8/21/2015

G.R. No. L-55230

TodayisWednesday,August19,2015

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
FIRSTDIVISION
G.R.No.L55230November8,1988
HON.RICHARDJ.GORDON,inhiscapacityasCityMayorofOlongapo,petitioner,
vs.
JUDGEREGINOT.VERIDIANOIIandSpousesEDUARDOandROSALINDAYAMBAO,respondents.

CRUZ,J.:
TheissuebeforetheCourtistheconflictbetweentheFoodandDrugAdministrationandthemayorofOlongapo
Cityoverthepowertograntandrevokelicensesfortheoperationofdrugstoresinthesaidcity.Whileconceding
that the FDA possesses such power, the mayor claims he may nevertheless, in the exercise of his own power,
preventtheoperationofdrugstorespreviouslypermittedbytheformer.
Therearetwodrugstoresinvolvedinthisdispute,towit,theSanSebastianDrugStoreandtheOlongapoCityDrug
Store,bothownedbyprivaterespondentRosalindaYambao. 1Theyarelocatedafewmetersfromeachotherinthesamebuildingon
HospitalRoad,OlongapoCity.2TheywerecoveredbyMayor'sPermitsNos.1954and1955,respectively,issuedfortheyear1980,3andlicensestooperate
issuedbytheFDAforthesameyear.4

ThiscasearosewhenonMarch21,1980,atabout5:00o'clockintheafternoon,ajointteamcomposedofagents
fromtheFDAandnarcoticsagentsfromthePhilippineConstabularyconducteda"testbuy"atSanSebastianDrug
Storeandwassold200tabletsofValium10mg.worthP410.00withoutadoctor'sprescription..5
Areportontheoperationwassubmittedtothepetitioner,asmayorofOlongapoCity,onApril9,1980. 6 On April 17,
1980, he issued a letter summarily revoking Mayor's Permit No. 1954, effective April 18, 1980, "for rampant violation of R.A. 5921, otherwise known as the
PharmacyLawandR.A.6425ortheDangerousDrugsActof1972."7Later,whenthepetitionerwenttoSingapore,ViceMayorAlfredoT.dePerio,Jr.caused
thepostingofasignboardattheSanSebastianDrugStoreannouncingitspermanentclosure.8

Actingonthesameinvestigationreportofthe"testbuy,"andafterhearing,FDAAdministratorArsenioRegala,on
April25,1980,directedtheclosureofthedrugstoreforthreedaysanditspaymentofaP100.00fineforviolationof
R.A.No.3720.HealsoissuedasternwarningtoYambaoagainstarepetitionoftheinfraction.9OnApril29,1980,theFDA
lifteditsclosureorderafternotingthatthepenaltiesimposedhadalreadybeendischargedandallowedthedrugstoretoresumeoperations.10

On April 30, 1980, Yambao, through her counsel, wrote a letter to the petitioner seeking reconsideration of the
revocationofMayor'sPermitNo.1954.11OnMay7,1980,havingreceivednoreply,sheandherhusbandfiledwiththeRegionalTrialCourtof
OlongapoCityacomplaintformandamusanddamages,withaprayerforawritofpreliminaryinjunction,againstthepetitionerandViceMayordePerio.12

On the same date, Yambao requested permission from the FDA to exchange the locations of the San Sebastian
DrugStoreandtheOlongapoCityDrugStoreforreasonsof"businesspreference."13
Therequestwasgranted.14Butwheninformedofthisaction,thepetitioner,inalettertotheprivaterespondentdatedMay13,1980,disapprovedthe
transfersandsuspendedMayor'sPermitNo.1955fortheOlongapoCityDrugStore.15

TheYambaosthenfiledonMay15,1980,asupplementalcomplaintquestioningthesaidsuspensionandpraying
fortheissuanceofapreliminarywritofprohibitoryinjunction. 16Onthesameday,therespondentjudgeissuedanorderdirectingthe
maintenanceofthestatusquowithrespecttotheOlongapoCityDrugStorependingresolutionoftheissues.17

