3b. Social Justice Society v. Atienza 517 SCRA 657

1/9/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 517
VOL. 517, MARCH 7, 2007 657

Social Justice Society vs. Atienza, Jr.
*
G.R. No. 156052. March 7, 2007.
SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY (SJS), VLADIMIR

ALARIQUE T. CABIGAO, and BONIFACIO S.
TUMBOKON, petitioners, vs. HON. JOSE L. ATIENZA,
JR., in his capacity as Mayor of the City of Manila,
respondent.
Mandamus; A petition for mandamus may be filed when any

tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects
the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a
duty resulting from an office, trust or station.—Under Rule 65,
Section 3 of the Rules of Court, a petition for mandamus may be
filed when any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person
unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law
specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or
station. Mandamus is an extraordinary writ that is employed to
compel the performance, when refused, of a ministerial duty that
is already imposed on the respondent and there is no other plain,
speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The
petitioner should have a well-
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
658
658 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
defined, clear and certain legal right to the performance of the act
and it must be the clear and imperative duty of respondent to do
the act required to be done.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000160dae1b0e07239dda2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/11
Same; Locus Standi; When a mandamus proceeding concerns

a public right and its object is to compel a public duty, the people
who are interested in the execution of the laws are regarded as the
real parties in interest and they need not show any specific
interest.—We have ruled in previous cases that when a
mandamus proceeding concerns a public right and its object is to
compel a public duty, the people who are interested in the
execution of the laws are regarded as the real parties in interest
and they need not show any specific interest. Besides, as residents
of Manila, petitioners have a direct interest in the enforcement of
the city’s ordinances. Respondent never questioned the right of
petitioners to institute this proceeding.
Municipal Corporations; Local Government Units; The mayor,

as the chief executive of the city, has the duty to enforce ordinances
as long as they have not been repealed by the Sanggunian or
annulled by the courts—it is his ministerial duty to do so.—The
Local Government Code imposes upon respondent the duty, as
city mayor, to “enforce all laws and ordinances relative to the
governance of the city.” One of these is Ordinance No. 8027. As
the chief executive of the city, he has the duty to enforce
Ordinance No. 8027 as long as it has not been repealed by the
Sanggunian or annulled by the courts. He has no other choice. It
is his ministerial duty to do so. In Dimaporo v. Mitra, Jr., 202
SCRA 779 (1991), we stated the reason for this: These officers
cannot refuse to perform their duty on the ground of an alleged
invalidity of the statute imposing the duty. The reason for this is
obvious. It might seriously hinder the transaction of public
business if these officers were to be permitted in all cases to
question the constitutionality of statutes and ordinances imposing
duties upon them and which have not judicially been declared
unconstitutional. Officers of the government from the highest to
the lowest are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it.
Same; Same; Terrorism; No reason exists to delay the

implementation of a protective measure designed to protect the
residents of Manila from the catastrophic devastation that will
surely occur in case of a terrorist attack on the Pandacan
Terminals.—Ordinance No. 8027 was enacted right after the
Philippines, along with the rest of the world, witnessed the horror
of the September 11, 2001 attack
659
VOL. 517, MARCH 7, 2007 659

on the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City.
The objective of the ordinance is to protect the residents of Manila
from the catastrophic devastation that will surely occur in case of
a terrorist attack on the Pandacan Terminals. No reason exists
why such a protective measure should be delayed.
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court.

Mandamus.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Samson S. Alcantara and Ed Vincent S. Albano for
petitioners.
Office of the City Legal Officer for respondent.
CORONA, J.:
1
In this original petition for mandamus, petitioners Social
Justice Society (SJS), Vladimir Alarique T. Cabigao and
Bonifacio S. Tumbokon seek to compel respondent Hon.
Jose L. Atienza, Jr., mayor of the City of Manila, to enforce
Ordinance No. 8027.
The antecedents are as follows.
On November 20, 2001, the Sangguniang2
Panlungsod of
Manila enacted Ordinance No. 8027. Respondent 3
mayor
approved the ordinance on November 28, 2001. It became4
effective on December 28, 2001, after its publication.
_______________
1 Under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

