4/10/2017 G.R.No.

135928

SECONDDIVISION
TEODOROBERDIN,VICENTEG.R.No.135928
ALEGARBES,andABELARDODE
VERA,inTheirPersonalCapacitiesPresent:
andasRepresentativesofthe
TUBIGONMARKETVENDORS
ASSOCIATION,
Petitioners,QUISUMBING,*J.,
Chairperson,
CARPIO,**
versusCARPIOMORALES,
TINGA,and
VELASCO,JR.,JJ.
HON.EUFRACIOA.MASCARIAS,
MunicipalMayorCRESENCIANAL.
BALATAYO,MunicipalTreasurerPromulgated:
SAMUELPURISIMA,INPStation
CommanderTHEMUNICIPAL
COUNCILand/orMUNICIPALITYJuly6,2007
OFTUBIGON,PROVINCEOFBOHOL,
Respondents.
xx

DECISION

TINGA,J.:

[1]
This is a petition filed under Rule 45 seeking to review and set aside the 26 May 1998
[2]
Decision oftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.SPNo.39045andtoannulandsetasidethe24 April
[3]
1995Decision oftheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC),Branch4,Bohol,inCivilCaseNo.4577.

Petitioners Teodoro Berdin, Vicente Alegarbes, and Abelardo de Vera (petitioners), are the
President, Vice President, and Adviser, respectively, of the Tubigon Market Vendors Association
(Association), an association of vendors doing business in Tubigon, Bohol. Respondents Eufracio A.
Mascarias,NarcisaL.Balatayo,andLt.AbnerCatalla,ontheotherhand,were,atthetimeCivilCase
No.4577wasfiled,theMunicipalMayor,Treasurer,andtheINPStationCommander,respectively,of
Tubigon,Bohol.

[4]
On 14 December 1988, the Sangguniang Bayan of Tubigon enacted Tax Ordinance No. 881136
increasingthetaxesandfeesofthemunicipality,totakeeffecton1January1989.
PetitionerBerdin,asPresidentoftheAssociation,wrotetorespondentMunicipalTreasurerrequestinga
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/135928.htm 1/16
4/10/2017 G.R.No.135928
PetitionerBerdin,asPresidentoftheAssociation,wrotetorespondentMunicipalTreasurerrequestinga
[5]
copy of Tax Ordinance No. 881136. The request was followed by the filing of a protest before
[6]
respondents Municipal Mayor and Municipal Treasurer. The Association also requested the
suspension of the implementation of the ordinance pending final determination of its legality by
appropriateauthorities.Thereafter,on27February1989,petitionerselevatedtheirrequestforareview
[7]
andsuspensionoftheordinancetotheProvincialTreasurerofBohol.

Actingonpetitionersrequest,EufronioM.Pizarras,ProvincialTreasurer,referredtheletterofpetitioner
BerdintotheMunicipalTreasureron15March1989,andrequestedthelatterofficialtoforwardacopy
ofTaxOrdinanceNo.881136totheDepartmentofFinance(DOF),throughtheProvincialTreasurer,
[8]
forreviewandapprovalpursuanttoSec.8ofExecutiveOrder(E.O.)No.249dated25July1987.

Meanwhile,on29March1989,respondentMayorsubmittedacorrectedcopyofTaxOrdinanceNo.88
1136toAtty.MelchorP.Monreal,AssistantRegionalDirector,DOFRegionalOfficeNo.7,CebuCity.
[9]

Final Demand Letters were sent to petitioners de Vera and Berdin on 2 June 1989 for payment of
outstandingrentalfeesandmunicipalbusinesstaxesdueunderthenewtaxordinance,withawarning
[10]
that their stores/establishments will be closed and padlocked. Petitioners wrote the Municipal
Treasurer on 13 June 1989 and requested said official to await the resolution of their protest before
[11]
takingactionontheFinalDemandLetters. Petitioners also sent a letter to the DOF on 21 August
1989askingforthesuspensionoftheordinancependingresolutionoftheirprotestinviewofthethreat
[12]
ofclosureoftheirstores/establishments.

