Philippine Laws

• The Civil Code of the Philippines covers family relations, property, obligations, succession, and contracts.
• The Civil Code is the prime civil law of the Philippines.
• The Revised Penal Code is an act that defines crimes and their corresponding penalties.
• The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, seeking to reverse the Decision of the Court of Appeals and the Joint Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 138
• Respondents Ayala Land, Robinsons Land Corporation, Shangri-la Plaza Corporation, and SM Prime Holdings, Inc. were adjudged not obligated to provide free parking spaces in their malls to patrons and the general public
• Shopping malls operated or leased out by respondents have parking facilities for all kinds of motor vehicles, with parking fees collected from users regardless of whether they are mall patrons or not
• In 1999, Senate Committees on Trade and Commerce and on Justice and Human Rights conducted an investigation on the legality of charging parking fees in shopping malls
• Recommendations included the Office of the Solicitor General to take action to stop the collection of parking fees and enforce penalties, the Department of Trade and Industry to regulate parking in shopping malls, and Congress to amend the National Building Code to prohibit parking fees
• Senate Committee Report No. 225 concluded that the collection of parking fees by shopping malls is illegal and contrary to the National Building Code, recommending actions to enjoin the collection of parking fees and enforce penal sanctions
• Respondent SM Prime filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief against the DPWH Secretary and local building officials to challenge the legality of collecting parking fees
• The OSG filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief and Injunction against respondents to stop the collection of parking fees, which was consolidated with Civil Case No. 00-1208
• The RTC issued a Pre-Trial Order limiting the issues to be resolved, including the capacity of the OSG to institute the proceedings and whether mall owners are obligated to provide free parking spaces
• The RTC ruled that the OSG can initiate the proceedings and that mall owners are not obligated to provide free parking spaces as the Building Code and its Implementing Rules and Regulations do not require it
• The RTC decreed that Ayala Land, Inc., Robinsons Land Corporation, Shangri-la Plaza Corporation, and SM Prime Holdings, Inc. are not obligated to provide parking spaces in their malls for the use of their patrons or the public in general, free of charge
• The Court of Appeals affirmed the capacity of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to initiate Civil Case No. 00-1210 before the RTC as the legal representative of the government
• The Court of Appeals rejected the contention of respondent SM Prime that the OSG failed to exhaust administrative remedies
• The Court of Appeals refused to rule on the validity of the IRR of the National Building Code, as the controversy could be settled on other grounds without touching on the issue of the validity of the IRR
• The Court of Appeals declared that Section 803 of the National Building Code and Rule XIX of the IRR were clear and needed no further construction
• The Court of Appeals denied the Motion for Reconsideration of the OSG, finding that there was no strong and cogent reason to modify the previous judgment
• The OSG argues that respondents are mandated to provide free parking by Section 803 of the National Building Code and Rule XIX of the IRR
• The explicit directive of the statutory and regulatory provisions is that respondents should provide parking and loading spaces, in accordance with the minimum ratio of one slot per 100 square meters of shopping floor area
• Statutory construction dictates that if a statute is clear and unequivocal, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without any attempt at interpretation
• The OSG cannot claim that Rule XIX of the IRR mandates that parking spaces be provided by building owners free of charge
• The OSG repeatedly referred to previous cases to support its position that the State has the power to regulate parking spaces to promote the health, safety, and welfare of the public
• In Republic and City of Ozamis, the Court made pronouncements that weaken the position of the OSG in the case at bar
• In Republic, the Court mentioned the trend in other jurisdictions where municipal governments themselves took the initiative to make more parking spaces available to alleviate traffic problems
• The power to regulate and control the use, occupancy, and maintenance of buildings and structures carries with it the power to impose fees and, conversely, to control the imposition of such fees
• Section 803 of the National Building Code regulates site occupancy to ensure proper lighting and ventilation in every building
• The State cannot impose a total prohibition against the collection of parking fees from the public for the use of mall parking facilities without providing just compensation to the owners
• The ruling in City Government of Quezon City v. Judge Ericta states that expropriation without compensation of a portion of private properties is not covered by law and is considered a taking of property without just compensation