On May 21, 1980, the petitioner wrote the FDA requesting reconsideration of its order of April 29, 1980, allowing
resumptionoftheoperationoftheSanSebastianDrugStore.18TherequestwasdeniedbytheFDAinitsreplydatedMay27,1980.19
AmotionforreconsiderationofthestatusquoorderhadearlierbeenfiledonMay1,1980bythepetitioner.Aftera
jointhearingandanexchangeofmemorandathereon,therespondentjudgeissuedanorderonJuly16,1980,20the
dispositiveportionofwhichreadasfollows:

WHEREFORE,thedefendants'motionforreconsiderationofthestatusquoorderdatedMay15,1980,
isherebyDENIEDandtheletterofthedefendantcitymayordatedApril17,1980,fortherevocationof
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1988/nov1988/gr_l_55230_1988.html

1/6

8/21/2015

G.R. No. L-55230

Mayor'sPermitNo.1954fortheSanSebastianDrugStoreisdeclarednullandvoid.
Accordingly,awritofpreliminaryprohibitoryinjunctionisheretoforeissuedenjoiningdefendantsfrom
doing acts directed towards the closure of the San Sebastian Drug Store and the suspension of the
OlongapoCityDrugStorebothsituatedatHospitalRoad,OlongapoCity.Further,thesignboardposted
atSanSebastianDrugStorebythedefendantsisorderedremovedinorderthatthesaiddrugstorewill
resumeitsnormalbusinessoperation.
The hearing of the main petition for damages is set on August 14, 1980, at 1:30 o'clock in the
afternoon.
The petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the above stated order was denied in an order dated September 4,
1980.21ThepetitionerthereuponcametothisCourtinthispetitionforcertiorariandprohibitionwithpreliminary,injunction,tochallengetheaforesaidorders.
WeissuedatemporaryrestrainingorderagainsttherespondentjudgeonOctober27,1980,22butlifteditonDecember10,
1980,forfailureofthepetitionertofilehiscommentontheprivaterespondents'motiontoliftthesaidorderand/orforissuanceofacounterrestrainingorder.23

First,letuscomparethebasesofthepowersandfunctionsrespectivelyclaimedbytheFDAandthepetitioneras
mayorofOlongapoCity.
ThetaskofdruginspectionwasoriginallylodgedwiththeBoardofPharmaceuticalExaminerspursuanttoAct2762,
asamendedbyAct4162.ByvirtueofExecutiveOrderNo.392datedJanuary1,1951(mandatingreorganizationof
variousdepartmentsandagencies),thiswasassumedbytheDepartmentofHealthandexercisedthroughanoffice
in the Bureau of Health known as the Drug Inspection Section. This section was empowered "to authorize the
opening of pharmacies, drug stores and dispensaries, and similar establishments after inspection by persons
authorizedbylaw."
The Food and Drug Administration was created under R.A. No. 3720 (otherwise known as the Food, Drug and
CosmeticAct),approvedonJune22,1963,andvestedwithalldruginspectionfunctionsinlinewith"thepolicyof
theStatetoinsuresafeandgoodqualitysupplyoffood,drugandcosmetics,andtoregulatetheproduction,sale
andtrafficofthesametoprotectthehealthofthepeople."Section5ofthisActspecificallyempowersit:
(e)toissuecertificatesofcompliancewithtechnicalrequirementstoserveasbasisfortheissuanceof
licenseandspotcheckforcompliancewithregulationsregardingoperationoffood,drugandcosmetic
manufacturersandestablishments.
For a more effective exercise of this function, the Department of Health issued on March 5, 1968, Administrative
Order No. 60, series of 1968, laying down the requirements for the application to be filed with the FDA for
authorizationtooperateorestablishadrugestablishment.Theorderprovidesthatuponapprovaloftheapplication,
theFDAshallissuetotheowneroradministratorofthedrugstoreorsimilarestablishmenta"LicensetoOperate"
which "shall be renewed within the first 3 months of each year upon payment of the required fees." This license
containsthefollowingreservation:
However, should during the period of issue, a violation of any provisions of the Food, Drug and
CosmeticActand/ortheregulationsissuedthereunderbecommitted,thisLicenseshallbesubjectto
suspensionorrevocation.
When the drug addiction problem continued to aggravate, P.D. No. 280 was promulgated on August 27, 1973, to
givemoreteethtothepowersoftheFDA,thus:
Section 1. Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, the Food and Drug Administrator is
hereby authorized to order the closure, or suspend or revoke the license of any drug establishment
which after administrative investigation is found guilty of selling or dispensing drugs medicines and
othersimilarsubstancesinviolationoftheFood,DrugandCosmeticAct,andDangerousDrugsActof
1972, or other laws regulating the sale or dispensation of drugs, or rules and regulations issued
pursuantthereto.
Sec. 2. The administrative investigation shall be summary in character. The owner of the drug store
shallbegivenanopportunitytobeheard.(P.D.280,emphasissupplied.)
For his part, the petitioner, traces his authority to the charter of Olongapo City, R.A. No. 4645, which inter alia
empowersthecitymayorunderSection10thereof:
k.tograntorrefusemunicipallicensestooperateorpermitsofallclassesandtorevokethesamefor
violationoftheconditionsuponwhichtheyweregranted,orifactsprohibitedbylaworcityordinances
are being committed under protection of such licenses or in the premises in which the business for
whichthesamehavebeengrantediscarriedon,orforanyothergoodreasonofgeneralinterest.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1988/nov1988/gr_l_55230_1988.html

