SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY (SJS), VLADIMIR ALARIQUE T.

CABIGAO, and
BONIFACIO S. TUMBOKON vs. HON. JOSE L. ATIENZA, JR.

G.R. No. 156052 March 7, 2007

FACTS:

On November 20, 2001, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 8027.
Mayor Lim approved the ordinance on November 28, 2001. It became effective on December 28,
2001, after its publication. Ordinance No. 8027 the owners and operators of businesses
disallowed under the ordinance to cease and desist from operating their businesses within six
months from the date of effectivity of the ordinance. Among the businesses those were so-called
"Pandacan Terminals" of the oil companies Caltex (Philippines), Inc., Petron Corporation and
Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation. On June 26, 2002, the City of Manila and the Department
of Energy (DOE) entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the oil companies
in which they agreed that "the scaling down of the Pandacan Terminals [was] the most viable
and practicable option. the sangguniang panglusod issued resolutions ratifying the said MOU but
only until April 30, 2003

PETITIONER’S CONTENTION:

Petitioners contend that respondent has the mandatory legal duty, under Section 455 (b) (2) of
the Local Government Code (RA 7160), to enforce Ordinance No. 8027 and order the removal of
the Pandacan Terminals of the oil companies.

RESPONDENTS CONTENTION:

Respondent’s defense is that Ordinance No. 8027 has been superseded by the MOU and the
resolutions. However, he also confusingly argues that the ordinance and MOU are not
inconsistent with each other and that the latter has not amended the former. He insists that the
ordinance remains valid and in full force and effect and that the MOU did not in any way prevent
him from enforcing and implementing it. He maintains that the MOU should be considered as a
mere guideline for its full implementation.

ISSUE:

Whether respondent has the mandatory legal duty to enforce Ordinance No. 8027 and order the
removal of the Pandacan Terminals

HELD:

Yes, Mandamus will not issue to enforce a right, or to compel compliance with a duty, which is
questionable or over which a substantial doubt exists. The principal function of the writ of
mandamus is to command and to expedite, not to inquire and to adjudicate; thus, it is neither the
office nor the aim of the writ to secure a legal right but to implement that which is already
established. Unless the right to the relief sought is unclouded, mandamus will not issue.

We have ruled in previous cases that when a mandamus proceeding concerns a public right and
its object is to compel a public duty, the people who are interested in the execution of the laws
are regarded as the real parties in interest and they need not show any specific interest. Besides,
as residents of Manila, petitioners have a direct interest in the enforcement of the city’s
ordinances. Respondent never questioned the right of petitioners to institute this proceeding.

The Local Government Code imposes upon respondent the duty, as city mayor, to "enforce all
laws and ordinances relative to the governance of the city." One of these is Ordinance No. 8027.
As the chief executive of the city, he has the duty to enforce Ordinance No. 8027 as long as it has
not been repealed by the Sanggunian or annulled by the courts.