RICARDO CRUZ, PETITIONER, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, LOPE S. OCAMPO, FEDERICO TUAZON, LEON SANTOS, ANGELINA LABRADOR, CIRIACA STO. TOMAS, VICTORIA ANONOY, CIPRIANA GONGON, CARLO…

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the
decision of the Court of Appeals declaring that the Padre Rada
Market remains a public market under government supervision and control and
that the private respondent-vendors be maintained in the premises.

The private respondents instituted a class suit before the then
Court of First Instance of Manila,
Branch VIII in behalf of the vendors and regular stall holders in Padre Rada Market for annulment with preliminary
injunction against the then Manila Mayor Antonio J. Villegas, petitioner Cruz,
and other persons whose names were
unknown to them.

The complaint prayed,
among others, that the defendant
City Mayor’s decision to withdraw Padre Rada Market as a public market be declared null and void.

Petitioner Ricardo Cruz
states that he and his business
associates Elpidio Talastas,
Feliciana Alcantara and others have been the owners
and operators of the Padre Rada Market at Tondo, Manila for more than twenty-five (25) years.

The market was authorized
to be operated as a public market of the City of Manila by virtue of Resolution No.
230, as amended by Resolution No. 406, both series of 1949.

On May 26, 1970, the
management of said market represented by petitioner Cruz wrote Mayor Villegas
that the management was
withdrawing three-fourths of the
area of the market “from the direct supervision and control of the City
Treasurer’s Office effective on June 15, 1970, and from said date the withdrawn
portion shall cease to function and operate as a public
market.” The respondent-vendors, who were likewise
notified of such withdrawal, protested such move.

After several exchanges
of referrals, indorsements, and communications, Mayor Villegas allowed the withdrawal in the light of the Court of Appeals’ decision in CA-G. R. Nos. 39999-R, and 40000-R upholding the right of
the operators of the Elcano Market to withdraw their
property from its use as a public market stating, among others, that approval for the
withdrawal by the City of Manila is not even necessary.  Motions for reconsiderations were
denied.  Hence, herein private
respondents instituted Civil Case No. 80773.

The lower court rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:

“IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered as
follows:

“(a)    declaring as valid the
decision of defendant City Mayor A. Villegas
withdrawing Padre Rada Market as a public market;

“(b)    declaring legal and
valid defendant Operator’s Notice of Withdrawal of said market as public
market;

“(c)    vacating and setting
aside the writ of preliminary injunction issued by this Court an November 6,
1970;

“(d)    dismissing plaintiff’s
complaint;

“(e)    as to defendants’
counterclaim, plaintiffs and the Manila Underwriters Insurance Co., Inc. of Manila, are hereby
ordered to pay, jointly and severally, defendant Ricardo Cruz and his
associates named in paragraph 3 of the partial stipulation of facts, the
additional amount of P210.00 daily by way of actual damages for the period from
November, 1970 until the 840 stalls are returned to defendants;

“(f)     ordering
plaintiffs to pay defendant Cruz and his associates the sum of P5,000.00 as
attorney’s fees, plus the costs.

“And in this connection, the liability of the Surety, Manila
Underwriters Insurance Co., Inc. of Manila,
shall not exceed P10,000.00, and plaintiffs are ordered to reimburse the Surety
whatever the latter may pay to defendants.” (Rollo,
pp.72-73)

Acting on the private
respondents’ motion for reconsideration, the trial court later amended its
decision as follows:

“IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, only number (e) of the dispositive portion of the decision is hereby modified, to
read as follows:

“(e)    as to defendants’
counterclaim, plaintiffs and the Manila Underwriters Insurance Co.,
Inc. of Manila, are hereby ordered to pay, jointly and severally, defendant
Ricardo Cruz and his associates named in paragraph 3 of the partial stipulation
of facts, the additional amount of P50.00 daily by way of actual damages for
the period from November, 1970, until the 840 stalls are returned to
defendants.’

The other portions of the dispositive part of the decision remain in full force and
effect.” (Rollo, pp. 76-77)

On appeal, the respondent
Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the lower court’s decision and instead
denied the withdrawal by the Manila City Mayor of
government-control and supervision “until legal conditions and equitable
justification for the withdrawal by private parties obtain.” A subsequent
motion for reconsideration was denied.

Hence, this present
petition.

The questions raised by the petitioners are:

“First.  — Is a
resolution of the then Municipal Board of Manila necessary and indispensable
for the purpose of effecting the withdrawal of the Padre Rada
Market as a public market or temporary ‘talipapa‘?  And, if such a resolution is necessary, as
held by the Court of Appeals, how has such ruling been affected by the
dissolution of the Municipal Board of Manila?

“Second.  — Will
the withdrawal of the Padre Rada Market from further
use as a public market or a temporary ‘talipapa‘
violate Republic Act No. 6039?

