PRIMICIAS VS

MUNICIPALITY OF URDANETA
93 SCRA 462
No. L-26702, October 18, 1979

Presented by:
MA. RHEA C. OLEDAN
LLB-IB
JUAN AUGUSTO B. PRIMICIAS,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

VS.

THE MUNICIPALITY OF URDANETA, PANGASINAN,

MAYOR PEREZ, POLICE CHIEF SUYAT, JUDGE
SERRANO, AND PATROLMAN ANDRADA,
DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS .
I. SYLLABUS: STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION

1. To be valid, an ordinance must not contravene the

statute.
2. Requisites necessary for a municipal to pass a
valid ordinance regulating a traffic highway.
3. Regulatory ordinances must be clear and certain.
4. Can a writ of injunction can restrain the
proceedings in a criminal case?
II. FACTS:

On February 8, 1965 Juan Augusto B. Primicias,

plaintiff appellee, was driving a car within the
jurisdiction of Urdaneta when he was asked to stop
by Urdanetas Municipal Police. He was told that he
had violated Municipal Ordinance No.3, Series of
1964 and more particularly, for overtaking a truck.
His license was surrendered to the authority and he
was issued a temporary operators permit.
Thereafter, a criminal complaint against him for
violation of Ordinance No. 3, Series
II. FACTS: (CONT)

of 1964. Due to the criminal case filed against

him, he initiated an action of annulment of said
ordinance with the prayer of the issuance of
preliminary injunction for the purpose of
restraining defendants from enforcing the
ordinance. After trial, the Court of First Instance
rendered the questioned decision holding that the
ordinance was null and void and had been
repealed by RA No. 4136, otherwise known as the
Land Transportation and Traffic Code.
II. FACTS: (CONT)

Now defendants, appellants herein, alleged that the

lower court erred in and contending that the
Ordinance is valid, as it was patterned after and based
on Section 53, par 4 of Act No.3992 as amended
(Revised Motor Vehicle Law). The appellants failed to
note that this act has been superseded by RA No.
4136, the Land Transportation and Traffic Code.
III. ISSUES:

1. Whether the Municipality Ordinance No.3, Series of

1964 is valid.
2. Whether there are requisites necessary for a
municipal to pass a valid ordinance regulating a
traffic in a highway.
3. Whether regulatory ordinance must be clear and
definite.
4. Whether a writ of injunction can restrain the
proceedings in criminal case No. 3140.
III. RULINGS:

1. Municipal Ordinance No.3, Series of 1964 was

declared null and void by the CFI by reason that
it has been repealed by RA 4136 otherwise known
as the Land Transportation and Traffic Code.
As essential requisite for a valid ordinance is,
among others, that is must not contravenethe
statute, for it is fundamental principle that
municipal ordinances are inferior on status and
subordinate to the laws of the statute. Following
III. RULINGS:

This general rule, whether there is conflict between an

ordinance and a statute, the ordinance must give way.

2. The lower court also found out that the Municipal

Council of Urdaneta did not make any classification of its
thoroughfare, contrary to the explicit requirement laid
down by Section 38, RA4136 which is mandatory and all
be approved by the Land Transportation Commissioner.
Ordinance No.3, Series of 1964, showed nothing
III. RULINGS:

done with the approval of the Land Transportation

Commission, thus on this ground alone the said
ordinance is not valid.

3. Ordinance is not clear and definite terms.

Considering that this is regulatory ordinance, its
clearness, definiteness, and certainty are all the
more important so that an average man should be
able with due care, after reading it, to understand
III. RULINGS:

and ascertain whether he will incur a penalty for

particular acts or courses of conduct.

4. The CFI made the preliminary injunction issued

to the defendants and later on was issued to be
definite and permanent by the Court. In general
rule, writ of injunction ordinarily, criminal
prosecution may not be blocked by court
prohibition or injunction; however, the local statute
III. RULINGS:

or ordinance at bar falls in one of the exceptions of

the rule.

Appealed decision is therefore, AFFIRMED.

 EXCEPTIONS:

1. for the orderly administration of justice;

2. to prevent the use of the strong arm of the law in an
oppressive and vindictive manner;
3. to avoid multiplicity of actions;
4. to afford adequate protection to constitutional rights;
5. in proper cases, because the statute relied upon is
unconstitutional or was held invalid.
III. RULINGS:

Appealed decision is therefore, AFFIRMED.

THANK YOU!!!