2/6

8/21/2015

G.R. No. L-55230

Thecharteralsoprovides,inconnectionwiththepowersofthecityhealthofficer,that:
Sec. 6 (k). He and his representatives shall have the power to arrest violators of health laws,
ordinances,rulesandregulationsandtorecommendtherevocationorsuspensionofthepermitsofthe
different establishments to the City Mayor for violation of health laws, ordinances, rules and
regulations.(Emphasissupplied.)
AnapplicationtoestablishadrugstoreinOlongapoCitymustbefiledwiththeOfficeoftheMayorandmustshow
that the applicant has complied with the existing ordinances on health and sanitation, location or zoning, fire or
building,andotherlocalrequirements.Iftheapplicationisapproved,theapplicantisgrantedwhatisdenominateda
"Mayor's Permit" providing inter alia that it "is valid only at the place stated above and until (date), unless sooner
revokedforcause."24
Courts of justice, when confronted with apparently conflicting statutes, should endeavor to reconcile the same
instead of declaring outright the invalidity of one as against the other. Such alacrity should be avoided. The wise
policyisforthejudgetoharmonizethemifthisispossible,bearinginmindthattheyareequallythehandiworkof
thesamelegislature,andsogiveeffecttobothwhileatthesametimealsoaccordingduerespecttoacoordinate
departmentofthegovernment.ItisthispolicytheCourtwillapplyinarrivingattheinterpretationofthelawsabove
citedandtheconclusionsthatshouldfollowtherefrom.
AstudyofthesaidlawswillshowthattheauthorizationtooperateissuedbytheFDAisaconditionprecedenttothe
grant of a mayor's permit to the drug store seeking to operate within the limits of the city. This requirement is
imperative. The power to determine if the opening of the drug store is conformable to the national policy and the
lawsontheregulationofdrugsalesbelongstotheFDA.Hence,apermitissuedbythemayortoadrugstorenot
previouslyclearedwithandlicensedbythesaidagencywillbeanullity.
Thisisnottosay,however,thattheissuanceofthemayor'spermitismandatoryonceitisshownthattheFDAhas
licensedtheoperationoftheapplicantdrugstore.Thisisnotanecessaryconsequence.Forwhileitmayappear
that the applicant has complied with the pertinent national laws and policies, this fact alone will not signify
compliancewiththeparticularconditionslaiddownbythelocalauthoritieslikezoning,building,health,sanitation,
andsafetyregulations,andothermunicipalordinancesenactedunderthegeneralwelfareclause.Thiscompliance
still has to be ascertained by the mayor if the permit is to be issued by his office. Should he find that the local
requirementshavenotbeenobserved,themayormustthen,intheexerciseofhisownauthorityunderthecharter,
refusetograntthepermitsought.
Thepowertoapprovealicenseincludesbyimplication,.evenifnotexpresslygranted,thepowertorevokeit.By
extension, the power to revoke is limited by the authority to grant the license, from which it is derived in the first
place. Thus, if the FDA grants a license upon its finding that the applicant drug store has complied with the
requirements of the general laws and the implementing administrative rules and regulations, it is only for their