[13]
Thereafter, on 4 September 1989, petitioners filed a Complaint with the RTC of Bohol against
respondentsMayor,Treasurer,andINPStationCommanderofTubigon,Bohol,aswellastheMunicipal
Counciland/orMunicipalityofTubigon,toenjoinrespondentsfromenforcingTaxOrdinanceNo.8811
36, to declare the ordinance a nullity and, in the event said ordinance is found to be invalid, to order
respondents to reimburse excess taxes paid by petitioners. The case was docketed as Civil Case No.
[14]
4577.

[15]
TaxOrdinanceNo.881136wasamendedbyTaxOrdinanceNo.891049 dated17October
1989,byspecifyingthatthecivilremediesavailableincludethepadlockingoftheestablishmentand/or
seizureofpropertyandrevocationofthepermitorlicenseand/orevictionfrompublicpropertyand/orby
[16]
legalaction. TheProvincialTreasurerapprovedTaxOrdinanceNo.891049on8January1990and
heldthatitwaswithinthepowerofthemunicipalitytoenacttheordinancepursuanttoSecs.60to63,
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/135928.htm 2/16
4/10/2017 G.R.No.135928

[17]
Art.3ofPresidentialDecree(P.D.)No.231,asamended,ortheLocalTaxCode.

Even before the Provincial Treasurer approved of Tax Ordinance No. 891049, petitioners had
earlier referred Tax Ordinance No. 891049 to the Provincial Prosecutor for review. The Provincial
[18]
ProsecutorissuedOpinionNo.901 dated3January1990andfoundTaxOrdinanceNo.891049
valid except insofar as it provided for the padlocking of establishments as among the civil remedies
available against a delinquent taxpayer. Said official wrote the Sangguniang Bayan and suggested an
amendment to Tax Ordinance No. 891049 by deleting padlocking of the establishment as among the
[19]
civilremedies.

Meanwhile, on 27 December 1989, the Provincial Treasurer suspended some provisions of Tax
[20]
OrdinanceNo.881136forfailuretoconformtotheratesprescribedbytheLocalTaxCode. Thus,
[21]
theSangguniangBayanenactedMunicipalRevenueOrdinanceNo.900154 on5January1990 to
amend the suspended provisions of Tax Ordinance No. 881136. The Provincial Treasurer found
Municipal Revenue Ordinance No. 900154 to be in conformity with the rates authorized under the
LocalTaxCodeandaccordinglyliftedthesuspensionoftheprovisionsofTaxOrdinanceNo.881136
that were previously suspended and declared that the same, as amended by Municipal Revenue
[22]
OrdinanceNo.900154,mayalreadybegivenforceandeffect.

Thereafter,on24January1990,theProvincialTreasurerwrotepetitionersinformingthelatterof
hisfindingsthatTaxOrdinanceNos.881136and891049werebothinorderandinaccordwithArt.3
ofP.D.No.231andfurtherexplainingthatunderSec.49ofP.D.No.231,apublichearingisrequired
only when the local board or council may exercise the power to impose a tax or fee on a tax base or
subject similar to those authorized in [the Local Tax Code] but which may not have been specifically
[23]
enumeratedherein,afactnotpresentinthecaseofthequestionedordinances.

Petitioners wrote the Provincial Treasurer on 31 January 1990 informing the latter that the
Provincial Fiscal already made a contrary ruling on Tax Ordinance No. 891049 and that since the

municipality did not appeal the said ruling, the same became final. Petitioners further requested the
Provincial Treasurer to transmit all records to the DOF for purposes of appealing the ruling of the
[24]
ProvincialTreasurerandforareviewofthequestionedordinancesbyahigherauthority.

