THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. MAXIMO N. CRUZ, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

People versus Cruz

The Case

This is People versus Cruz, a criminal appeal from a conviction for violating a municipal zoning ordinance of Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija. The accused, Maximo N. Cruz, was prosecuted for installing a motor engine inside a zone where the ordinance forbade such installation. The case matters because it is an early, clean statement of three rules a Bar candidate must carry: that municipal corporations may enact zonification ordinances in the exercise of police power; that within the zones so established the municipality may determine what machinery may be installed; and that a classification exempting certain engines from a prohibition is valid so long as it is just and reasonable and does not offend the equal protection clause.

Procedural History

Maximo N. Cruz was charged in the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija with a violation of Ordinance Number 4, series of 1928, of the municipality of Cabanatuan. The trial court convicted him and sentenced him to pay a fine of 200 pesos, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, plus costs. Cruz appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning as errors the failure of the lower court to declare the ordinance unconstitutional, discriminatory, unreasonable, and prohibitive of trade, the failure to declare it beyond the power of the municipal council to enact, the failure to declare that he was tried without due process of law, and the failure to declare that the machine in question was outside the zone of machineries.

Facts

The municipal council of Cabanatuan enacted Ordinance Number 4, series of 1928, establishing a machinery zone within the municipality. By resolution Number 327 of November 16, 1928, the council amended Section 2 of that ordinance. As amended, the ordinance provided that any kind of engine was not allowed to be installed within the limit of the machinery zone as defined by Section 1 of the original ordinance, with a proviso allowing all engines, machines, and apparatus to be used for the establishment, construction, and repairs of delco lights and cinematographs.

Maximo N. Cruz installed a motor engine within the zone. He was prosecuted for violating the ordinance as amended. At trial he was convicted and fined. On appeal he argued that the ordinance was unconstitutional and discriminatory, that the municipal council had no power to enact it, that he was denied due process because he was not given time to prepare his defense after arraignment, and that the machine in question was outside the zone.

Issues

• Whether or not the zoning ordinance, as amended, is unconstitutional for being unjust, unreasonable, discriminatory, and prohibitive of trade, and for depriving the accused of the equal protection of the laws.
• Whether or not the ordinance is beyond the power of the municipal council to enact, on the theory that the power to regulate does not include the power to prohibit.
• Whether or not the accused was tried and condemned without due process of law because he was not given time to prepare his defense after arraignment.
• Whether or not the machine in question was outside the zone of machineries.

Applicable Provisions

Section 2243, letter n, of the Revised Administrative Code, cited by the ordinance as its source of authority, provides:

By virtue of the authority of section 2243 (letter [n]) of the Revised Administrative Code, the Municipal Council of Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija, enacts:

This is the enabling provision the appellant invoked to argue that the council could regulate only steam boilers, not motor engines.

Section 2 of the amended ordinance provides:

Any kind of engines are not allowed to be installed within the limit of the machinery zone as it is clearly defined by section 1 of the Ordinance No. 4, above-mentioned: Provided, however, That all kind of engines, machines and apparatus to be used for the establishment, construction and repairs of any potency of "delco lights and cinematographs," are hereby allowed

This is the prohibition violated by the accused and the source of the classification he challenged as discriminatory.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the ordinance is not unconstitutional. It is settled that municipal corporations may, in the exercise of their police power, enact ordinances or regulations on zonification. The council of Cabanatuan was authorized to enact the ordinance within the powers granted by Section 2238 of the Revised Administrative Code. On the claim of discrimination, the Court held that the exception in favor of delco light and cinematograph engines is not unreasonable nor unjust, because there is a great difference between a motor engine for sawing wood and light and cinematograph machinery: the first is a nuisance due to the noise of its operation, whereas the second actually furnishes diversion and amusement. Such a classification being just and reasonable, the ordinance does not violate the accused's constitutional right to equality before the law.

On the second issue, the Court held that the contention that the council could regulate only steam boilers is untenable. Considering the activities of modern life and the progress of mechanical engineering, the authority must be construed to extend to motor engines, since both kinds of engines are dangerous in their handling and operation and have the same end, namely, the development of motive power for industrial purposes. On the argument that the power to regulate does not include the power to prohibit, the Court held that the ordinance does not prohibit the installation of motor engines within the municipality but only within the zone therein fixed. If the council is authorized to establish the zone, it is also authorized to provide what kind of engines may be installed therein. In banning the installation in the zone of all engines not excepted, the council did no more than regulate their installation by means of zonification.

On the third issue, the Court held that the due process question had already been decided in McMicking versus Schields. Moreover, it did not appear that the accused invoked the right granted to him by Section 30 of General Orders Number 68 to have at least two days within which to prepare for trial after arraignment and after he had entered the plea of not guilty.

On the fourth issue, the Court found no error in the sentence appealed from and affirmed it in its entirety.

Doctrine

Municipal corporations are empowered to enact zonification ordinances within their jurisdiction in the exercise of their police power. Within the zones so established, they may determine the kinds of machinery to be installed therein. The exception of the delco light and cinematograph motor engine from all other motor engines for industrial purposes is a just and reasonable classification. The power to regulate includes the power to prohibit within a fixed zone, because banning installation in the zone is itself a means of regulation by zonification. A classification is valid under the equal protection clause when it rests on real and substantial differences, as between a noisy sawing engine and machinery that furnishes diversion and amusement.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction in its entirety, with costs against the appellant.

Remember This

Memorize the three holdings: municipal councils may enact zoning ordinances under police power, may determine what machinery goes inside the zone, and may validly exempt delco light and cinematograph engines as a just and reasonable classification. Examiners use this case to test police power, the scope of municipal authority, and the equal protection clause in local legislation.