violation that the FDA may revoke the said license. By the same token, having granted the permit upon his
ascertainmentthattheconditionsthereofasappliedparticularlytoOlongapoCityhavebeencompliedwith,itisonly
fortheviolationofsuchconditionsthatthemayormayrevokethesaidpermit.
Conversely,themayormaynotrevokehisownpermitonthegroundthatthecompliancewiththeconditionslaid
downandfoundsatisfactorybytheFDAwhenitissueditslicenseisinhisownviewnotacceptable.Thisverysame
principlealsooperatesontheFDA.TheFDAmaynotrevokeitslicenseonthegroundthattheconditionslaiddown
inthemayor'spermithavebeenviolatednotwithstandingthatnosuchfindinghasbeenmadebythemayor.
Inthepresentcase,theclosureoftheSanSebastianDrugStorewasorderedbytheFDAforviolationofitsown
conditions,whichitcertainlyhadtheprimarypowertoenforce.Byrevokingthemayor'spermitonthesameground
forwhichtheSanSebastianDrugStorehadalreadybeenpenalizedbytheFDA,themayorwasineffectreversing
thederisionofthelatteronamatterthatcameunderitsjurisdiction.Astheinfractioninvolvedthepharmacyand
druglawswhichtheFDAhadthedirectresponsibilitytoexecute,themayorhadnoauthoritytointerposehisown
findingsonthematterandsubstitutethemforthedecisionalreadymadebytheFDA.
ItwouldhavebeendifferentiftheoffensecondonedbytheFDAwasaviolationof,say,acityordinancerequiring
buildingstobeprovidedwithsafetydevicesorequipment,likefireextinguishers.Thecityexecutivemayignoresuch
condonationandrevokethemayor'spermitjustthesame.Inthissituation,hewouldbeactingproperlybecausethe
enforcement of the city ordinance is his own prerogative. In the present case, however, the condition allegedly
violatedrelatedtoanationallaw,nottoamatterofmerelylocalconcern,andsocameunderthe'jurisdictionofthe
FDA.
Settledistherulethatthefactualfindingsofadministrativeauthoritiesareaccordedgreatrespectbecauseoftheir
acknowledgedexpertiseinthefieldsofspecializationtowhichtheyareassigned. 25 Even the courts of justice, including this
Court, are concluded by such findings in the absence of a clear showing of a grave abuse of discretion, which is not present in the case at bar. For all his
experience in the enforcement of city ordinances, the petitioner cannot claim the superior aptitudes of the FDA in the enforcement of the pharmacy and drug
addictionlaws.Heshouldthereforealsobeprepared,likethecourtsofjusticethemselves,toacceptitsdecisionsonthismatter.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1988/nov1988/gr_l_55230_1988.html

3/6

8/21/2015

G.R. No. L-55230

The petitioner magnifies the infraction committed by the San Sebastian Drug Store but the FDA minimizes it.
AccordingtotheFDAAdministrator,Valiumisnotevenaprohibiteddrug,whichiswhythepenaltyimposedwas
onlya3dayclosureofthedrugstoreandafineofP100.00. 26Notably,thecriminalchargesfiledagainsttheprivaterespondentforthe
questionedtransactionweredismissedbythefiscal'soffice.27

It is also worth noting that the San Sebastian Drug Store was penalized by the FDA only after a hearing held on
April25,1980,atwhichprivaterespondentYambao,assistedbyherlawyerhusband,appearedandtestified. 28By
contrast,therevocationofthemayor'spermitwascommunicatedtoherinaletter29readingsimplyasfollows:

