Primary Holding

Shopping mall operators cannot be legally compelled to provide free parking spaces to their patrons and the general public under the National Building Code and its Implementing Rules and Regulations.

Background

The case arose from a Senate investigation into the legality of shopping malls charging parking fees. The Senate Committees concluded that charging parking fees was contrary to the National Building Code and recommended the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to enjoin the practice. Subsequently, the OSG filed a petition seeking to prohibit mall operators from collecting parking fees, arguing that the National Building Code impliedly mandates free parking.

Facts

• 1. Respondents Ayala Land, Robinsons Land, Shangri-La Plaza, and SM Prime operate shopping malls in Metro Manila and provide parking facilities for customers.
• 2. These mall operators charge parking fees at varying rates.
• 3. The Senate Committees on Trade and Commerce and on Justice and Human Rights conducted investigations and issued Senate Committee Report No. 225, concluding that collecting parking fees by shopping malls was illegal under the National Building Code.
• 4. The Senate Committees recommended that the OSG enjoin the collection of parking fees.
• 5. The OSG, acting on the Senate's recommendation, filed a petition arguing that the National Building Code requires malls to provide free parking.
• 6. Mall operators argued they are private entities, own and maintain the parking facilities, and are entitled to collect fees for their use.

Arguments of the Petitioners

• 1. The National Building Code and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (particularly Section 803 and Rule XIX) should be interpreted to require shopping malls to provide free parking spaces.
• 2. Section 102 of the National Building Code, declaring the policy to safeguard public welfare, supports the interpretation that parking should be free to alleviate traffic and serve public interest.
• 3. Collecting parking fees is contrary to public policy and the spirit of the National Building Code.
• 4. The power to regulate building use and occupancy includes the power to impose or remove fees related to parking.

Arguments of the Respondents

• 1. The National Building Code and its IRR do not explicitly require free parking; they only mandate the provision of parking spaces.
• 2. Rule XIX of the IRR merely specifies parking space requirements based on building use and area, not the pricing of parking.
• 3. Imposing free parking would constitute unlawful taking of private property without just compensation, as parking facilities are privately owned and operated by the mall operators at their own expense.
• 4. The power to regulate does not extend to confiscation; prohibiting parking fees goes beyond reasonable regulation and amounts to taking of property rights.

Issues

• 1. Whether the Office of the Solicitor General has the legal capacity to institute the action.
• 2. Whether declaratory relief is proper in this case.
• 3. Whether respondents Ayala Land, Robinsons Land, Shangri-La Plaza, and SM Prime are obligated to provide free parking spaces in their malls under the National Building Code and its IRR.
• 4. Whether the collection of parking fees by mall operators is illegal and violates the National Building Code.

Ruling

• 1. The Supreme Court ruled against the OSG, affirming the lower courts' decisions.
• 2. The Court held that the National Building Code and its IRR do not explicitly mandate free parking.
• 3. Statutory construction dictates that if a law is clear, it should be applied literally. Section 803 and Rule XIX are clear in requiring parking spaces but silent on fees.
• 4. The Court found no implied obligation for free parking within the provisions of the National Building Code.
• 5. Mandating free parking would constitute a taking of private property without just compensation, violating the mall operators' property rights.
• 6. The State's police power to regulate does not extend to confiscation or prohibition of collecting fees for privately owned parking facilities.

Doctrines

• 1. Statutory Construction: If a statute is clear and unambiguous, it should be applied literally without interpretation.
• 2. Police Power vs. Eminent Domain: Police power regulates property for public welfare without compensation, while eminent domain takes property for public use with just compensation. Prohibiting parking fees is considered a taking, not mere regulation under police power.
• 3. Non-Presumption of Obligations Derived from Law: Obligations derived from law are not presumed but must be expressly stated in the law. Article 1158 of the Civil Code was cited to emphasize this point.
• 4. Rule-making Power of Administrative Agencies: Administrative rules must be confined to implementing the law and cannot expand or amend the law itself.

Key Excerpts

• 1. "Obligations derived from law are not presumed. Only those expressly determined in this Code or in special laws are demandable and shall be regulated by the precepts of the law which establishes them..." (Article 1158 of the Civil Code)
• 2. "Police power is the power of promoting the public welfare by restraining and regulating the use of liberty and property. It is usually exerted in order to merely regulate the use and enjoyment of the property of the owner. The power to regulate, however, does not include the power to prohibit."

Precedents Cited

• 1. Republic v. Gonzales and City of Ozamis v. Lumapas: Cited by the OSG to argue for the State's power to regulate parking for public welfare, but distinguished by the Court as involving parking on public streets, not private parking facilities.
• 2. City Government of Quezon City v. Judge Ericta: Used to illustrate that requiring private cemeteries to provide free burial grounds for paupers is an unconstitutional taking of property without just compensation, analogous to requiring free parking.
• 3. Soria v. Desierto and Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals and Acebedo Optical Company, Inc. v. Court of Appeals and Republic v. Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines and Ty v. Trampe and Republic of the Philippines v. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company: Cited for various points on statutory construction, police power, and regulatory fees.

Statutory and Constitutional Provisions

• 1. Section 803, National Building Code of the Philippines (Presidential Decree No. 1096): Percentage of Site Occupancy.
• 2. Section 102, National Building Code of the Philippines (Presidential Decree No. 1096): Declaration of Policy.
• 3. Rule XIX, Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of the National Building Code: Parking and Loading Space Requirements.
• 4. Section 201, National Building Code of the Philippines (Presidential Decree No. 1096): Enforcement and Administration of the Code.
• 5. Section 803, National Building Code of the Philippines (Presidential Decree No. 1096): Percentage of Site Occupancy.
• 6. Article 1158, New Civil Code: Obligations derived from law are not presumed.
• 7. Rule 45, Revised Rules of Court: Petition for Review on Certiorari.
• 8. Rule 63, Revised Rules of Court: Declaratory Relief.
• 9. Section 35, Chapter XII, Title III, Book IV of Executive Order No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987): Powers and Functions of the Office of the Solicitor General.
• 10. Presidential Decree No. 478: Enumerate the powers and functions of the OSG.
• 11. Republic Act No. 7394 (Consumer Act of the Philippines).
• 12. Republic Act No. 537 (Revised Charter of Quezon City).
• 13. Batas Pambansa Blg. 337 (Local Government Code).
• 14. Presidential Decree No. 1096, Section 211.