SJS vs Atienza
Unless the right to
G.R. No. 156052 March 7, 2007
Facts:
 Nov. 20, 2001 - Sangguniang Panlungsod of Manila enacted Ordinance No.
8027.
 Ordinance No. 8027 reclassified some areas from industrial ii to commercial i
and directed the owners and operators of businesses disallowed under Section 1
to cease and desist from operating their businesses within six months from the
date of effectivity of the ordinance. Among the businesses situated in the area are
the so-called "Pandacan Terminals" of the oil companies Caltex (Philippines),
Inc., Petron Corporation and Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation.
 June 26, 2002 – the City of Manila and DOE entered into a memorandum of
understanding with oil companies in which they agreed that "the scaling down
of the Pandacan Terminals [was] the most viable and practicable option."
 The Sangguniang Panlungsod ratified the MOU in Resolution No. 97.
 Petitioners then filed this original action for mandamus on praying that Mayor
Atienza be compelled to enforce Ordinance No. 8027 and order the immediate
removal of the terminals of the oil companies.
 Petitioners contend that respondent has the mandatory legal duty, under the Local
Government Code to enforce Ordinance No. 8027 and order the removal of the
Pandacan Terminals of the oil companies. Instead, he has allowed them to stay.
 Respondent’s defense is that Ordinance No. 8027 has been superseded by the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.
Issues:
 W/N respondent has the mandatory legal duty to enforce Ordinance No. 8027 and
order the removal of the Pandacan Terminals – YES
Held:
 Under Rule 65, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, a petition for mandamus may be
filed when any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects
the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting
from an office, trust or station. Mandamus is an extraordinary writ that is
employed to compel the performance, when refused, of a ministerial duty that is
already imposed on the respondent and there is no other plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The petitioner should have a well-
defined, clear and certain legal right to the performance of the act and it must be
the clear and imperative duty of respondent to do the act required to be done.
 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.
the relief sought is unclouded, mandamus will not issue.
 The Court has 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.
 On the other hand, 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. He has no other choice. It
is his ministerial duty to do so. In Dimaporo v. Mitra, Jr., we stated the reason
for this:
 These officers cannot refuse to perform their duty on the ground of an alleged
invalidity of the statute imposing the duty. The reason for this is obvious. It might
seriously hinder the transaction of public business if these officers were to be
permitted in all cases to question the constitutionality of statutes and ordinances
imposing duties upon them and which have not judicially been declared
unconstitutional. Officers of the government from the highest to the lowest are
creatures of the law and are bound to obey it.
 The question now is whether the MOU entered into by respondent with the oil
companies and the subsequent resolutions passed by the Sanggunian have made
the respondent’s duty to enforce Ordinance No. 8027 doubtful, unclear or
uncertain. This is also connected to the second issue raised by petitioners, that is,
whether the MOU and Resolution Nos. 97, s. 2002 and 13, s. 2003 of
the Sanggunian can amend or repeal Ordinance No. 8027.
 The Court need not resolve this issue. Assuming that the terms of the MOU were
inconsistent with Ordinance No. 8027, the resolutions which ratified it and made
it binding on the City of Manila expressly gave it full force and effect only until
April 30, 2003. Thus, at present, there is nothing that legally hinders respondent
from enforcing Ordinance No. 8027
 Ordinance No. 8027 was enacted right after the Philippines, along with the rest
of the world, witnessed the horror of the September 11, 2001 attack on the Twin
Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City. The objective of the
ordinance is to protect the residents of Manila from the catastrophic devastation
that will surely occur in case of a terrorist attack on the Pandacan Terminals. No
reason exists why such a protective measure should be delayed.
 WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED.