INSULAR MOTORS INCORPORATED, PETITIONER, VS. CITY OF MANILA AND JOSE GARRIDO, CITY ENGINEER, RESPONDENTS.

Insular Motors versus City of Manila

The Case

This is a petition for mandamus brought by Insular Motors Incorporated against the City of Manila and its city engineer, Jose Garrido. The company wanted to build on leased land in Intramuros and asked the Court to compel the city engineer to issue the building permit it had been refused. The case matters because it fixes the boundary of mandamus: a discretionary official act, such as the grant of a building permit, will not be commanded by the courts absent a clear legal right and a clear case of grave abuse.

Procedural History

The case began as an original action in the Supreme Court. There was no trial court and no intermediate appellate court. Insular Motors filed the petition for mandamus directly with the Supreme Court, and the parties submitted a stipulation of facts. The Court decided the petition on that stipulated record, denying it with costs against the petitioner.

Facts

The Dominican fathers granted Insular Motors a lease option over a parcel of land, lot 1-B-2, in Intramuros, Manila. On the strength of that option, the company prepared plans for the buildings it proposed to erect on the land.

Insular Motors submitted those plans to the city mayor and the city engineer, asking that they be approved and that the corresponding building permit be issued. After some correspondence between the parties, the application was denied.

The reason for the denial was the company's refusal to give a written promise that it would comply with the provisions of the zonification ordinance once that ordinance received final approval by the President of the Philippines. The ordinance was still pending approval at the time. Insular Motors then came to the Supreme Court to compel the city engineer to grant the permit.

Issues

• Whether or not mandamus lies to compel the city engineer of Manila to issue a building permit to Insular Motors.
• Whether or not the company had a clear legal right to the permit, and whether or not the law imposed on the city engineer an imperative duty to issue it.
• Whether or not the pendency of the zonification ordinance awaiting the President's approval altered the city engineer's duty.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote any statutory text. It rests on the settled rule governing the writ of mandamus, which the Court states in these words:

Mandamus issues only in cases where the petitioner hat a clear legal right to the thing demanded and where the law imposes the imperative duty upon the defendant to perform the act desired.

This rule is the whole measure of the case: without a clear right and an imperative duty, the writ cannot issue.

The Court also characterizes the city engineer's function in granting permits:

the function of the city engineer of the City of Manila, so far as it relates to the granting of permits, is discretionary which may not be controlled by mandamus except in clear cases of grave abuse.

Because the act is discretionary, it falls outside the ordinary reach of the writ.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that mandamus does not lie. The writ is extraordinary and issues only where the petitioner has a clear legal right to the thing demanded and the law imposes an imperative duty on the respondent to perform the act desired. Neither element was present.

On the second issue, the Court found that Insular Motors had not clearly established its right to the building permit. Nor had it shown that issuing the permit was an imperative duty imposed by law on the respondents or any of them. The city engineer's function in granting permits is discretionary, and a discretionary act may not be controlled by mandamus except in clear cases of grave abuse, which the record did not show.

On the third issue, the Court held that the fact that the proposed zonification ordinance was still pending approval by the President of the Philippines did not alter the situation. The discretionary character of the city engineer's function stood regardless of the ordinance's status.

Doctrine

Mandamus is a remedy of strict right. A Bar answer should state it as a rule: the writ issues only where the petitioner has a clear legal right to the thing demanded and the law imposes an imperative duty on the respondent to perform the act. Where the act sought is discretionary, mandamus will not control it except in clear cases of grave abuse. The grant of a building permit by the city engineer of Manila is such a discretionary function. The pendency of a zonification ordinance awaiting the President's approval does not convert that discretion into a ministerial duty.

Disposition

The petition was denied, with costs against Insular Motors.

Remember This

Memorize the pair: no clear legal right and no imperative duty means no mandamus, and discretion yields only to grave abuse. Examiners use this case to test the requisites of mandamus and the ministerial versus discretionary distinction in building permits and police power ordinances.