University of the East vs. City of Manila

Zoning regulations promulgated by an administrative commission cannot take effect unless adopted as an ordinance by the local legislative body, and the delegation of power to issue such regulations is invalid absent sufficient standards or rules of action in the enabling law.

The University of the East sought to construct a four-story high school building on its lot on Gastambide Street, Sampaloc, Manila. The National Planning Commission had adopted and promulgated Zoning Regulations on March 18, 1953, pursuant to authority derived from Executive Order No. 98 (series of 1946) and Executive Order No. 367, the latter issued by President Quirino under Republic Act No. 442, which consolidated the National Urban Planning Commission, the Capital City Planning Commission, and the Real Property Board into a single body. The City of Manila had its own Zonification Ordinance No. 2830, as amended by Ordinance No. 2906. The Municipal Board of Manila is the local legislative body of the City under Republic Act No. 409 (the Revised Charter of Manila).

On September 4, 1953, the University of the East filed with the City Engineer of Manila an application for a permit to construct a four-story high school building on its lot on Gastambide Street, Sampaloc, Manila. The plans and specifications, prepared by the university's architect, conformed to the provisions of Zonification Ordinance No. 2830, as amended by Ordinance No. 2906 of the City of Manila, but did not conform to the requirements of the Zoning Regulations adopted and promulgated by the National Planning Commission on March 18, 1953. Section 43, paragraph (c) of those Zoning Regulations prescribed a minimum depth of six meters for the front yard, five meters wide for side yards, and a minimum depth of six meters for the rear yard.

The City Engineer notified the university to prepare plans and specifications in conformity with the Zoning Regulations of the National Planning Commission. When the university failed to amend its plans and specifications as required, the City Engineer refused to issue the permit. The university thereupon brought an action for mandamus in the Court of First Instance of Manila to compel the City Engineer to issue the permit.

Judge Rafael Amparo rendered a decision declaring the Zoning Regulations of the National Planning Commission null and void and ordering the City Engineer to issue the permit. The City of Manila and the City Engineer appealed to the Supreme Court. The appellants argued that Executive Order No. 98 was promulgated under the President's emergency powers before Congress convened in regular session after the war, and that when President Quirino issued Executive Order No. 367 under Republic Act No. 442, consolidating the National Urban Planning Commission into the National Planning Commission, the powers conferred on the former by Executive Order No. 98 were thereby transferred to the latter.

However, it was an undisputed fact, alleged in the petition and not denied by the appellants, that the Zoning Regulations for the City of Manila had not been adopted as a city ordinance by the Municipal Board of Manila as required by section 17 of Republic Act No. 409. The Municipal Board had even protested against the zoning regulations as promulgated by the National Planning Commission and recommended that a public hearing be conducted before final action, given the far-reaching effects of the regulations on property owners and persons engaged in construction.

• Transfer of Authority: Respondents-appellants argued that Executive Order No. 98 was promulgated under the President's emergency powers before Congress first convened in regular session after the war, and that when President Quirino issued Executive Order No. 367 under Republic Act No. 442, he consolidated the National Urban Planning Commission into the National Planning Commission, thereby transferring the powers conferred on the former by Executive Order No. 98 to the latter.

• Validity of Zoning Regulations: Whether the Zoning Regulations adopted and promulgated by the National Planning Commission on March 18, 1953, are null and void.
• Mandamus / Issuance of Permit: Whether the City Engineer should be ordered to issue the corresponding building permit in accordance with the plans and specifications submitted by the petitioner, which do not conform to the said Zoning Regulations.

• Validity of Zoning Regulations: Yes, the Zoning Regulations are null and void. They never took effect because the Municipal Board of Manila, the local legislative body, did not adopt them as a city ordinance — an essential requisite prescribed by Executive Orders Nos. 98 and 367 — and in fact protested against them.
• Mandamus / Issuance of Permit: Yes. The City Engineer was properly ordered to issue the permit, the Zoning Regulations being without force and effect.

