CO KIAM AND LEE BAN, IN THEIR OWN BEHALF AND IN BEHALF OF ALL MEAT DEALERS SELLING OUTSIDE PUBLIC MARKETS, PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLEES, VS. THE CITY OF MANILA, THE MAYOR, AND THE C…

This is an action to annul Ordinance No. 3563 of the City of Manila, which
was enacted in March, 1953, to ban the sale of fresh meat outside of the city
markets.

Plaintiffs are Chinese citizens doing business in the city, selling both
fresh and refrigerated meat in their stores outside the city markets. At the
time the ordinance in question was enacted, there was already an ordinance—No.
3555 —forbidding the sale of fresh meat around the city markets within 200
meters from the boundaries thereof, and, to comply with that ordinance,
plaintiffs had their stores located at more than that distance from any city
market. But the new ordinance repeals that other ordinance and prohibits the
sale of fresh meat anywhere outside of the city markets, thus making it illegal
for plaintiffs to continue vending fresh meat in their aforementioned stores.
Plaintiffs, therefore, in behalf of themselves and of others similarly situated,
brought the present action in the Court of First Instance of Manila to have the
new ordinance declared null and void, to enjoin its enforcement and to compel
the Mayor to issue licenses permitting them to continue selling meat under the
terms of the former ordinance.

Upholding the validity of Ordinance No. 3563, the city authorities resisted
the action, and in this they were joined by the intervenors who, as vendors of
fresh meat in the city market stalls or as members of trade organizations
advocating nationalization of the retail trade, claim to have an interest in the
litigation. After hearing, the lower court rendered a decision declaring the
ordinance in question null and void, permanently enjoining its enforcement and
commanding the Mayor to issue licenses to plaintiffs to enable them to “continue
their business as vendors of fresh meat in the City of Manila outside the
distance of two hundred (200) meters from any public market.” From this
decision, the city and the intervenors have appealed directly to this Court.

Section 1 of the challenged ordinance reads:

“Section 1. It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or offer for sale
fresh meat outside of the city public markets: Provided, That this Ordinance
shall not apply to cold storage meat imported from foreign countries or from any
province, town, barrio or other place of the Philippines when such meat is duly
marked and accompanied by a certificate showing that the animals furnishing the
meat have been subject to an ante-mortem and post-mortem examination and found
good for human consumption by a veterinarian of the Bureau of Animal Industry,
and when said cold storage meat has been kept for not less than twenty days in
any establishment duly equipped for cold storing meat and other food
products.”

On behalf of the defendants the ordinance is sought to be justified as a
legitimate exercise of the police power to meet the menace posed by the
clandestine sale of meat from diseased animals. By confining the sale of meat
within the city public markets, inspection is facilitated and trafficking in
meat that is unfit for human consumption will be minimized if not totally
suppressed. Very enlightening is the following letter of the City Health Officer
to the mayor:

“His Honor, the Mayor
Manila

Sir:

“In compliance with your instructions given in your memorandum of even date,
I have the honor to give hereunder comments on the sale of meat outside of
public markets.

“No animal shall be slaughtered for food without ante-mortem examination.
(Art. Ill, Sec. 4, Adm. Order No. 9, Dept. of Agriculture and Commerce). It is
unlawful to sell or offer for sale the meat of animals not slaughtered in the
City Slaughterhouse. (Ord. 3472). There are, however, many unscrupulous persons
who, regardless of what happens to public health violate these regulations by
slaughtering animals privately without the benefit of veterinary inspection and
sell the meat thereof clandestinely to the public. Very often the ‘hot’ meat
sold is unfit for human consumption. This clandestine business therefore poses a
grave and serious threat to the public health. It thrives, in spite of the
combined and unrelenting efforts of the Manila Police Department, the City
Department of Finance and this Department to curb and suppress it, because of
the circumstance that fresh meat is allowed to be sold anywhere in the city. The
wide territory to be covered makes it extremely difficult for the few meat
inspectors of this Office, the fewer policemen assigned to meat apprehension and
the agents of the City Treasurer to combat this menace.

“If the sale of fresh meat were allowed only in specified places such as in
public markets (as Ordinance No. 3563 would), it will be much easier to inspect
and examine meat intended for human consumption. The chances of the public
buying and consuming diseased meat will be greatly minimized if not totally
eliminated. Public health will thereby be more thoroughly safeguarded and
protected.

