar to their
2. Must not be unfair or oppressive communities.
3. Must not be partial or discriminatory 2. It is in compliance with the guaranty embedded in art. 3 sec. 1 of the
4. Must not prohibit but regulate trade Constitution, that “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property
5. Must be general and consistent with public policy without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied of the equal
6. Must not be unreasonable protection of the laws.”
3. In City of Manila, procedural due process refers to the procedures that the
FACTS: government must follow before it deprives a person of life, liberty of
1. The Sangguniang Panglungsod of City of Cebu enacted Ordinance No. property. Substantive due process asks whether the government has an
1664 to authorize the traffic enforcers of Cebu City to immobilize any adequte reason for taking away a person’s life, liberty, or property.
motor vehicle violating the parking restrictions nad prohibitions defined in 4. The plain objective of Ordinance No. 1664 was to serve the public interest
Ordinance No. 801. and advance the general welfare in the City of Cebu.
2. Essentially, Ordinance No. 1664 regulates any vehicle violating existing 5. There could be no confusion on the meaning and coverage of the ordinance.
ordinances to be clamped on the tires with the use of a Denver boot. But should there be any vagueness and ambiguity in the provisions, which
3. Atty. Jaban brought suit in the RTC against the City of Cebu, seeking the the OSG does not concede, tjere was nothing that a proper application of the
declaration of Ordinance No. 1644 as unconstitutional for being in violation basic rules of statutory construction could not justify.
of due process and for being contrary to law and damages. He complained 6. Firstly, Ordinance 1664 is far from oppressive and arbitrary. Any driver or
that after properly parking for less than 10 minutes, his car was immobilized vehicle owner whose vehicle was immobilized by clamping could protest
by a steel clamp. such action of a traffic enforcer or PNP personnel enforcing the ordinance.
4. Valentino Legaspi likewise sued in the RTC, demanding the delivery of 7. Secondly, the immobilization of a vehicle by clamping pursuant to the
personal property, declaration of nullity of the Traffic Code of Cebu City, ordinance was not necessary if the driver or vehicle owner was around at
and damages. Averred that a portion of his car was parked on the sidewalk, the time of the apprehension for illegal parking or obstruction.
and while waiting for the anay exterminator to finish unloading, unknown 8. And lastly, the towing away of the immobilized vehicle was not equivalent
to persons had clamped the front wheel of his car. to a summary impounding, but designed to prevent the immobilized vehicle
5. The cases were consolidated before the RTC and declared the Ordinance from obstructing traffic in the vicinity of the apprehension and thereby
ensure the smooth flow of traffic.
9. Notice and hearing are the essential requirements of procedural due process.
Yet, there are many instances under our laws in which the absence of one or
both of suhc requirements is not necessarily a denial or deprivation of due
process.

Legaspi v. City of Cebu

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Legaspi v. City of Cebu

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Legaspi v. City of Cebu

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LEGASPI v. CITY OF CEBU (HENRY) null and void.

The violating vehicleis immobilized, thus, depriving its

You might also like