2 Entitled “Ordinance Reclassifying the Land Use of [Those] Portions of
Land Bounded by the Pasig River In The North[,] PNR Railroad Track in
the East, Beata St. in the South, Palumpong St. in the Southwest and
Estero De Pandacan in the West, PNR Railroad in the Northwest Area,
Estero of Pandacan in the Northeast, Pasig River in the Southeast and Dr.
M.L. Carreon in the Southwest; the Area of Punta, Sta. Ana Bounded by
the Pasig River, Marcelino Obrero St.[,] Mayo 28 St. and the F. Manalo
Street from Industrial II to Commercial I.”
3 Rollo, p. 12.
4 Id., p. 6.
660

Ordinance No. 8027 was enacted pursuant to the police

power delegated to local government units, a principle
described as the power inherent in a government to enact

laws, within constitutional limits, to promote the order,5
safety, health, morals and general welfare of the society.
This is evident from Sections 1 and 3 thereof which state:
“SECTION 1. For the purpose of promoting sound urban planning

and ensuring health, public safety, and general welfare of the
residents of Pandacan and Sta. Ana as well as its adjoining areas,
the land use of [those] portions of land bounded by the Pasig River
in the north, PNR Railroad Track in the east, Beata St. in the
south, Palumpong St. in the southwest, and Estero de Pandacan
in the west[,] PNR Railroad in the northwest area, Estero de
Pandacan in the [n]ortheast, Pasig River in the southeast and Dr.
M.L. Carreon in the southwest. The area of Punta, Sta. Ana
bounded by the Pasig River, Marcelino Obrero St., Mayo 28 St.,
and F. Manalo Street, are hereby reclassified from Industrial II to
Commercial I.
x x x x x x x x x
SEC. 3. Owners or operators of industries and other
businesses, the operation of which are no longer permitted under
Section 1 hereof, are hereby given a period of six (6) months from
the date of effectivity of this Ordinance within which to cease and
desist from the operation of businesses which are hereby in
consequence, disallowed.”
Ordinance No. 8027 reclassified the area described therein

from industrial to commercial and directed the owners and
operators of businesses disallowed under Section 1 to cease
and desist from operating their businesses within six
months from the date of effectivity of the ordinance. Among
the businesses situated in the area are the so-called
“Pandacan Terminals” of the oil companies Caltex
(Philippines), Inc., Petron Corporation and Pilipinas Shell
Petroleum Corporation.
_______________
5 Philtread Workers Union (PTWU) v. Confesor, 336 Phil. 375; 269

SCRA 393 (1997), citing Union of Filipro Employees v. Nestlé Philippines,
Inc., G.R. Nos. 88710–13, 19 December 1990, 192 SCRA 396.
661
VOL. 517, MARCH 7, 2007 661

However, on June 26, 2002, the City of Manila and the

Department of Energy (DOE) entered into a memorandum
6
6
of understanding (MOU) with the oil companies in which
they agreed that “the scaling down of the Pandacan
Terminals [was] the most viable and practicable option.”
Under the MOU, the oil companies agreed to perform the
following:
Section 1.—Consistent with the objectives stated above, the OIL

COMPANIES shall, upon signing of this MOU, undertake a
program to scale down the Pandacan Terminals which shall
include, among others, the immediate removal/decommissioning
process of TWENTY EIGHT (28) tanks starting with the LPG
spheres and the commencing of works for the creation of safety
buffer and green zones surrounding the Pandacan Terminals. x x
x
Section 2.—Consistent with the scale-down program
mentioned above, the OIL COMPANIES shall establish joint
operations and management, including the operation of common,
integrated and/or shared facilities, consistent with international
and domestic technical, safety, environmental and economic
considerations and standards. Consequently, the joint operations
of the OIL COMPANIES in the Pandacan Terminals shall be
limited to the common and integrated areas/facilities. A separate
agreement covering the commercial and operational terms and
conditions of the joint operations, shall be entered into by the OIL
COMPANIES.
Section 3.—The development and maintenance of the safety
and green buffer zones mentioned therein, which shall be taken
from the properties of the OIL COMPANIES and not from the
surrounding communities, shall be the sole responsibility of the
OIL COMPANIES.
The City of Manila and the DOE, on the other hand,

committed to do the following:
_______________
6 Rollo, pp. 16–18. This MOU modified the Memorandum of Agreement

(MOA) executed on October 12, 2001 by the oil companies and the DOE.
This MOA called for close coordination among the parties with a view of
formulating appropriate measures to arrive at the best possible option to
ensure, maintain and at the same time harmonize the interests of both
government and the oil companies; Id., p. 36.
662

