Tatel vs virac

Tatel v. Municipality of Virac (PubCorp Case Digest 1)

The purpose is to avoid the loss of life and property in case of fire which is one of the primordial obligation of government. And the purpose of the ordinance is to avoid loss of life and property in case of accidental fire which is one of the primordial and basic obligation of any government.

In holding that Tatel vs virac No. Seeking appellate review, petitioner raised as errors of the court a quo: We find no merit in the Petition.

Decided Cases by the Supreme Court

No undue restraint is placed upon the petitioner or for anybody to engage in trade but merely a prohibition from storing inflammable products in the warehouse because of the danger of fire to the lives and properties of the people residing in the vicinity. We find no merit in the Petition.

Provided however, that the power of eminent domain may not be exercised unless a valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner, and such offer was not accepted: Respondent municipal officials contend that petitioner's warehouse was constructed in violation of Ordinance No.

These principles require that a municipal ordinance 1 must not contravene the Constitution or any statute 2 must not be unfair or oppressive 3 must not be partial or discriminatory 4 must not prohibit but may regulate trade 5 must be general and consistent with public policy, and 6 must not be unreasonable.

The courts cannot even adopt a hands-off policy simply because public use or public purpose is invoked by an ordinance, or just compensation has been fixed and determined. It appears from the records that on the basis of complaints received from the residents of barrio Sta. The municipal council shall enact such ordinances and make such regulations, not repugnant to law, as may be necessary to carry into effect and discharge the powers and duties conferred upon it by law and such as shall seem necessary and proper to provide for the health and safety, promote the prosperity, improve the morals, peace, good order, comfort and convenience of the municipality and the inhabitants thereof, and for the protection of property therein.

No undue restraint is placed upon the petitioner or for anybody to engage in trade but merely a prohibition from storing inflammable products in the warehouse because of the danger of fire to the lives and properties of the people residing in the vicinity.

With costs against petitioner". This was also the observation of the trial court: Priorities in the Acquisition of Land. Local government units have no inherent power of eminent domain and can exercise it only when expressly authorized by the legislature. Under Section 2, existing warehouses for the storage of theprohibited articles were given one year after the approval of the ordinancewithin which to remove them but were allowed to remain in operation if theyhad ceased to store such prohibited articles.

It merely stated the purpose of theordinance and what it intends to prohibit to accomplish its purpose. In holding that Ordinance No. These principles require that an ordinance 1 must not contravene the Constitution or any statute 2 must not be unfair or oppressive 3 must not be partial or discriminatory 4 must not prohibit but may regulate trade 5 must be general and consistent with public policy, and 6 must not be unreasonable.

Its authority emanates from the general welfare clause under the Administrative Code, which reads: As far as public policy is concerned, there can be no better policy than what has been conceived by the municipal government.

Jurisprudence to 7Clearly, the lower court did NOT add meaning other than or different fromwhat provided in the ordinance in question.As held in Tatel vs. Virac, ordinances should not contravene an existing statute enacted by Congress. The reasons for this is obvious, as elucidated in Magtajas v.

Pryce Properties Corp. View k Tatel v Municiaplity of dfaduke.com from LAW 1 at San Beda College Manila - (Mendiola, Manila). TodayisThursday,December17, RepublicofthePhilippines SUPREMECOURT Manila ENBANC dfaduke.com CELESTINO TATEL, petitioner, vs.

MUNICIPALITY OF VIRAC, SALVADOR A. SURTIDA, in his capacity as Mayor of Virac, Catanduanes; GAVINO V. GUERRERO, in his capacity as Vice-Mayor of Virac, Catanduanes; JOSE T. BUEBOS, in his capacity as Councilor of Virac, Catanduanes; ANGELES TABLIZO, in his capacity as Councilor of Virac, Catanduanes; ELPIDIO T.

The lower court did not err in its decision. 13 was passed by the Municipal Council of Virac in the exercise of its police power.

3) must not be partial or discriminatory. The purpose of the said ordinance is to avoid the loss of property and life in case of fire which. ´╗┐TATEL VS. MUNICIPALITY OF VIRAC [ SCRA ; G.R. No. ; 11 Mar ] Facts: Petitioner Celestino Tatel owns a warehouse in barrio Sta.

Elena, Municipality of Virac. Complaints were received by the municipality concerning the disturbance caused by the operation of the abaca bailing machine inside petitioner's warehouse. A committee was. D E C I S I O N NOCON, J.: This is a Petition for Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction with the Court of First Instance of Catanduanes.

filed by appellant, Celestino Tatel, a businessman engaged in the import and export of abaca and other products against the Municipal Council of Virac, Catanduanes and its municipal officials enjoining them from enforcing Resolution No. 29 1 of the Council.

Download
Tatel vs virac
Rated 0/5 based on 80 review