Office Of the Solicitor General Vs.

Ayala Land Corporation,

Limitations of Rule-Making Power
OSG Vs. Ayala Land, Inc.
Facts:
Respondents are operators of shopping malls.
Ayala Land Inc.
Robinson Land Corporation
Shangri-la Plaza Corporation
SM Prime Holdings
Collect Parking Fees subject to their parking rate for he use
of their parking facilities for its maintenance.
In 1999 The senate Committees on Trade and Commerce
and on Justice and Human Rights conducted a joint
investigation:
Legality of charging parking fees
Basis and reasonableness
Legality of the policy




OSG Vs. Ayala Land, Inc.
After the public hearing, the senate committee concluded
that collection of parking fee is contrary to the National
Building Code and is illegal (Committee Report 225).
Article II of R.A. No. 7394 (Consumer Act of the Philippines)
provides that "it is the policy of the State to protect the
interest of the consumers, promote the general welfare and
establish standards of conduct for business and industry
The following recommendation was made:
The OSG should institute the necessary actions (National
Building Code)
The DTI should enforce the provisions of RA 7394 relative to
parking and implement necessary IRR
Congress to amend the National Building Code




OSG Vs. Ayala Land, Inc.
Two civil case arise and being the same subject matter
the RTC Makati issued an order to consolidate the case.
RTC ruled that the respondents are not obligated to
provide parking spaces that are free of charge for the
Building Code do not impose it.
Article 1158 of the civil code states:
Obligations derived from law are not presumed. Only
those expressly determined in this Code or in special laws
are demandable
To compel them to do so would be an unlawful taking
of property without just compensation
CA Affirmed the decision of the RTC



OSG Vs. Ayala Land, Inc.
Issue:
WON Section 803 of the National Building
Code and Rule XIX of the IRR can be construed
to obliged respondents to provide free parking
to its customers?
OSG Vs. Ayala Land, Inc.
Ruling
No. The court affirmed the previous decisions by the RTC and CA that respondents are
not obliged to provide free parking to their customers.

Held:
There is nothing in the law therein pertaining to the collection(or non-collection)
of parking fees by respondents.
the term "parking fees cannot even be found at all in the entire National Building
Code and its IRR.
Statutory construction has it that if a statute is clear and unequivocal, it must be
given its literal meaning and applied without any attempt at interpretation
The OSG cannot claim that Rule XIX of the IRR also mandates that such parking
spaces be provided by building owners free of charge.
If Rule XIX is not covered by the enabling law, then it cannot be added to or included in the
implementing rules. The rule-making power of administrative agencies must be confined to
details for regulating the mode or proceedings to carry into effect the law as it has been
enacted, and it cannot be extended to amend or expand the statutory requirements or to
embrace matters not covered by the statute