Third.  — Can the
Court of Appeals simply ignore the earlier decision it promulgated on May 16,
1970 in CA-G.R. Nos. 39999-R and 40000-R (Pacita Sta.
Rosa, et al., v. M. Cudiamat, etc., et al., and Jose San Jose, et al., v. M. Cudiamat, etc., et al., respectively), when the legality
and correctness of the doctrine laid down in said decision (penned by then
Associate Justice Carmelino G. Alvendia
and concurred in by then Associate Justices Cecilia Munoz Palma and Andres
Reyes) have been virtually sustained by this Honorable Court when it denied due
course to the petition for review by certiorari filed by the losing
appellants in G. R. Nos. L- 32187-88 (Pacita Sta.
Rosa, et al. v. M. Cudiamat, etc., et al.), per
resolution dated August 12, 1970?  (Rec, on App., pp.
142-156).

Fourth.  Does the
Court of Appeals have the power to compel petitioner to continue operating the
Padre Rada Market as a public market or temporary ‘talipapa‘ notwithstanding the fact that petitioner and his business associates have
been incurring substantial losses as a consequence of such operation under present conditions and circumstances?” (Rollo, 16-17)

The main issue
centers on whether or not the City Mayor may validly withdraw Padre Rada Market as a public market.

The answer is in the
negative.

The Municipal Board of
Manila with the approval of then Mayor Manuel de la Fuente authorized the disputed premises
to be operated as a public market under its direct control and
supervision as embodied in Resolution No. 230, amended by Resolution No. 406,
both series of 1949.

The Municipal Board acted
pursuant to its legislative powers vested by Republic Act No. 409 (Revised Charter
of the City of Manila), particularly Sec. 18(cc) which provides:

“Legislative powers.  –
The Municipal Board shall have the following legislative powers:

“(cc) Subject to the provisions of ordinances issued by the
Department of Health in accordance with law, to provide for the establishment
and maintenance and fix the fees for the use of, and regulate public stables,
laundries, and baths, and public markets and slaughterhouses, and prohibit or
permit the establishment or operation within the city limits of public markets
and slaughterhouses by any person, entity, association, or corporation other
than the city.” (45 O.G. 4265)

The respondent Court of
Appeals held that Mayor Villegas had
no authority to allow such withdrawal as “it is axiomatic that only the
power that created it can withdraw it.”

On the other hand, the petitioner contends that the Padre Rada Market was not
created but merely authorized to operate as a public market by the
Municipal Board.  Accordingly, there is
nothing in the said resolutions which obligates or compels petitioner Cruz and
his business associates to continue operating the said market for as long as
the Municipal Board desires it.

The records show that the
petitioner wants to convert the major portion of the Padre Rada
Market into a private market to enable him to raise the rentals for the
stalls.  It is obvious that he wants to
remove the market from the control and supervision of city authorities.  The private respondents also contend that to
remove three-fourths of the market from its status as a public market would
practically result in the total withdrawal of the entire market.  The remaining one fourth is no longer
being used by the owner for its avowed purpose.

By the very nature of a market*, its
location, opening, operations, and closure must be regulated by government.  It is not a question of the petitioner’s
right to run his market as he pleases but what agency or office should
supervise its operations.

We agree with the Court of Appeals that the Mayor had no legal authority to, by
himself, allow the petitioner to
withdraw the major portion of Padre Rada Market from
its use as a public market, thereby also withdrawing it from the city’s
constant supervision.

The establishment and maintenance of public markets is by law
among the legislative powers of the City of Manila.  Since the operation of Padre Rada Market was
authorized by a municipal board resolution and approved by the City Mayor, as
provided by law, it follows that a withdrawal of the whole or any portion from
use as a public market must be subject to the same joint action of the Board
and the Mayor.  The Mayor of Manila, by
himself, cannot provide for the opening, operations, and closure of a public
market.

The withdrawal from the
market’s public status was in fact objected to by the Manila City Treasurer and
the Market Administrator in their memorandums and indorsements
to the Mayor.  The market administrator
opposed the withdrawal as it
involved the displacement of numerous vendors (Record on Appeal, p. 35).  At least 840 market stalls are involved. 
The city treasurer pointed out that the withdrawal would result in
a diminution of city revenues.

Moreover, the city
treasurer brought to the Mayor’s attention Sec. 1, III (2) of Republic Act No.
6039, amending the Revised Charter of the City of Manila, which provides:

x x x                          x x x                             x x x

“2)           City-owned and
operated public markets shall not be disposed of, closed, destroyed, sold or
transferred until all vendors therein shall have been relocated or transferred by
the city government at its expense to another temporary or new public
market:  Provided, however, That notice
of the city’s such intention or plans shall be made to all concerned vendors at
least one hundred twenty days before the actual transfer or relocation to
another market site:  Provided, further,
That all such temporarily relocated vendors shall be given preference and
priority to occupy stalls in the new site as provided for under paragraph II
(5) and III (1).” (66 O.G. 3694)

The Court of Appeals held
that the withdrawal violated the above-mentioned provision.

It stated:

“The lower court held that the following provision of Republic
6039:

” ‘City-owned and operated public markets shall not be
disposed of, closed x x x
or transferred until all vendors therein shall have been relocated or
transferred by the city government at its expenses to another temporary or new
public market.’ “

was not violated because –

” ‘x x x That provision applies
solely to city-owned and operated public market, but the Padre Rada
Market was not city-owned.