“On the other hand, as it is the case now, it is extremely difficult to
examine and inspect all the meat sold by numerous establishments and persons in
widely scattered places in the city. Under this circumstance, the chances are
great for diseased and clandestine meat to find its way to the dining tables of
city residents.

“In view of the foregoing, at least from the standpoint of public health, it
would be a sound regulatory measure to allow the sale of fresh meat only in
public markets. As already stated above, this will facilitate meat inspection
work with the result that the health of the people will be more properly
safeguarded. It will be easier to apprehend dealers on ‘hot’ or clandestine
meat.

Very respectfully,

(Sgd.) M. C. ICASIANO
City Health
Officer“

The City of Manila is expressly authorized by its charter (Republic Act 409)
to establish, maintain and regulate public markets and slaughterhouses and
prohibit or permit the establishment or operation thereof by private persons
[section 18, paragraph (cc)]. It is also specifically empowered to
regulate the sale of meat [section 18, paragraph (1) ]. And in addition, it has
the authority in the exercise of its police power under the general welfare
clause [section 18, paragraph (kk)] “to enact all ordinances it may
deem necessary and proper for the sanitation and safety, the furtherance of the
prosperity, and the promotion of the morality, peace, good order, comfort,
convenience, and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants.”

In the case of People vs. Montil, 53 Phil., 580, this Court
sustained the validity of a municipal ordinance prohibiting the sale of pork
outside of the public market. Again, in the case of People vs. Sabarre,
et al., 65 Phil., 684, this Court also upheld a municipal ordinance
which “prohibits butchers and any other person from selling meat in any place
except in the public market.” Similar ordinances have likewise been declared
valid in other jurisdictions. [St. Martinville vs. Bugas, 103 S. 761;
Morano vs. The Mayor, 2 La. 217; New Orleans vs, Faber, 105
La. 212, and Winnsboro vs. Smart, 11 Rich. (S. C.) 551.] In the last
case cited, it was held that under the power to make ordinances respecting
markets, health and good order of the town, a municipal corporation may by
ordinance prohi- bit the sale of butcher’s meat within the corporate limits
except at the public market and that such an ordinance is not in restraint of
trade, but in regulation thereof, and does not violate the ordinary rights of
the citizen.

The trial court declared the ordinance in question void on the theory that a
legitimate business like that of selling fresh meat may be regulated but not
entirely prohibited since the power to regulate does not include the power to
prohibit. But it is obvious that the ordinance does not prohibit the business of
vending fresh meat. What it does prohibit is the sale of that commodity outside
of the public markets. In other words, the ordinance merely localizes the sale
of fresh meat, confining the sale to the city public markets with a view to
facilitating police inspection and supervision in the interest of public
health.

It is urged on behalf of the plaintiffs-appellees that the enforcement of the
ordinance would deprive them of their lawful occupation and means of livelihood
because they can not rent stalls in the public markets. But it appears that
plaintiffs are also dealers in refrigerated or cold storage meat, the sale of
which outside the city markets under certain conditions is permitted. Plaintiffs
may likewise sell other commodities or engage in other gainful pursuits. And
surely, the mere fact that some individuals in the community may be deprived of
their present business or a particular mode of earning a living can not prevent
the exercise of the police power. As was said in a case, persons licensed to.
pursue occupations which may in the public need and interest be affected by the
exercise of the police power embark in those occupations subject to the
disadvantages which may result from the legal exercise of that power. (City of
New Orleans vs. Stafford, 27 L. Ann. 417.)

We are not impressed by the plea that there are not enough facilities for the
sale of fresh meat in the public markets of Manila, apprised as we are that the
city already has 14 markets and 17 talipapas (temporary markets).
Moreover, what would constitute sufficient facilities in relation to the
ever-changing public need is more a matter for legislative determination. And
considering that stalls in the public markets produce revenue in the form of
rents paid by their occupants, it is illogical to suppose that the city
government would not establish additional stalls should there be actual need for
more.

Our conclusion is that the ordinance here in question is within the power of
the City of Manila to enact. The decision appealed from is, therefore, reversed
and plaintiffs’ complaint dismissed, with costs.

Paras, C.J., Pablo, Bengzon, Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Labrador,
Concepcion, and Reyes, J.B.L., JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed.