GORDON VS.

VERIDIANO II 167 SCRA 51 CRUZ; November 8, 1988 FACTS - The San Sebastian Drug Store (SSDS) and the Olongapo City Drug Store (OCDS), both owned by respondent Rosalinda Yambao, are located a few meters from each other in the same building in Olongapo City. They were covered by Mayor's Permits issued for the year 1980 and licenses to operate issued by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the same year. - In 1980, a joint team of agents from the FDA and narcotics agents from the Philippine Constabulary conducted a "test buy" at SSDS and was sold 200 tablets of Valium 10 mg. worth P410 without a doctor's prescription. A report on the operation was submitted to Mayor Richard Gordon of Olongapo City. He issued a letter summarily revoking the stores Mayor's Permit of SSDS "for rampant violation of the Pharmacy Law and the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972." - Acting on the same investigation report of the "test-buy," and after hearing, FDA Administrator Arsenio Regala directed the closure of the drug store for 3 days and its payment of a P100 fine for violation of R.A. 3720. He also issued a stern warning to Yambao against a repetition of the infraction. Later, the FDA lifted its closure order after noting that the penalties imposed had already been discharged and allowed the drug store to resume operations. Valium is not a prohibited drug, which is why the penalty imposed was only a 3-day closure and a fine of P100. - Yambao wrote a letter to Mayor Gordon seeking reconsideration of the revocation of the Mayor's Permit. Having received no reply, she filed with the RTC of Olongapo City a complaint for mandamus and damages, with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction, against Mayor Gordon. On the same day, Yambao requested permission from the FDA to exchange the locations of the two stores for reasons of "business preference." The request was granted but Mayor Gordon disapproved the transfers and suspended the Mayor's Permit for the OCDS. The CFI issued a writ of preliminary prohibitory injunction against Mayor Gordon. ISSUE WON Mayor Gordon may, in the exercise of his power, prevent the operation of the drug stores previously permitted by the FDA. HELD NO (SSDS) and YES (OCDS). Ratio The power to approve a license includes by implication, even if not expressly granted, the power to revoke it. By extension, the power to revoke is limited by the authority to grant the license, from which it is derived in the first place. Reasoning If the FDA grants a license upon its finding that the applicant drug store has complied with the requirements of the general laws and the implementing administrative rules and regulations, it is only for their violation that the FDA may revoke the said license. By the same token, having granted the permit upon his ascertainment that the conditions as applied particularly to Olongapo City have been complied with, it is only for the violation of such conditions that the mayor may revoke the said permit. - In this case, the closure of the San Sebastian Drug Store was ordered by the FDA for violation of its own conditions, which it had the primary power to enforce. By revoking the mayor's permit on the same ground for which the SSDS had already been penalized by the FDA, the mayor was in effect reversing the decision of the latter on a matter that came under its jurisdiction. As the infraction involved the pharmacy and drug laws which the FDA had the direct responsibility to execute, the mayor had no authority to interpose his own findings on the matter and substitute them for the decision already made by the FDA. - It would have been different if the offense condoned by the FDA was a violation of a city ordinance. The city executive may ignore such condonation and revoke the mayor's permit just the same. In this situation, he would be acting properly because the enforcement of the city ordinance is his own prerogative. In this case, the condition allegedly violated related to a national law, not to a matter of merely local concern, and so came under the jurisdiction of the FD A. - Factual findings of administrative authorities are accorded great respect because of their acknowledged expertise in the fields of specialization to which they are assigned. Even the courts of justice, including this Court, are concluded by such findings in the absence of a clear showing of a grave abuse of discretion, which is not present in the case at bar. For all his experience in the enf orcement of city ordinances, Mayor Gordon cannot claim the superior aptitudes of the FDA in the enforcement of the pharmacy and drug addiction laws. He should therefore also be prepared, like the courts of justice themselves, to accept its decisions on this matter. - It is also worth noting that the San Sebastian Drug Store was penalized by the FDA only after a hearing at which Yambao appeared and testified. By contrast, the revocation of the mayor's permit was merely communicated to her in a letter without any hearing. If only for the violation of due process, the mayor's arbitrary action can be annulled.