“Such construction of the law is too technical.  The conjunction ‘and’ is not used in a
restricted sense.  It means
‘additional’.  The City of Manila
has two public markets:  city owned and
city operated.  It would be unthinkable
that the law would restrict the coverage of its application for protection of
public market vendors to only those public
markets owned and operated by the City and not those in city-owned but
not city-operated or city-operated but not city-owned public markets.” (Rollo, pp. 53-54)

The petitioner alleges
otherwise, stating that said provision is not applicable to the Padre Rada Market, it being a privately-owned and privately-operated public market under the control and
supervision of the City of Manila.  The fact that all
privately-owned public markets are under government supervision and control do
not make them city-operated public markets.

There is no question that
the Padre Rada Market is a public market as it was
authorized to operate and it operates as such.

A market is a
“public market” when it is dedicated to the service of the general
public and is operated under government control and supervision as a public utility, whether it
be owned by the government or any instrumentality thereof or by any private individual.  It is a settled doctrine
that a “public market may
be the object of individual ownership or lease, subject to municipal
supervision and control.” (43 C.J. 394). 
Thus, if a market has been permitted to operate under government license for service to the
general public, it is a “public market” whether the building that
houses it or the land upon which it is built is of private or public
ownership.  (Vda.
de Salgado v. De la Fuente, 87 Phil. 343).

The Padre Rada Market is, therefore, a public market which happens to
be privately-owned and privately operated.

The petitioner contends
that even assuming arguendo that another resolution was necessary for the
withdrawal from use as a public market, the same could not be passed due to the
dissolution of the Municipal Board of Manila.

The dissolution of the
Municipal Board was among the measures which followed the promulgation of
martial law.  It did not follow, however,
that the City Mayor automatically became both executive and legislature of the
local government.  He was never
vested with legislative power.  The
answer to the petitioner’s arguments is found in Presidential Decree
No. 824 enacted on November 7, 1975 creating the Metropolitan Manila Commission.

Section 4 (5) of said decree provides:

“The Commission shall have the following powers and functions:

x x x                                  x
x x                             x x x

“5)     To review, amend, revise or repeal all
ordinances, resolutions and
acts of cities and municipalities within Metropolitan Manila.”
(Underscoring supplied).  (Vital Legal
Documents, Vol 29, pp. 26-27).

Therefore, the
Metropolitan Manila Commission took over the legislative functions of the
Municipal Board of Manila.

It was not within the
mayor’s authority to allow the questioned withdrawal.

As earlier stated, the
intention of the operators of the Padre Rada market
is very clear.  The withdrawal from its status as a public market is to operate the market without government
control and supervision but not to discontinue operating as a market.

This can be gleaned from
the notice sent to the respondent vendors.

It states:

“P
A T A L A S T A S

“Sa Mga Manininda Ng Pamilihang Padre Rada:

“Mapitagan
naming ipinaaalam sa
inyo na mula sa Hunyo 15, 1970, ang Padre Rada Market ay hindi na
aandar o magpapatuloy bilang isang pamilihang bayan o public
market.  Nagpadala
na po kami
ng kaukulang kalatas sa mabunying Gatpuno ng Lunsod, Kgg.
Antonio J. Villegas.

“Dahilan sa
hindi na po maniningil sa
loob ng palengke
ang mga kolektor
(ng gobyerno) o kinatawan ng Ingat-Yaman
ng Lunsod, ang lahat po ng maninindang may puesto sa loob ay dapat
kumuha ng permiso (Mayor’s Permit) at lisensya
upang makapangalakal kayo nang naaayon sa
batas.  May nakalaan pong ‘porma‘ sa aming upisina para sa inyong
kaluwagan at kami po’y nakahanda tumulong sa pagsasaayos
ng inyong pangangailangan tungkol dito.

“Kaya, kung hangad po ninyong magpatuloy sa pagtitinda at
pangangalakal sa
loob ng pamilihang Padre Rada
nang walang balakid ay mangyari lang na kumuha
ng kinakailangang permiso at lisensya bago sumapit ang
Hunyo 15, 1970.

“Sumasainyo,

“(SGD.) RICARDO
CRUZ”

(Underscoring supplied; pp. 30-31, Record
on Appeal).

The Padre Rada Market is a public market and as such should be subject to the local government’s
supervision and control.  Its conversion
into a private market or its
closure must follow the procedures laid down by law.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack
of merit.  The questioned decision of the
Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.

Fernan, (Chairman), Feliciano, Bidin, and Cortes,
JJ., concur.

* We are not concerned here with
the type of self-service retail outlets known as supermarkets often belonging
to a chain and owned and operated by the
retailer itself.  We deal with the
common open markets or “palengke“, known to
all Filipinos, with dry and wet sections, foodstalls,
fruit and vegetable sections, etc., where the retailers or market stall operators are lessees who pay fixed rents for the use of market
space.