• Validity of Zoning Regulations: Section 7 of Executive Order No. 98 provides that any resolution of the Commission adopting zoning regulations shall be filed with the President of the legislative body having jurisdiction over the affected area, and unless that legislative body disapproves the resolution by a three-fourths vote within 30 days, it takes effect. Section 4 of Executive Order No. 367 similarly requires that the Building Code or zoning regulations be submitted to local legislative bodies for adoption in the form of ordinances. The Municipal Board of Manila is the local legislative body of the City. It was an undisputed fact that the Zoning Regulations had not been adopted as a city ordinance by the Municipal Board, which instead protested against them and recommended public hearings. Because this essential requisite was not complied with, the regulations were of no force and effect. Additionally, the issuance of zoning regulations affecting important and valuable property rights throughout the country could not be delegated to an administrative commission without specific standards and limitations to guide it in the exercise of its wide discretion. Citing People vs. Vera, the Court reaffirmed that an act of the legislature is incomplete and invalid if it does not lay down any rule or definite standard by which the administrative officer or board may be guided in the exercise of the discretionary powers delegated to it.
• Mandamus / Issuance of Permit: Because the Zoning Regulations were null and void for failure to satisfy the statutory requisites and for invalid delegation, the City Engineer had no legal basis to refuse the building permit on the ground of non-conformity with those regulations. The lower court's order to issue the permit was therefore proper.

• Non-Delegation Doctrine (Sufficiency of Standards) — An act of the legislature is incomplete and invalid if it does not lay down any rule or definite standard by which the administrative officer or board may be guided in the exercise of the discretionary powers delegated to it. The rationale revolves around the presence or absence of a standard or rule of action in the statute. The Court applied this doctrine to invalidate the delegation of power to the National Planning Commission to promulgate zoning regulations affecting valuable property rights nationwide, because the enabling executive orders lacked specific standards and limitations to guide the commission in exercising its broad discretion.
• Requisite of Local Legislative Adoption for Zoning Regulations — Under Executive Orders Nos. 98 and 367, zoning regulations promulgated by the National Planning Commission must be filed with and adopted by the local legislative body as an ordinance before they take effect. The Court held that the Municipal Board of Manila's failure to adopt the regulations — and its express protest against them — meant the essential requisite was not satisfied, rendering the regulations without force and effect.

• "Consequently, the above-mentioned zoning regulations having been rejected by the Municipal Board of the City of Manila are of no force and effect as one of the essential requisites prescribed by Executive Orders Nos. 98 and 367 has not been complied with." — This passage states the ratio decidendi on the first ground: the zoning regulations never took effect because the local legislative body did not adopt them as required.
• "Moreover, the issuance of such zoning regulations which affect very important and valuable property rights throughout the whole country, cannot be delegated to an administrative commission without specific standards and limitations to guide the commission in the exercise of the wide discretion granted to it." — This passage articulates the second independent ground for nullification: the delegation lacked sufficient standards, invoking the non-delegation doctrine.
• "As a rule, an act of the legislature is incomplete and hence invalid if it does not lay down any rule or definite standard by which the administrative officer or board may be guided in the exercise of the discretionary powers delegated to it." — Quoted from People vs. Vera, this is the canonical formulation of the sufficiency-of-standards test relied upon by the Court.

• People vs. Vera, 65 Phil. 56, 116 — Cited as controlling authority for the proposition that delegation of legislative power to administrative bodies is invalid absent a sufficient standard or rule of action in the enabling law. The Court quoted its formulation of the non-delegation doctrine and applied it to the delegation of zoning authority to the National Planning Commission.

• Section 7, Executive Order No. 98 (series of 1946) — Provides the legal status of zoning regulations: any resolution adopting zoning regulations must be filed with the President of the legislative body having jurisdiction over the affected area, and unless disapproved by a three-fourths vote within 30 days, it takes effect and supersedes similar local regulations. The Court found this requisite was not satisfied because the Municipal Board of Manila never adopted the regulations.
• Section 4, Executive Order No. 367 — Requires that the Building Code and zoning regulations be submitted to local legislative bodies for adoption in the form of ordinances, and that they take effect in the same manner as zoning or subdivision regulations. The Court applied this provision to confirm that local legislative adoption was an essential prerequisite to the regulations' effectivity.
• Section 17, Republic Act No. 409 (Revised Charter of Manila) — Referenced as the statutory basis requiring that zoning regulations for the City of Manila be adopted as a city ordinance by the Municipal Board, which did not occur.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Concepcion, and Reyes, J.B.L., JJ., concurred.