LIM VS. CA

LIM VS. COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. 111397,August 12, 2002 CARPIO, J.: FACTS: On Dec. 7, 1992, Bistro Pigale, Inc. filed before the trial court a petition for mandamus and prohibition against Mayor Lim of Manila because the policemen under his instructions inspected and investigated its license as well as the work permits and health certificates of its staff. This resulted to the stoppage of work in Bistro’s night club (New Bangkok Club) and restaurant (Exotic Garden Restaurant) operations. Mayor Lim also refused to accept its application for a business license as well as the work permit applications of the staff members for the year 1993. Acting on Bistro’s application for injunctive relief, the trial court issued a TRO on Dec. 29, 1992 ordering Lim and/or his agents to refrain from inspecting or interfering in Bistro’s operations. However, despite the trial court’s order, Lim still issued a closure order and sent policemen to carry this out. Lim filed a motion to dissolve the injunctive order and to dismiss the case contending that the power of the mayor to inspect and investigate commercial establishments as well as its staff members is inherent in the statutory power of the city mayor to issue, suspend or revoke business permits and licenses as expressly provided in Sec. 11 (I), Art. II of the revised Charter of the City of Manila and in Sec. 455 par. 3 (iv) of the LGC of 1991. The trial court denied Lim’s motion. Lim filed with CA a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against Bistro and Judge Reyes claiming that the judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in issuing the writ of prohibitory preliminary injunction in favor of Bistro. CA sustained the trial court orders and denied Lim’s motion for reconsideration. Subsequently, Manila City Ordinance No. 7783 took effect. Lim ordered the WPD command to permanently close down Bistro’s operation. Hence; this petition for review on certiorari filed before the SC. ISSUE: Whether or not CA erred in upholding the trial court’s order.

HELD: NO. Sec. 11 (I), Art. II of the Revised Chapter of Manila and Sec. 455 (3) (iv) of the LGC clearly provides that power of the Mayor to issue business licenses and permits necessarily includes the power to suspend, revoke or even refuse to issue the same. However, the power to suspend or revoke is expressly premised on the violation of permits and licenses. The law refers to the violation of the conditions on which the licenses and permits were issued. Similarly, the power to refuse the issuance of such is premised on the non-compliance with the pre-requisites. The mayor must observe due process in the exercise of such power, which means that he shall give the applicant or the licensee the duty to be heard. Even though the mayor has the power to investigate private commercial establishments for the violations, still, he has no power to order a police raid in the guise of inspection or investigation. Lim has no authority to close down Bistro without due process of law. In this instant case, Lim’s exercise of power violated Bistro’s property rights that are protected under the due process clause of the constitution.