Title
of the Case: Acebedo Optical Co. vs. Court of Appeals
Nature:
Petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to nullify the
dismissal by the Court of Appeals of the original petition for certiorari
Keywords:
Optical shop, Business Permit
Petitioner: Acebedo Optical Company,
Inc.
Respondent:
The Honorable Court of Appeals
Facts: Petitioner applied
with the Office of the City Mayor of Iligan for a business permit. After
consideration of petitioner's application and the opposition interposed thereto
by local optometrists, respondent City Mayor issued Business Permit No. 5342
subject to the following conditions: (1) Since it is a corporation, Acebedo
cannot put up an optical clinic but only a commercial store; (2) It cannot examine and/or prescribe reading
and similar optical glasses for patients, because these are functions of
optical clinics; (3) It cannot sell reading and similar eyeglasses without a
prescription having first been made by an independent optometrist or
independent optical clinic. Acebedo can only sell directly to the public,
without need of a prescription, Ray-Ban and similar eyeglasses; (4) It cannot
advertise optical lenses and eyeglasses, but can advertise Ray-Ban and similar
glasses and frames; (5) It is allowed to grind lenses but only upon the
prescription of an independent optometrist.
On
December 5, 1988, private respondent Samahan ng Optometrist Sa Pilipinas (SOPI
lodged a complaint against the petitioner alleging that Acebedo had violated
the conditions set forth in its business permit and requesting the cancellation
and/or revocation of such permit. On July 19, 1989, the City Mayor sent
petitioner a Notice of Resolution and Cancellation of Business Permit effective
as of said date and giving petitioner three (3) months to wind up its affairs.
Issue: Whether the City
Mayor has the authority to impose special conditions, as a valid exercise of
police power, in the grant of business permits
Ratio: Police power as an inherent attribute of
sovereignty is the power to prescribe regulations to promote the health,
morals, peace, education, good order or safety and general welfare of the
people. It is essentially regulatory in nature and the power to issue licenses
or grant business permits, if exercised for a regulatory and not
revenue-raising purpose, is within the ambit of this power. The authority of
city mayors to issue or grant licenses and business permits is beyond cavil.
However, the power to grant or issue licenses or business permits must always
be exercised in accordance with law, with utmost observance of the rights of
all concerned to due process and equal protection of the law.
In
the case under consideration, the business permit granted by respondent City
Mayor to petitioner was burdened with several conditions. Petitioner agrees
with the holding by the Court of Appeals that respondent City Mayor acted
beyond his authority in imposing such special conditions in its permit as the
same have no basis in the law or ordinance. Public respondents and private
respondent SOPI are one in saying that the imposition of said special conditions
is well within the authority of the City Mayor as a valid exercise of police
power.
The
issuance of business licenses and permits by a municipality or city is
essentially regulatory in nature. The authority, which devolved upon local
government units to issue or grant such licenses or permits, is essentially in
the exercise of the police power of the State within the contemplation of the
general welfare clause of the Local Government Code.
What
is sought by petitioner from respondent City Mayor is a permit to engage in the
business of running an optical shop. It does not purport to seek a license to
engage in the practice of optometry. The objective of the imposition of subject
conditions on petitioner's business permit could be attained by requiring the
optometrists in petitioner's employ to produce a valid certificate of
registration as optometrist, from the Board of Examiners in Optometry. A
business permit is issued primarily to regulate the conduct of business and the
City Mayor cannot, through the issuance of such permit, regulate the practice
of a profession. Such a function is within the exclusive domain of the
administrative agency specifically empowered by law to supervise the
profession, in this case the Professional Regulations Commission and the Board
of Examiners in Optometry.
Ruling:
WHEREFORE,
the petition is GRANTED; the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR SP No.
22995 REVERSED: and the respondent City Mayor is hereby ordered to reissue
petitioner's business permit in accordance with law and with this disposition.
No pronouncement as to costs.
Doctrine:
The
scope of police power has been held to be so comprehensive as to encompass
almost all matters affecting the health, safety, peace, order, morals, comfort
and convenience of the community.
Police power is essentially regulatory in nature and the power to issue
licenses or grant business permits, if exercised for a regulatory and not
revenue-raising purpose, is within the ambit of this power.
Requisites
1
- LAWFUL SUBJECT:
The interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a
particular class, require the exercise of the police power
2
- LAWFUL MEANS: The
means employed are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose
and not unduly oppressive upon individuals
Why the acebedo corp won in this case
ReplyDelete