Tatel vs virac

Tatel contends that said ordinance is unconstitutional, contrary to the due process and equal protection clause of the Constitution and null and void for not having been passed in accordance with law.

A distinction must be madebetween the law itself and the manner in Tatel vs virac said law is implemented by theagencies in charge with its administration and enforcement. Seeking appellate review, petitioner raised as errors of the court a quo: That is the standard that must be met by any governmental agency in the exercise of whatever competence is entrusted to it.

There is no valid reason for the petitioner to complain, in the absence of proof that the other bodegas mentioned by him are operation in violation of the ordinance and that complaints have been lodged against the bodegas concerned without the municipal authorities doing anything about it.

Nevertheless, if one scrutinizes the terms of the ordinance, it is clear that what is prohibited is the construction of warehouses by any person, entity or corporation wherein copra, hemp, gasoline and other inflammable products mentioned in Section 1 may be stored unless at a distance of not less than meters from a block of houses either in the poblacion or barrios in order to avoid loss of property and life due to fire.

Elena of the said municipality a public nuisance within thepurview of Article of the Civil Code of the Philippines and directing thepetitioner to remove and transfer said warehouse to a more suitable place within two 2 months from receipt of the said resolution.

Tatel vs. Municipality of Virac

The warehouse in question was legally constructed under a valid permit issued by the municipality of Virac in accordance with existing regulations and may not be destroyed or removed from its present location; 2. As far as public policy is concerned, there can be no better policy than what has been conceived by the municipal government.

It frowns on arbitrariness, it is the antithesis of any governmental act that smacks of whim or caprice. The Court of First Instance ruled in favor of the respondent. The committee noted the crowded nature of the neighborhood with narrow roads and the surrounding residential houses, so much so that an accidental fire within the warehouse of the petitioner occasioned by the continuance of the activity inside the warehouse and the storing of inflammable materials created a danger to the lives and properties of the people within the neighborhood.

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.

Elena on March 18, against the disturbance caused by the operation of the abaca bailing machine inside the warehouse of petitioner which affected the peace and tranquility of the neighborhood due to the smoke, obnoxious odor and dust emitted by the machine, a committee was appointed by the municipal council of Virac to investigate the matter.

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 warehouses because of the danger of fire to the lives and properties of the people residing in the vicinity.

A distinction must be made between the law itself and the manner inwhich said law is implemented by the agencies in charge with its administration andenforcement.

Experience, however, will show that this is not uncommon in law making bodies in small towns where local authorities and in particular the persons charged with the drafting and preparation of municipal resolutions and ordinances lack sufficient education and training and are not well grounded even on the basic and fundamental elements of the English language commonly used throughout the country in such matters.

Accordingly, the petitioner is hereby directed to remove from thesaid warehouse all abaca and copra and other inflammable articles stored thereinwhich are prohibited under the provisions of Ordinance No.

Tatel v Virac

We find no merit in the Petition. Elena of the said municipality a public nuisance within the purview of Article of the Civil Code of the Philippines and directing the petitioner to remove and transfer said warehouse to a more suitable place within two 2 months from receipt of the said resolution.

Its purpose is well within the objectives ofsound government. The committee noted the crowded nature of the neighborhood with narrow roads and the surroundings residential houses, so much so that an accidental fire within the warehouse of petitioner occasioned by a continuance of the activity inside the warehouse and the storing of inflammable materials created a danger to the lives and properties of the people within the neighborhood.

Jurisprudence to 9Endnotes1 Popup - Popup 1. In a decision dated September 18,the court a quo ruled as follows: As to the third assignment of error, that warehouses similarly situated as that of the petitioner were not prosecuted, suffice it to say that the mere fact that the municipal authorities of Virac have not proceeded against other warehouses in the municipality allegedly violating Ordinance No.

As to the assignment of error,that warehouses similarly situated as that of petitioner were not prosecuted, suffice itto say that the mere fact that the municipal authorities of Virac have not proceededagainst other warehouses in the municipality allegedly violating Ordinance No.

With costs against petitioner. Dec 20,  · 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.

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. 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.

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

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. DESCRIPTION. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION G.R. No. March 11, CELESTINO TATEL, petitioner, vs.

MUNICIPALITY OF VIRAC, SALVADOR A. View k Tatel v Municiaplity of hazemagmaroc.com from LAW 1 at San Beda College Manila - (Mendiola, Manila).

Decided Cases by the Supreme Court

TodayisThursday,December17, RepublicofthePhilippines SUPREMECOURT Manila ENBANC hazemagmaroc.com

Tatel vs virac
Rated 0/5 based on 100 review