OSG Vs Ayala Land Et Al

OSG Vs Ayala Land et al
GR No. 177056, September 19, 2009
FACTS:
In 1999, the Senate Committees on Trade and Commerce and on Justice and Human Rights
conducted a joint investigation for the following purposes:
(1) to inquire into the legality of the prevalent practice of shopping malls of charging parking
fees;
(2) assuming arguendo that the collection of parking fees was legally authorized, to find out the
basis and reasonableness of the parking rates charged by shopping malls; and (3) to determine
the legality of the policy of shopping malls of denying liability in cases of theft, robbery, or
carnapping, by invoking the waiver clause at the back of the parking tickets.
After the hearings, the Senate Committees found that the collection of parking fees by shopping
malls is contrary to the National Building Code and is therefore illegal.
The Senate thereafter recommended the following:
1. The Office of the Solicitor General should institute the necessary action to enjoin the
collection of parking fees as well as to enforce the penal sanction provisions of the
National Building Code. The Office of the Solicitor General should likewise study how
refund can be exacted from mall owners who continue to collect parking fees.
2. The Department of Trade and Industry pursuant to the provisions of R.A. No. 7394,
otherwise known as the Consumer Act of the Philippines should enforce the provisions of
the Code relative to parking. Towards this end, the DTI should formulate the necessary
implementing rules and regulations on parking in shopping malls, with prior
consultations with the local government units where these are located. Furthermore, the
DTI, in coordination with the DPWH, should be empowered to regulate and supervise the
construction and maintenance of parking establishments.
3. Finally, Congress should amend and update the National Building Code to expressly
prohibit shopping malls from collecting parking fees by at the same time, prohibit them
from invoking the waiver of liability.
Respondent SM Prime thereafter received information that, pursuant to Senate Committee

Report No. 225, the DPWH Secretary and the local building officials of Manila, Quezon City,
and Las Piñas intended to institute, through the OSG, an action to enjoin respondent SM Prime
and similar establishments from collecting parking fees, and to impose upon said establishments
penal sanctions under Presidential Decree No. 1096, otherwise known as the National Building
Code of the Philippines (National Building Code), and its Implementing Rules and Regulations
(IRR). With the threatened action against it, respondent SM Prime filed, on 3 October 2000, a
Petition for Declaratory Relief under Rule 63 of the Revised Rules of Court, against the DPWH
Secretary and local building officials of Manila, Quezon City, and Las Piñas.
In its Petition, respondent SM Prime prayed for judgment:
a) Declaring Rule XIX of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the National Building
Code as ultra vires, hence, unconstitutional and void;
b) Declaring [herein respondent SM Prime]'s clear legal right to lease parking spaces
appurtenant to its department stores, malls, shopping centers and other commercial
establishments; and
c) Declaring the National Building Code of the Philippines Implementing Rules and
Regulations as ineffective, not having been published once a week for three (3)
consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation, as prescribed by Section 211 of
Presidential Decree No. 1096.
The very next day, 4 October 2000, the OSG filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief and
Injunction (with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and Writ of Preliminary
Injunction) against respondents. Petitioner prayed that the RTC:
1. After summary hearing, a temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary

injunction be issued restraining respondents from collecting parking fees from their
customers; and
2. After hearing, judgment be rendered declaring that the practice of respondents in
charging parking fees is violative of the National Building Code and its Implementing
Rules and Regulations and is therefore invalid, and making permanent any injunctive writ
issued in this case.
The RTC finally declared 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 public in general, free of charge.
The OSG thereafter filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals who later affirmed the decision
of the trial court.
ISSUE:
WoN Mall owners are obliged to provided parking spaces free of charge to mall goers? (NO)
HELD:
No, Article 1158 of the Civil Code provides that, “Obligations derived from law are not
presumed. Only those expressly determined in this Code or in special laws are demandable, and
shall be regulated by the precepts of the law which establishes them; and as to what has not been
foreseen, by the provisions of this Book”
Thus the Supreme Court held that it is not the obligation of the mall owners to provide parking
space free of charge. Though the National Building Code provides that establishments should
allocate parking and loading spaces, in accordance with the minimum ratio of one slot per 100
square meters of shopping floor area. There is nothing therein pertaining to the collection (or
non-collection) of parking fees by respondents. In fact, the term "parking fees" cannot even be
found at all in the entire National Building Code and its IRR.

OSG Vs Ayala Land Et Al

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

OSG Vs Ayala Land Et Al

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

OSG Vs Ayala Land Et Al

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

OSG Vs Ayala Land et al

GR No. 177056, September 19, 2009

The Senate thereafter recommended the following:

Respondent SM Prime thereafter received information that, pursuant to Senate Committee

1. After summary hearing, a temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.