United States vs. Abendan

A municipal sanitation ordinance enacted pursuant to statutory authority is valid unless it contravenes the fundamental law, an act of the legislature, public policy, or is unreasonable, oppressive, partial, discriminating, or in derogation of common right.

The City of Cebu, pursuant to its authority under paragraph (jj) of section 39 of the Municipal Code, enacted ordinances relating to sanitation and public health. Article 6 of the municipal ordinances of Cebu, as amended by Article 3 of Municipal Ordinance No. 111, imposed upon the owner, agent, or other person in possession and control of any lot, building, or place declared to be in bad sanitary condition the duty to comply with duly issued orders requiring repairs, improvements, alterations, or necessary construction within a specified time not exceeding sixty days. Abendan was the owner of a house in Cebu City occupied by multiple families and their workmen, making sanitation regulation a matter of public health concern.

Gregorio Abendan owned a house in the City of Cebu occupied by multiple families and their workmen. A Chinese tinner and his family of three lived in the lower part of the house, along with two to six workmen who remained in the tienda throughout the day. A Filipino silversmith with his family and three or four workmen also occupied the lower portion. An American family resided in the upper part. There was no closet in the lower part of the house aside from the one whose installation was ordered.

On or about October 26, William Pauly, the chief sanitary inspector of the City of Cebu, inspected Abendan's house and found it in an unsanitary condition. Pauly issued an order — for the second time — requiring Abendan to perform the following work: (1) to put a ventilator in the closet in the upper part of the house and install a closet in the lower part; (2) to put a bell-trap in the kitchen in the lower part; and (3) to put a bell-trap in the kitchen in the upper part. Pauly noted that water collected on the floor and eventually ran out onto adjoining lots, making some construction for water discharge necessary. He found no dirt or excrement during his inspections, nor did he observe the occupants dirtying or committing nuisances on the lower floor.

Abendan partially complied with the order but failed to complete the required work. He did not install the bell-traps required under paragraphs 2 and 3, nor did he comply with any part of paragraph 1 — he neither placed the ventilator in the closet in the upper part nor installed a closet below. The failure to comply with the remaining requirements of the order was admitted. Abendan introduced substantially no proof in his defense, and the evidence against him was undisputed.

• Unreasonableness and Oppressiveness: Appellant contended that Municipal Ordinance No. 105 of the City of Cebu was unreasonable and oppressive, and therefore invalid.

• Validity of the Ordinance: Whether Municipal Ordinance No. 105 of the City of Cebu is unreasonable and oppressive, and therefore invalid.

• Validity of the Ordinance: No. The ordinance is a valid exercise of municipal authority, being clearly within the purview of the statute authorizing it, and containing no provision contrary to the fundamental law or acts of the Legislature, nor oppressive or unreasonable on its face or as applied to the defendant.

• Validity of the Ordinance: The City of Cebu had full authority from the Legislature to enact ordinances relating to sanitation and public health pursuant to paragraph (jj) of section 39 of the Municipal Code. An ordinance enacted under such authority is valid unless it contravenes the fundamental law of the Philippine Islands, an act of the Philippine Legislature, public policy, or is unreasonable, oppressive, partial, discriminating, or in derogation of common right. Where the power to legislate upon a given subject and the mode of its exercise are not prescribed, the ordinance must be a reasonable exercise of the power or it will be pronounced invalid. Even if an ordinance does not contravene a constitution or statute and is within the scope of charter powers, it may still be declared void if oppressive, unfair, partial, or discriminating, whether this appears on its face or from proof aliunde. The ordinance in question, while general in its terms, disclosed no provision against the fundamental law or legislative act, nor was it oppressive or unreasonable on its face. As applied to Abendan, the undisputed evidence sufficiently warranted the order: the house was occupied by multiple families and workmen, lacked adequate closet and drainage facilities, and water collected on floors and ran onto adjoining lots. Abendan introduced substantially no proof showing that he was treated differently from other persons in the locality, required to do what others had not been required to do, discriminated against in the application of the ordinance, or that the application was oppressive or unreasonable in his particular case. The failure to comply was admitted.

