THE CITY OF OZAMIZ, represented by the MAYOR, MUNICIPAL BOARD, TREASURER, AUDITOR, petitioner-appellant, vs. SERAPIO S.

LUMAPAS and HON. GERONIMO R. MARAVE, respondents-appellees. J. Antonio; July 15, 1975
Taxation Distinguished from certain kinds of exactions

Short Version: Lumapas, a bus operator, opposed the imposition of a parking fee by Ozamiz City on his buses that were temporarily parked in Zulueta Street while waiting for passengers to board. According to him, the charge was not a parking fee but a toll fee in disguise. The local government cannot impose toll fees without the approval of the president; and as a result, the ordinance imposing parking fee is null and void. The Court held that the fee was a parking fee and not a toll fee. It is within the Citys power to enact such an ordinance by virtue of its police power. The parking fee was ultimately for the publics sa fety and convenience. The City may charge a fee to cover expenses of supervision and control. Facts: Lumapas is an operator of transportation buses for passengers and cargoes, with Ozamiz City and Pagadian, Zamboanga del Sur, as terminal points, by virtue of a certificate of public convenience issued to him by the Public Service Commission. The Municipal Board of Ozamiz City enacted Ordinance 466 (An Ordinance Imposing Parking Fees for Every Motor Vehicle Parked on any Portion of the Existing Parking Space in the City of Ozamiz). o Sec. 3 thereof defined parking as: "Parking" as used in this ordinance shall be construed to mean, when a motor vehicle of whatever kind is stopped on any portion of the existing parking areas for the purpose of loading and unloading passengers or cargoes. Lumapas paid P1,259 under protest and filed a complaint against the City of Ozamiz for recovery of parking fees, alleging that Ordinance 466 was ulta vires and prayed that judgment be issued nullifying the ordinance. City of Ozamiz asserted that the parking zone was patrimonial in character; thus, the City was authorized by Section 2308 (f) of the Revised Administrative Code, and Section 15 (y) of the Charter of Ozamiz City (RA 321) to impose parking fees. o Also, the charter authorizes the Municipal Board to regulate the use of streets which carries with it the power to impose fees for its implementation; o Pursuant to such power, the Municipal Board passed said ordinance, the purpose of which is to minimize accidents, to avoid congestion of traffic, to enable the passengers to know the exact time of the departure of trucks; o Section 2 of the Local Autonomy Law (RA 2264) likewise empowers the local governments to impose taxes and fees, except those that are enumerated therein, and parking fee is not among the exceptions; and o The word "parking" implies a stationary condition and the parking fees provided for in Ordinance No. 466 are for the privilege of using the designated parking area, which is owned by the City of Ozamiz, as its patrimonial property. Lumapas insisted that Ozamiz City had no power to impose parking fees on motor vehicles parked on Zulueta Street, which is property for public use. o Because of this, Ordinance 466 imposing such fees was null and void; o The use of Zulueta Street as a parking place is only incidental to the free passage of motor vehicles and as such, the prohibition to impose taxes or fees embodied in Section 59[b] of RA 4136 applies to this case; o Section 2308[f] of the Revised Administrative Code and Section 15[y] of the Charter of Ozamiz City (RA 321) do not empower the City to impose parking fees; and o Since the power to impose parking fees is not among those conferred by the Local Autonomy Act on local government, said City cannot, therefore, impose such parking fees. Court rendered judgment declaring the parking fee was in the nature of toll fees for the use of public road and made in violation of Section 59[b] of RA 4136 (Land Transportation and Traffic Code), there being no prior approval by the President of the Philippines upon recommendation of the Secretary of Public Works and Communications. Hence, the present appeal by certiorari. Issue: Was Ozamiz City authorized to impose the tax? YES, by virtue of the police power granted by its Charter. Municipal corporations, being mere creatures of the law, have only such powers as are expressly granted to them and those which are necessarily implied or incidental to the exercise thereof, and the power to tax is inherent upon the State and it can only be exercised by Congress, unless delegated or conferred by it to a municipal corporation. Under Sec. 15[Y] of the Ozamiz City Charter (RA 321), the municipal board has the power "to regulate the use of streets, avenues, alleys, sidewalks, wharves, piers, parks, cemeteries and other public places;" and in subsection [nn] of the same section 15, the authority "to enact all ordinances it may deem necessary and proper for the sanitation and safety, the furtherance of prosperity and the promotion of the morality, peace, good order, comfort, convenience, and

general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, and such others as may be necessary to carry into effect and discharge the powers and duties conferred by this Charter." o By this express legislative grant of authority, police power is delegated to the municipal corporation to be exercised as a governmental function for municipal purposes. o In the exercise of such power, a municipal corporation can make all necessary and desirable regulations which are reasonable and manifestly in the interest of public safety and convenience. o It is patent that the Municipal Board has been clothed with full power to control and regulate the streets for the purpose of promoting the public health, safety and welfare through the ordinance. By virtue of the statutory grant of authority, the City can regulate the time, place, manner of parking in the streets and public places. The parking fee imposed is minimal in amount, the maximum being only P1.00 a day for each passenger bus and P1.00 for each cargo truck, the rates being lower for smaller types of vehicles. o This indicates that its purpose is not for revenue but for regulation. o By designating a specific place wherein passenger and freight vehicles may load and unload passengers and cargoes, benefits are accorded to the city's residents in the form of increased safety and convenience arising from the decongestion of traffic. The city may impose a fee sufficient in amount to include the expense of issuing the license and the cost of necessary inspection or police surveillance connected with the business or calling licensed. The fees charged are to cover the expenses for supervision, inspection and control, to ensure the smooth flow of traffic in the environs of the public market, and for the safety and convenience of the public.

Issue: Does the ordinance charge a parking fee or a toll fee? Parking fee, for the regulation of the use of Ozamizs streets. The buses stop on the extended portion of Zulueta Street beside the public market. As soon as they were loaded, they proceeded to the station where a toll clerk collected the parking fee of P1.00 per bus once a day, before said buses were allowed to proceed to their destination. o Lumapas insists that this was not parking, but a toll fee for the use of the street. o Since toll fees require authorization from the President, the City was not authorized to impose a toll fee in the guise of a parking fee. o "Parking" ordinarily implies "something more than a mere temporary and momentary stoppage at a curb for the purpose of loading or unloading passengers or merchandize; it involves the idea of using a portion of the street as storage space for an automobile. However, Section 3 of Ordinance No. 466 defines the word 'parking' to mean the stoppage of a motor vehicle of whatever kind on any portion of the existing parking areas for the purpose of loading and unloading passengers or cargoes. The word "toll" when used in connection with highways has been defined as a duty imposed on goods and passengers travelling public roads. The toll for use of a toll road is for its use in travelling thereon, not for its use as a parking place for vehicles. Considering that the buses are only charged the fee when they stop on "any portion of the existing parking areas for the purpose of loading or unloading passengers or cargoes," the fees collected are actually in the nature of parking fees and not toll fees for the use of Zulueta Street. o This is clear from the facts which show that fees were not exacted for mere passage thru the street but for stopping in the designated parking areas therein to unload or load passengers or cargoes. It was not, therefore a toll fee for the use of public roads, within the context of Section 59[b] of RA 4136, which requires the authorization of the President of the Philippines. Dispositive: CFI reversed. Ordinance valid.