Section 1.—The City Mayor shall endorse to the City Council

this MOU for its appropriate action with the view of
implementing the spirit and intent thereof.
Section 2.—The City Mayor and the DOE shall, consistent
with the spirit and intent of this MOU, enable the OIL
COMPANIES to continuously operate in compliance with legal
requirements, within the limited area resulting from the joint
operations and the scale down program.
Section 3.—The DOE and the City Mayor shall monitor the
OIL COMPANIES’ compliance with the provisions of this MOU.
Section 4.—The CITY OF MANILA and the national
government shall protect the safety buffer and green zones and
shall exert all efforts at preventing future occupation or
encroachment into these areas by illegal settlers and other
unauthorized parties.
The Sangguniang7 Panlungsod ratified the MOU in

Resolution No. 97. In the same resolution, the Sanggunian
declared that the MOU was effective
8
only for a period of six
months starting July 25, 2002. Thereafter, on January 30,9
2003, the Sanggunian adopted Resolution No. 13
extending the validity of Resolution No. 97 to April 30,
2003 and authorizing Mayor Atienza to issue special
business permits to the oil companies.
_______________
7 Entitled “Resolution Ratifying the Memorandum of Understanding

(MOU) Entered into by and Among the Department of Energy, the City of
Manila, Caltex (Philippines), Inc., Petron Corporation and Pilipinas Shell
Petroleum Corporation on 26 June 2002, and Known as Document No. 60,
Page No. 12, Book No. 1, Series of 2002 in the Notarial Registry of Atty.
Neil Lanson Salcedo, Notary Public for and in the City of Manila”; Id., p.
36.
8 Id.
9 Entitled “Resolution Extending the Validity of Resolution 97, Series of
2002, to April 30, 2003, Thereby Authorizing his Honor Mayor Jose L.
Atienza, Jr., to Issue Special Business Permits to Caltex Phil., Inc., Petron
Corporation and Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation Situated within
the Pandacan Oil Terminal Covering the said Period”; Id., p. 38.
663
VOL. 517, MARCH 7, 2007 663

Resolution No.1013, s. 2003 also called for a reassessment of

the ordinance.
Meanwhile, petitioners filed this original action for

mandamus on December 4, 2002 praying that Mayor
Atienza be compelled to enforce Ordinance No. 8027 and
order the immediate
11
removal of the terminals of the oil
companies.
The issues raised by petitioners are as follows:
1. whether respondent has the mandatory legal duty to enforce

Ordinance No. 8027 and order the removal of the Pandacan
Terminals, and
2. whether the June 26, 2002 MOU and the12 resolutions
ratifying it can amend or repeal Ordinance No. 8027.
Petitioners contend that respondent has the mandatory

legal duty, under Section 13 455 (b) (2) of the Local
Government Code (RA 7160), to enforce Ordinance No.
8027 and order the removal of the Pandacan Terminals of
the oil companies. Instead, he has allowed them to stay.
Respondent’s defense is that Ordinance No. 8027 has 14
been superseded by the MOU and the resolutions.
However, he also confusingly argues that the ordinance
and MOU are not
_______________
10 Id.
11 Id., p. 9.
12 Id., p. 15.
13 It states:
Section 455. Chief Executive: Powers, Duties and Compensation.—x x x

(b) For efficient, effective and economical governance the purpose of which is
the general welfare of the city and its inhabitants pursuant to Section 16 of this
Code, the city mayor shall:
x x x x x x x x x
(2) Enforce all laws and ordinances relative to the governance of the city x x x x
14 Rollo, pp. 28 and 144.
664

inconsistent with each other and that the latter has not
amended the former. He insists that the ordinance remains
valid and in full force and effect and that the MOU did not
in any way prevent him from enforcing and implementing
it. He maintains that the MOU should be15 considered as a

mere guideline for its full implementation.
16
Under Rule 65, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, a
petition for mandamus may be filed when any tribunal,
corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the
performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as
a duty resulting from an office, trust or station. Mandamus
is an extraordinary writ that is employed to compel the
performance, when refused, of a ministerial duty that is
already imposed on the respondent and there is no other
plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course
of law. The petitioner should have a well-defined, clear and
certain legal right to the performance of the act and it must
be the clear and imperative
17
duty of respondent to do the act
required to be done.
_______________
15 Id., pp. 31 and 146–147.