April
1980

17,

RosalindaYambao
c/oSanSebastianDrugStore
HospitalRoad,OlongapoCity
Madame:
Based on a report submitted by PC Major Virtus V. Gil, Chief 3 RFO, Dis. B, Task Force "Bagong
Buhay," "you are rampantly violating the provisions of Republic Act 5921 otherwise known as the
'PharmacyLaw."
Asidefromthis,thereisevidencethatyouaredispensingregulateddrugscontrarytotheprovisionsof
R.A.6425otherwiseknownastheDangerousDrugsActof1972.
In view of the above, Mayors Permit No. 1954 heretofore issued in your name for the operation of a
drugstore(SanSebastian)attheAnnexBuildingoftheFilAm(IYC),alongHospitalRoad,thisCity,is
REVOKEDeffectiveApril18,1980.
PLEASEBEGUIDEDACCORDINGLY.
Verytrulyyours,
(SGD.)RICHARDJ.GORDON
CityMayor
Ifonlyfortheviolationofdueprocesswhichismanifestfromthisletter,themayor'sarbitraryactioncanbeannulled.
Theindefinitesuspensionofthemayor'spermitforOlongapoCityDrugStorewasbasedonthetransferthereofto
thesiteoftheSanSebastianDrugStoreasapprovedbytheFDAbutwithoutpermissionfromthepetitioner.Onthis
matter,theCourtbelievesthatthefinaldecisionrestedwiththemayor.Theconditionviolatedrelatedmoretothe
locationinOlongapoCityofbusinessestablishmentsingeneralthantotheregulationofdrugstoresinparticular.It
thereforecameunderthepetitioner'sjurisdiction.
The FDA would have the right to disapprove the site of the drug store only if it would impair the health or other
interestsofthecustomersincontraventionofthenationallawsorpolicies,aswherethedrugstoreislocatedinan
unsanitarysite.Butthelocalexecutivewouldhavereasontoobjecttothelocation,evenifapprovedbytheFDA,
whereitdoesnotconformto,say,azoningordinanceintendedtopromotethecomfortandconvenienceofthecity
residents.
ThereasongivenbythepetitionerindisapprovingthetransferwasviolationofMayor'sPermitNo.1955,whichby
itstermswasvalidonlyattheplacestatedtherein.IntheletterofMay13,1980 30theprivaterespondentwasclearlyinformed

thatforviolationoftheconditionofMayor'sPermitNo.1955grantinghertheofoperatingtheOlongapoCityDrugStoreatNo.1BFilAmBldg.,HospitalRoad,
thesaidpermitwas"herebysuspended."Wefindthatthatreasonwasvalidenough.Thepermitclearlyallowedthedrugstoretooperateintheaddressgivenand
notelsewhere.Nohearingwasnecessarybecausethetransferwithoutthemayor'spermissionisnotdisputedandwasinfactimpliedlyadmittedbytheprivate
respondent.

Iftheprivaterespondentwantedtotransferherdrugstore,whatsheshouldhavedonewastosecuretheapproval
not only of the FDA but also, and especially, of the mayor. Merely notifying the petitioner of the change in the
location of her drug stores as allowed by the FDA was not enough. The FDA had no authority to revoke that
particularconditionofthemayor'spermitsindicatingthesitesofthetwodrugstoresasapprovedbythemayorin
thelightoftheneedsofthecity.Onlythemayorcould.
WeassumethatMayor'sPermitNo.1954couldalsohavebeenvalidlysuspendedforthesamereason(asthesites
ofthetwodrugstoreswereexchangedwithoutamendmentoftheirrespectivepermits)wereitnotforthefactthat
such permit was revoked by the petitioner on the more serious ground of violation of the Pharmacy Law and the
DangerousDrugsActof1972.
It is understood, however, that the suspension should be deemed valid only as the two drug stores have not
returned to their original sites as specified in their respective permits. Indefinite suspension will amount to a
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1988/nov1988/gr_l_55230_1988.html