- The indefinite suspension of the mayor's permit for Olongapo City Drug Store was based on its transfer to the site of the SSDS as approved by the FDA but without permission from the mayor. On this matter, the Court believes that the final decision rested with the mayor. The condition violated related more to the location in Olongapo City of business establishments in general than to the regulation of drug stores in particular. It therefore came under Mayor Gordon's jurisdiction. - The reason for disapproving the transfer was the violation of the Mayor's Permit which by its terms was valid only at the place stated therein. We find that that reason was valid enough. The permit clearly allowed the drug store to operate in the address given and not elsewhere. No hearing was necessary because the transfer without the mayor's permission is not disputed and was in fact impliedly admitted by Yambao. The Mayor's Permit for SSDS could also have been validly suspended for the same reason were it not for the fact that such permit was revoked on the more serious ground of violation of the Pharmacy Law and the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. - It is understood, however, that the suspension should be deemed valid only as the two drug stores have not returned to their original sites as specified in their respective permits. Indefinite suspension will amount to a permanent revocation, which will not be a commensurate penalty with the degree of the violation being penalized. The Court adds that the request for transfer, if properly made, may not be validly denied in the absence of a clear showing that the transfer sought will prejudice the residents of the city. As the two drug stores are only a few meters from each other, and in the same building, there would seem to be no reason why the mere exchange of their locations should not be permitted. Dispositive Orders of the CFI MODIFIED in the sense that suspension of Mayor's Permit for OCDS considered valid but only until the two drug stores return to their original sites as specified in the FDA licenses and the mayor's permits or until the request for transfer, if made, is approved by the petitioner. The rest of the said Orders are AFFIRMED. Lagman vs. City of Manila 17 SCRA 579 (1966) Facts: Petitioner was granted a certificate of public convenience by the Public service Commission to operate for public service fifteen (15) auti trucks with fixed routes and regular terminal for the transportation of passengers and freight. Pursuant to the said certificate, petitioner who is doing business under the name and style of Marco Transit, began operating twelve (12) passenger buses alo ng his authorized line. On june 17, 1964, the Municipal Board of respondent City of Manila, in pursuance to section 18, paragraph hh, of RA no. 409, as amended (otherwise known as the Revised Charter of the City of Manila), enacted ordinance no. 4986, enti tled an ordinance Rerouting Traffic on Roads and Streets within the City of Manila, and for other purposes, which the city mayor approved. The pertinent provisions of said ordinance includes; Section 1. As a positive measure to relieve the critical congestion in the City of Manila, which has grown to alarming and emergency proportions, and in the best interest of public welfare and convenience, xxx Petitioner Lagman claims that the enactment and enforcement of ordinance no. 4986 is unconstitutional, illegal, ultra vires, and null and void. He contends that regulation and control relating to the use of and traffic of which are vested, under Commonwealth Act no. 548, in the Director of Public Works, subject to the approval of the Secretary of Public Works and Communications. He also contends that the public Service Commission has the only right to enact Ordinance amending or modifying a certificate of public convenience granted by the said office. In compliance with Sec. 16(m), public service Act. Issue: WON R.A. no. 409, as amended (Revised charter of the City of Manila) prevails over Commonwealth Act no. 598 and Public Service law (C.A. no. 146, as amended)? Held: Republic act no. 409 prevails. The said act is a special law and of later enactment than C.A. no 548 and the Public Service law (C.A. no 146, as amended) so that even if a conflict exist between the provisions of the former and the latter acts, Republic Act no. 409 should prevail. Although the Public Service Commission is empowered, under Sec. 16(m) of C.A. no 146 to amend, modify or revoke certificates of public convenience after notice and hearing, there is no provision which can be found in this statute vesting power in the Public Service Commission to superintend, regulate or control the streets of the city of manila or suspend its power to license or prohibit the occupancy thereof. On the other hand, this authority is conferred upon the city of manila. The power vested in the public service commission under section 16(m) is, therefore, subordinate to the authority granted to the said city under section 18(hh) of its revised charter. Furthermore, C.A. no. 548 does not confer an exclusive power or authority upon the Director of public works------to promulgate rules and regulations relating to the use of and traffic on national roads and streets. This being the case, section 18(m) of the revised charter of the city of manila is deemed enacted as an exception to the provisions of C.A. no. 548, for repeals by implication are not favored, and special law must be taken as intended to constitute an exception to the general law, in the absence of special circumstances forcing a contrary conclusion. Wherefore, petition for prohibition is hereby dismissed. With cost against petitioner Benedicto C. Lagman.

http://lawfacilitate.wikispaces.com