16 The full text reads:
SEC. 3. Petition for Mandamus.—When any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or

person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically
enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes
another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is
entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law, the person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the
proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be
rendered commanding the respondent, immediately or at some other time to be
specified by the court, to do the act required to be done to protect the rights of the
petitioner, and to pay the damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the
wrongful acts of the respondent. x x x x.
17 University of San Agustin, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 100588,

7 March 1994, 230 SCRA 761, 771, citations omitted.
665
VOL. 517, MARCH 7, 2007 665

“Mandamus will not issue to enforce a right, or to compel

compliance with a duty, which is questionable or over which a
substantial doubt exists. The principal function of the writ of
mandamus is to command and to expedite, not to inquire and to
adjudicate; thus, it is neither the office nor the aim of the writ to
secure a legal right but to implement that which is already
established. Unless the right
18
to the relief sought is unclouded,
mandamus will not issue.”
To support the assertion that petitioners have a clear legal

right to the enforcement of the ordinance, petitioner SJS
states that it is a political party registered with the
Commission on Elections and has its offices in Manila. It
claims to have many members who are residents of Manila.
The other petitioners, Cabigao and Tumbokon, are
allegedly residents of Manila.
We need not belabor this point. We have ruled in
previous cases that when a mandamus proceeding concerns
a public right and its object is to compel a public duty, the
people who are interested in the execution of the laws are
regarded as the real parties19
in interest and they need not
show any specific interest. Besides, as residents of Manila,
petitioners have a direct interest in the enforcement of the
city’s ordinances. Respondent never questioned the right of
petitioners to institute this proceeding.
On the other hand, the Local Government Code imposes
upon respondent the duty, as city mayor, to “enforce all
laws 20and ordinances relative to the governance of the
city.” One of these is Ordinance No. 8027. As the chief
executive of the city, he has the duty to enforce Ordinance
No. 8027 as long as it
_______________
18 BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc. v. Manikan, G.R. No. 148789, 16

January 2003, 395 SCRA 373, 375, citing Pacheco v. Court of Appeals, 389
Phil. 200; 333 SCRA 680 (2000).
19 Licaros v. Sandiganbayan, 421 Phil. 1075; 370 SCRA 394 (2001);
Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. L-72119, 29 May 1987, 150
SCRA 530, 536; Tañada v. Tuvera, G.R. No. L-63915, 24 April 1985, 136
SCRA 27, 36.
20 Supra note 13.
666

has not been

21
repealed by the Sanggunian or annulled by
the courts. He has no other choice. It is22 his ministerial
duty to do so. In Dimaporo v. Mitra, Jr., we stated the
reason for this:
“These officers cannot refuse to perform their duty on the ground

of an alleged invalidity of the statute imposing the duty. The
reason for this is obvious. It might seriously hinder the
transaction of public business if these officers were to be
permitted in all cases to question the constitutionality of statutes

and ordinances imposing duties upon them and which have not
judicially been declared unconstitutional. Officers of the
government from the highest23 to the lowest are creatures of the
law and are bound to obey it.”
The question now is whether the MOU entered into by

respondent with the oil companies and the subsequent
resolutions passed by the Sanggunian have made the
respondent’s duty to enforce Ordinance No. 8027 doubtful,
unclear or uncertain. This is also connected to the second
issue raised by petitioners, that is, whether the MOU and
Resolution Nos. 97, s. 2002 and 13, s. 2003 of the
Sanggunian can amend or repeal Ordinance No. 8027.
We need not resolve this issue. Assuming that the terms
of the MOU were inconsistent with Ordinance No. 8027,
the resolutions which ratified it and made it binding on the
City of Manila expressly gave it full force and effect only
until April 30, 2003. Thus, at present, there is nothing
that legally
24
hinders respondent from enforcing Ordinance
No. 8027.
_______________
21 Tuzon v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 90107, 21 August 1992, 212

SCRA 739, 747. According to respondent, the oil companies separately
filed actions for annulment of Ordinance No. 8027 which are now pending
before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branches 39 and 42; Rollo, p.
143.
22 G.R. No. 96859, 15 October 1991, 202 SCRA 779.
23 Id., p. 795, citing Cu Unjieng v. Patstone, 42 Phil. 818 (1922) and
Burton v. U.S., 202 U.S. 344.
24 According to respondent, a Temporary Restraining Order was issued
in the action filed by the oil companies to annul Ordi
667
VOL. 517, MARCH 7, 2007 667

