THE PHILIPPINE COOPERATIVE LIVESTOCK ASSOCIATION, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. TOMAS EARNSHAW, MAYOR FOR THE CITY OF MANILA, AND VICTOR ALFONSO, CITY TREASURER, RESPONDENTS AND …

The Insular Government for many years has owned and maintained two
slaughterhouses, one in Pandacan and the other at Sisiman. Formerly
they were used both as quarantine stations and slaughterhouse of cattle
imported into this country. The last permit to import cattle for the
purpose of slaughter expired in May, 1930. No future permit was
contemplated as it was thought that the local cattle industry has
prospered to such an extent as to be able to supply local demand.

On April 1, 1930, the Director of Animal Industry, with the approval of
the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, issued an
administrative order making the slaughterhouse at Pandacan a public
slaughterhouse.

The City of Manila owns a slaughterhouse
from which it derives considerable revenue. The rates the Insular
Government charges for slaughtering at Pandacan are less than the City
of Manila charges in its Manila plant, and the Philippine Cooperative
Livestock Association, whose organization and business is thoroughly
indicated by its title, desires to utilize the Insular plant at
Pandacan for slaughtering the cattle of its members for the sale of
meat in the Manila markets.

The City of Manila by an
ordinance approved March 5, 1932, amended section 995 of the Revised
Ordinances so as to prohibit in effect the use of the Pandacan
Slaughterhouse for privately owned cattle, and the city officials have
arbitrarily refused to grant to the Philippine Cooperative Livestock
Association or its members licenses under sections 653 and 654 of the
Revised Ordinances.

The city and insular officials not being
able to reconcile their differences, both parties appeared in the Court
of First Instance of Manila praying for injunction against the adverse
side.

The basic questions involved in these cases may be stated as follows:

1. Can the officers of the City of Manila forbid and stop the Philippine
   Cooperative Livestock Association, or any of its members, from selling
   fresh meat or refrigerated beef in duly licensed stores within the city
   limits, including public markets, on the mere ground that the meat was
   obtained from private cattle slaughtered at the Insular Slaughterhouse
   at Pandacan, Manila?

2. Can the
   City of Manila enjoin the Insular Government from slaughtering or
   causing to be slaughtered in the Pandacan Slaughterhouse, or any other
   slaughterhouse established, maintained, and operated by the Bureau of
   Animal Industry, privately owned cattle?

The trial
court answered both questions in the negative, and against this ruling
the City of Manila has filed the present appeal.

The
decision of the trial court is a clear and correct statement of the
facts and law applicable to this case, so we will not go into the case
in detail, but will briefly discuss a couple of the more important
questions raised by this appeal.

The questions are
determined by the reading of Act No. 2758, as amended by Act No. 3632,
the material portions being section 1 and section 3, which read:

” ‘SECTION 1. For the purpose of promoting the breeding and propagation of large cattle and other domestic animals in the Islands and of furnishing the same to the public on economical terms for improved breeding, agricultural work or for consumption, the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, through the Bureau of Agriculture (now Bureau of Animal Industry), is hereby authorized to establish equip, operate and maintain breeding stations, slaughterhouses
and stock herds and farms for the same in such places as may be deemed
appropriate therefor and beneficial to the industry. Subject to the
general executive supervision and control of the Secretary of
Agriculture and Natural Resources, the Director of Agriculture (Animal
Industry) shall have the immediate direction and administration of the
stock farms, slaughterhouses and breeding stations herein authorized
and shall, with the prior approval of said Secretary, make and
prescribe such rules and regulations as may be considered convenient or
necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.’ “

” ‘SEC. 3. The Director of Agriculture (Animal Industry) may order the slaughter or sale for agricultural, propagation, or breeding purposes, or for consumption, or the renting or loaning for breeding purposes, of
the animals purchased under the last preceding section and of those
belonging to the herds and breeding stations the establishment whereof
is authorized by this Act which may not be necessary for the
maintenance and development of the same, subject to existing
regulations and to such as may hereafter be promulgated by the said
Director with the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources; and all the income therefrom shall constitute a special
reimbursable fund to be denominated “stock farm, slaughterhouse and
breeding station fund,” which may be expended by the Director of
Agriculture (Animal Industry), with the approval of the Secretary of
Agriculture and Natural Resources, for the same purposes, and in the
same manner as the original appropriation, until the Legislature shall
otherwise provide.’ “

It is contended by
the city that section 3 is words of limitation on section 1. The trial
court held that section 1 was unlimited so far as the present questions
are concerned, and section 3, instead of being words of limitation, is
a grant of additional authority.

Executive officers have the
right to maintain and care for Government property, but they have no
right to dispose of Government property without a legislative mandate.
Therefore, the grant of power in section 3 was necessary for the
executive officials to sell or otherwise dispose of the Government
cattle, and the purpose of section 3 is, therefore, a grant and not a
limitation upon the general powers given in section 1.

The
contention of the city that it has exclusive control of the sale of
meat within the city limits by virtue of its grant in its franchise is
without merit. The City of Manila is a subordinate body to the Insular
Government, created by the Insular Government, and subject to the
control of the Insular Government. When the Insular Government adopts a
policy a municipality is without legal authority to nullify and set at
naught the action of the superior authority. It might well be pointed
out that the ordinances in question relate to public health, and a
resort to alleged health ordinances for the purpose of raising revenue
is apt to result in arbitrary acts and an illegal assertion of
authority that can be checked by the courts.

For the above reasons, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, with the costs against appellants. So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Malcolm, Villa-Real, and Imperial, JJ., concur.