OSG vs Ayala Land G.R. NO. 177056, SEPTEMBER 18, 2009

 

THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL VS. AYALA LAND INCORPORATED, G.R. NO. 177056, SEPTEMBER 18, 2009

 

FACTS: Respondents operate or lease out shopping malls that have parking facilities. The people that use said facilities are required to pay parking fees by the respondents.

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. The investigation found that such practice is against the National Building Code.

Respondents then received an information from various government agencies enjoining them from collecting parking fees and later a civil case against them. Respondents argued that the same constitutes undue taking of private property. OSG argues that the same is implemented in view of public welfare more specifically to ease traffic congestion. The RTC ruled in favor of the respondents. CA denied the appeals of both petitioners and respondents on the following ground: that section 803 of National Building Code and Rule XIX of IRR are clear that they are only intended to control the occupancy of areas and structures, and in the absence of provision of law, respondents could not be obliged to provide parking spaces free of charge.

Hence, this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE: Whether or not the respondents are obligated to provide free parking to its consumers and the public?

 

RULING:

 

No. Respondents are not obligated to provide for free parking to the people.

 

The RTC and the Court of Appeals correctly applied Article 1158 of the New Civil Code, which The explicit directive of the afore-quoted statutory and regulatory provisions, garnered from a plain reading thereof, is that respondents, as operators/lessors of neighborhood shopping centers, should provide 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.

 

Statutory construction has it that if a statute is clear and unequivocal, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without any attempt at interpretation. Since Section 803 of the National Building Code and Rule XIX of its IRR do not mention parking fees, then simply, said provisions do not regulate the collection of the same. Further, the RTC and the Court of Appeals correctly applied Article 1158 of the New Civil Code, which states:

 

Art. 1158. 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.

 

Hence, in order to bring the matter of parking fees within the ambit of the National Building Code and its IRR, the OSG had to resort to specious and feeble argumentation, in which the Court cannot concur.

 

The OSG cannot rely on Section 102 of the National Building Code to expand the coverage of Section 803 of the same Code and Rule XIX of the IRR, so as to include the regulation of parking fees. The OSG limits its citation to the first part of Section 102 of the National Building Code declaring the policy of the State "to safeguard life, health, property, and public welfare, consistent with the principles of sound environmental management and control"; but totally ignores the second part of said provision, which reads, "and to this end, make it the purpose of this Code to provide for all buildings and structures, a framework of minimum standards and requirements to regulate and control their location, site, design, quality of materials, construction, use, occupancy, and maintenance."

 

While the first part of Section 102 of the National Building Code lays down the State policy, it is the second part thereof that explains how said policy shall be carried out in the Code. Section 102 of the National Building Code is not an all-encompassing grant of regulatory power to the DPWH Secretary and local building officials in the name of life, health, property, and public welfare. On the contrary, it limits the regulatory power of said officials to ensuring that the minimum standards and requirements for all buildings and structures, as set forth in the National Building Code, are complied with.

 

Note: As mentioned by Fiscal Sarmiento, she focused on the issue of the constructions of Article1158 of the Civil Code so I omitted the police power issue.

 

The Building Code, which is the enabling law and the Implementing Rules and Regulations do not impose that parking spaces shall be provided by the mall owners free of charge. Absent such directive[,] Ayala Land, Robinsons, Shangri-la and SM [Prime] are under no obligation to provide them for free. Article 1158 of the Civil Code is clear. (Wordings from RTC decision, which is affirmed by the Supreme Court)