THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. ROGELIO FELISARTA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

For driving a rig without a driver’s license on the streets of the
city of Cebu Rogelio Felisarta was apprehended by a police officer and
subsequently charged in the Municipal Court with violation of City
Ordinance No. 65, Section 42, series of 1948. Convicted of the charge
and sentenced to pay a fine of P5.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in
case of insolvency, Felisarta appealed to the Court of First Instance
of Cebu, which sustained the judgment of conviction and increased the
fine to P15.00. The case is now before us on the legal question, raised
by appellant, concerning the validity of the provision of the ordinance
found violated.

Section 49 requires a rig driver to pay a driver’s license fee of
P1.00 for one year; Section 42 prohibits any person from “operating” a
rig without such license; and section 50 imposes a fine of not less
than five pesos nor more than thirty pesos, or a penalty of
imprisonment for not less than five days nor more than thirty days, for
violation of the requirement.

Appellant’s position is: (1) that the charter of the City of Cebu,
Commonwealth Act No. 58, particularly section 17 thereof which defines
the general powers and duties of the Municipal Board, or sub-section
(1) which enumerates the trades, businesses, occupations and
establishments subject to regulation and licensing, does not mention
the occupation of rig driver among them; and (2) that the validity of
the license fee in question can not be sustained under the general
welfare clause, section 2238 of the Revised Administrative Code.

Appellant’s first proposition may be conceded: rig drivers are not
included in the enumeration of occupations subject to licensing in
section 17 of Commonwealth Act No. 58, except possibly by rather remote
inference from the term “public vehicles” in subsection (1). However,
aside from the general grant of police power to municipal corporations
in section 2238 of the Administrative Code the charter of the City of
Cebu also authorizes its municipal board:

“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, and such others as may be necessary to carry into effect
and discharge the powers and duties conferred by this Act; and to fix
penalties for the violation of ordinances, which shall not exceed a
two-hundred peso fine or six months imprisonment, or both such fine and
imprisonment, for a single offense. (Sec. 17, sub-section (se).

Ordinance No. 65, entitled “An Ordinance Regulating Traffic
Operation of Rigs, Registration of Rig and Rig Drivers License,
Licensing of Push Cart Owners and The Carrying of Lights,” contains
detailed provisions concerning the use of city streets by such
conveyances, the movement and parking thereof, rights of way, loading
limitations, traffic signals and registration and collection of license
fees. The occupation of rig drivers is undoubtedly within the power of
the City of Cebu to regulate, involving as it does not only the use of
municipal property but also such matters of public interest as
sanitation and safety, good order, comfort, convenience and general
welfare of the city and its inhabitants. This premise established, the
pertinent question is whether or not in the exercise of such power of
regulation license fees may be validly imposed. Three classes of
municipal licenses are generally recognized: first, licenses for the
regulation of useful occupations and enterprises; second, licenses for
the regulation or restriction of non-useful occupations and
enterprises; third, licenses for revenue only. The first two classes
are based on the police power of the municipality, which carries with
it the right to fix license fees. The amount of license fees for the
first class is only that which may be sufficient to cover the expense
of issuing the license and the cost of necessary inspection or police
surveillance of the business. The license fees for the second class may
be much higher, as in the case of licenses for the sale of liquor. The
fee for the third class is not a license fee, strictly speaking. It
rests upon the taxing power and must be expressly granted by charter or
statute. Cu Unjieng vs. Patstone, 42 Phil. 818; Pacific Commercial Co. vs. Romualdez, 49 Phil. 917.

In the present case it is obvious that the license fee of PI.00 per
year imposed upon every rig driver is not intended to raise revenue but
only to defray the necessary expenses of registration and police
regulation. Appellant’s reliance on the decision of this Court in
Santos Lumber Co. et al. vs. City of Cebu et al. 104 Phil.
877; 55 Off. Gaz. (33) 6665, is misplaced, because the power exercised
by the city and held invalid therein is the power of taxation, which is
exclusively an attribute of the sovereign state unless conferred by
statute upon its political subdivisions.

The fine imposed by the court a quo upon appellant is in accordance with section 50 (a), in connection with section 42, of Ordinance No. 65 of the City of Cebu.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, and Regala, JJ., concur.