4/6

8/21/2015

G.R. No. L-55230

permanentrevocation,whichwillnotbeacommensuratepenaltywiththedegreeoftheviolationbeingpenalized.
The Court adds that denial of the request for transfer, if properly made by the private respondents, may not be
validlydeniedbythejudgeintheabsenceofaclearshowingthatthetransfersoughtwillprejudicetheresidentsof
thecity.Asthetwodrugstoresareonlyafewmetersfromeachother,andinthesamebuilding,therewouldseem
tobenoreasonwhythemereexchangeoftheirlocationsshouldnotbepermitted.Notably,thelocationofthetwo
drugstoreshadpreviouslybeenapprovedinMayor'sPermitNos.1954and1955.
OurholdingisthatthepetitioneractedinvalidlyinrevokingMayor'sPermitNo.1954aftertheFDAhadauthorized
theresumptionofoperationsoftheSanSebastianDrugStorefollowingtheenforcementofthepenaltiesimposed
upon it. However, it was competent for the petitioner to suspend Mayor's Permit No. 1955 for the transfer of the
Olongapo City Drug Store in violation of the said permit. Such suspension should nevertheless be effective only
pending the return of the drug store to its authorized original site or the eventual approval by the mayor of the
requestedtransferiffoundtobewarranted.
Thepetitioneristobecommendedforhiszealinthepromotionofthecampaignagainstdrugaddiction,whichhas
sappedthevigorandblightedthefutureofmanyofourpeople,especiallytheyouth.Thelegalpresumptionisthat
heactedingoodfaithandwasmotivatedonlybyhisconcernfortheresidentsofOlongapoCitywhenhedirected
theclosureofthefirstdrugstoreandthesuspensionofthepermitoftheotherdrugstore.Itappears,though,that
hemayhaveoverreactedandwasforthisreasonproperlyrestrainedbytherespondentjudge.
WHEREFORE,thechallengedOrdersofJuly6,1980andSeptember4,1980,areMODIFIEDinthesensethatthe
suspensionofMayor'sPermitNo.1955shallbeconsideredvalidbutonlyuntiltheSanSebastianDrugStoreand
theOlongapoCityDrugStorereturntotheiroriginalsitesasspecifiedintheFDAlicensesandthemayor'spermits
oruntiltherequestfortransfer,ifmadebytheprivaterespondents,isapprovedbythepetitioner.Therestofthe
saidOrdersareAFFIRMED,withcostsagainstthepetitioner.
SOORDERED.
Narvasa(Chairman),Gancayco,GrioAquinoandMedialdea,JJ.,concur.

Footnotes
1Rollo,p.47.
2Ibid.
3Id.
4Id.,P.96.
5Id.,pp.48,15.
6Id.
7Id.,p.23.
8Id.,p.48.
9Id.,pp,2426.
10Id.,p.26.
11Id.,pp.2728.
12Id.,pp.1421.
13Id.,p.34.
14Id
15pp.3637.
16Id.,pp.2933.
17Id.,p.38.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1988/nov1988/gr_l_55230_1988.html

5/6

8/21/2015

G.R. No. L-55230

18Id.,pp.98100.
19Id.,p.104.
20Id.,pp.4754.
21Id.,P.64.
22Id.,pp.6567.
23Id.,pp.160162.
24Id.,p.211.
25TagumDoctorsEnterprisesv.GregorioApsay,etal.,G.R.No.81188,August30,1988Antoniode
Leonv.HeirsofGregorioReyes,etal.,152SCRA584LianggaBayLoggingCo.,Inc.v.Hon.Enage,
etal.,152SCRA80PackagingProductsCorp.v.NLRC,152SCRA210,andthecasescitedtherein
AteneodeManilaUniversityv.CA,145SCRA100.
26Rollo,p.25.
27Ibid.,pp.234242.
28Id.,p.14.
29Id.,p.23.
30Id.,P.36.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1988/nov1988/gr_l_55230_1988.html

6/6