• Validity of Municipal Ordinances — A municipal ordinance enacted pursuant to statutory authority is valid unless it contravenes the fundamental law, an act of the legislature, public policy, or is unreasonable, oppressive, partial, discriminating, or in derogation of common right. Where the power to legislate upon a given subject and the mode of its exercise and the details of such legislation are not prescribed, the ordinance must be a reasonable exercise of the power or it will be pronounced invalid. Even if an ordinance does not contravene a constitution or statute and is within the scope of charter powers, it may still be declared unreasonable and void if it is oppressive, unfair, partial, or discriminating, whether this appears from its face or from proof aliunde. The Court applied this doctrine by examining the ordinance both on its face and as applied to Abendan's circumstances, finding neither facial nor as-applied invalidity, and noting that unreasonable persons may try to apply a valid ordinance in an unreasonable manner, but that does not render the ordinance itself defective.

• "It appearing that the city of Cebu at the time this ordinance was enacted had full authority from the Legislature to enact an ordinance upon the subject embraced within it, such ordinance is valid, unless it contravenes the fundamental law of the Philippine Islands, or an Act of the Philippine Legislature, or unless it is against public policy, or is unreasonable, oppressive, partial, discriminating, or in derogation of common right." — This passage articulates the controlling standard for testing the validity of municipal ordinances, serving as the ratio decidendi of the case.
• "Where the power to legislate upon a given subject, and the mode of its exercise and the details of such legislation are not prescribed, the ordinance passed pursuant thereto must be a reasonable exercise of the power, or it will be pronounced invalid." — This defines the reasonableness requirement for ordinances enacted under general statutory grants of authority, a principle frequently cited in subsequent municipal law jurisprudence.
• "Although ordinances may not contravene a constitution or statute and may be within the scope of charter powers, yet, if they seem to the court oppressive, unfair, partial, or discriminating, they are declared unreasonable and void, whether this appear from their face or from proof aliunde." — This establishes that facial validity under charter powers is not sufficient; ordinances may still be invalidated for being oppressive or discriminatory, whether on their face or as applied.

• Le Feber vs. West Allis, 119 Wis., 608, 100 Am. St. Rep., 917 — Cited as authority for the proposition that where legislative power and the mode of its exercise are not prescribed, the ordinance must be a reasonable exercise of the power or it will be invalid.
• Coal-Float vs. Jeffersonville, 112 Ind., 15 — Cited alongside Le Feber for the same proposition regarding the reasonableness requirement.
• Lake View vs. Tate, 130 Ill., 247 — Cited for the proposition that ordinances within charter powers may still be declared void if oppressive, unfair, partial, or discriminating.
• State vs. Mahner, 43 La. Ann., 496 — Cited among several American cases supporting the rule that facial validity does not preclude invalidation for oppression or discrimination.

• Article 6, Municipal Ordinances of Cebu (as amended by Article 3 of Municipal Ordinance No. 111) — Imposes on the owner, agent, or other person in possession and control of any lot, building, or place declared to be in bad sanitary condition the duty to comply with duly issued orders requiring repairs, improvements, alterations, or necessary construction within a specified time not exceeding sixty days. Applied to Abendan's obligation to make sanitary repairs to his house after the chief sanitary inspector declared it in bad sanitary condition.
• Paragraph (jj), Section 39, Municipal Code — Authorizes municipalities to make ordinances and regulations, not repugnant to law, necessary for the health, safety, prosperity, morals, peace, good order, comfort, and convenience of the municipality and its inhabitants, and to enforce obedience with lawful fines or penalties. Served as the statutory basis for the City of Cebu's authority to enact the sanitation ordinance upheld in this case.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, J., and Mapa, J., concurred.

• Trent, J. — Dissented on the ground that, the Court having found the ordinance valid, the appeal should have been dismissed with costs against the appellant, without determining whether Abendan had actually violated the ordinance's provisions. The dissent thus took issue with the Court's reaching the factual question of violation rather than limiting the disposition to the ordinance's validity.
• Johnson, J. — Dissented, stating that the appeal should have been dismissed rather than affirmed, without elaborating further on the reasoning.