Ordinance No. 8027 was enacted right after the

Philippines, along with the rest of the world, witnessed the
horror of the September 11, 2001 attack on the Twin
Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City. The
objective of the ordinance is to protect the residents of
Manila from the catastrophic devastation
25
that will surely
occur in case of a terrorist attack on the Pandacan
Terminals. No reason exists why such a protective measure

should be delayed.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED.
Respondent Hon. Jose L. Atienza, Jr., as mayor of the City
of Manila, is directed to immediately enforce Ordinance No.
8027.
SO ORDERED.
Puno (C.J., Chairperson), Sandoval-Gutierrez and

Garcia, JJ., concur.
Azcuna, J., On Official Leave.
Petition granted, Hon. Jose L. Atienza directed to

immediately enforce Ordinance No. 8027.
Note.—Persons who stand to lose their sources of

livelihood, a property right which is zealously protected by
the Constitution, have a direct and substantial interest in a
controversy which confers on them the requisite standing.
(Agan, Jr. vs. Philippine International Air Terminal Co.,
Inc., 402 SCRA 612 [2003])
——o0o——
_______________
nance No. 8027 (see note 21, supra); Rollo, p. 143. This presumably has
already lapsed.
25 This was alleged by petitioners and not refuted by respondent; Id.,
pp. 7 and 118.
668
© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

3b. Social Justice Society v. Atienza 517 SCRA 657

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

3b. Social Justice Society v. Atienza 517 SCRA 657

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1/9/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 517

VOL. 517, MARCH 7, 2007 657

SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY (SJS), VLADIMIR

Mandamus; A petition for mandamus may be filed when any

658 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Social Justice Society vs. Atienza, Jr.

Same; Locus Standi; When a mandamus proceeding concerns

Municipal Corporations; Local Government Units; The mayor,

Same; Same; Terrorism; No reason exists to delay the

VOL. 517, MARCH 7, 2007 659

Social Justice Society vs. Atienza, Jr.

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court.

1 Under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

660 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ordinance No. 8027 was enacted pursuant to the police

described as the power inherent in a government to enact

“SECTION 1. For the purpose of promoting sound urban planning

Ordinance No. 8027 reclassified the area described therein

5 Philtread Workers Union (PTWU) v. Confesor, 336 Phil. 375; 269

VOL. 517, MARCH 7, 2007 661

However, on June 26, 2002, the City of Manila and the

Section 1.—Consistent with the objectives stated above, the OIL

The City of Manila and the DOE, on the other hand,

6 Rollo, pp. 16–18. This MOU modified the Memorandum of Agreement

662 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Section 1.—The City Mayor shall endorse to the City Council

The Sangguniang7 Panlungsod ratified the MOU in

7 Entitled “Resolution Ratifying the Memorandum of Understanding

VOL. 517, MARCH 7, 2007 663

Resolution No.1013, s. 2003 also called for a reassessment of

Meanwhile, petitioners filed this original action for

1. whether respondent has the mandatory legal duty to enforce

Petitioners contend that respondent has the mandatory

Section 455. Chief Executive: Powers, Duties and Compensation.—x x x

14 Rollo, pp. 28 and 144.

664 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

it. He maintains that the MOU should be15 considered as a

15 Id., pp. 31 and 146–147.

SEC. 3. Petition for Mandamus.—When any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or

17 University of San Agustin, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 100588,

VOL. 517, MARCH 7, 2007 665

“Mandamus will not issue to enforce a right, or to compel

To support the assertion that petitioners have a clear legal

18 BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc. v. Manikan, G.R. No. 148789, 16

666 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

has not been

“These officers cannot refuse to perform their duty on the ground

permitted in all cases to question the constitutionality of statutes

The question now is whether the MOU entered into by

21 Tuzon v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 90107, 21 August 1992, 212

VOL. 517, MARCH 7, 2007 667

Ordinance No. 8027 was enacted right after the

Terminals. No reason exists why such a protective measure

Puno (C.J., Chairperson), Sandoval-Gutierrez and

Petition granted, Hon. Jose L. Atienza directed to

Note.—Persons who stand to lose their sources of

© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like