Petitioners elevated the finding of the Provincial Treasurer to the Secretary of Finance on 31
January1990.TheyalsorequestedthesuspensionoftheimplementationofTaxOrdinanceNo.881136
[25]
pendingitsreviewbysaidoffice. On30March1990,GregorioA.Barretto,DirectorIII,Bureauof
Local Government Finance of the DOF, referred the appeal to the Provincial Treasurer for comment
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/135928.htm 3/16
4/10/2017 G.R.No.135928

[26]
and/or recommendation. The Provincial Treasurer informed the DOF that his office reviewed and
approvedtheordinanceaftertherateshavebeenfoundtobejustandreasonableandthat,forthoserates
initiallyfoundbyhimtohaveexceededthemaximumauthorizedbylaw,anamendatoryordinancewas
[27]
enactedtomeettheobjection.

Thereafter, the Deputy Director and OfficerinCharge of the Bureau of Local Government
Finance, by authority of the Secretary of Finance, informed the Provincial Treasurer that their
[28]
department cannot review Ordinance No. 881136 as requested by petitioners. The Provincial
[29]
Treasurertransmittedacopyofthislettertopetitioners.
[30]
Four years later, on 24 April 1995, the RTC rendered a Decision in Civil Case No. 4577, the
dispositiveportionofwhichstates:
WHEREFORE,judgmentisherebyrenderedasfollows:

1 declaring Municipal Revenue Ordinance No. 881136, series of 1988, enacted by the
SangguniangBayanofTubigon,Boholasvalidandthereforethesamecanbeenforced

2declaring Municipal Ordinance No. 891049 dated October 11, 1989 valid, except insofar as it
provides for the padlocking of the establishment as the civil remedies available against a delinquent
taxpayer

3denyingtheprayerformandamusandreimbursement

4 dissolving the injunctive order dated May 11, 1990 directing the defendants to desist from
enforcingMunicipalOrdinanceNo.881136

5grantingFinalInjunction restraining defendants from padlocking the businessestablishmentsof
theplaintiffs,thusmakingpermanenttheinjunctiveorderofMay11,1990tothateffectand

6dismissingdefendantscounterclaimforinsufficiencyofevidence.

Costsagainsttheplaintiffs.

[31]
SOORDERED.


[32]
PetitionersfiledaNoticeofAppealwiththeRTC, whichgaveduecoursetotheappealandordered
[33]
thetransmittalofthecaserecordstotheCourtofAppeals(CA).

[34]
On26May1998,theFifthDivisionoftheCArenderedaDecision affirmingintotothedecisionof
[35]
theRTC.Theirmotionforreconsiderationhavingbeendenied, petitionersnowcometothisCourt
viathisPetitionforReviewunderRule45oftheRulesofCourt.

[36]
The issues raised by petitioners in their Memorandum may be summarized as follows: (1)
whether the ordinances are valid and enforceable (2) whether publication was necessary and (3)
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/135928.htm 4/16
4/10/2017 G.R.No.135928

whethertherewasexhaustionofadministrativeremedies.

Thepetitionismeritoriousbutonlyinregardtotheneedforpublication.

Petitioners adopt a threelevel argument with regard to the validity and enforceability of Tax
OrdinanceNo.881136.First,theyasserttheordinancedoesnotexistbyvirtueofrespondentofficials
delayinfurnishingthemwithacopyofthequestionedordinance.Second,ifTaxOrdinanceNo.8811
36didexist,itwasnotvalidlyenactedforfailuretoholdpublichearingsandtohavethesamepublished
pursuanttoSec.43oftheLocalTaxCode.Finally,petitionersclaim,evenifTaxOrdinanceNo.8811
36 was validly enacted, the same contains objectionable provisions which would render it invalid and
unenforceable.

PetitionersmisgivingsontheexistenceofTaxOrdinanceNo.881136arebaseless.Thereason
forthedelaywasadequatelyexplainedandwasevenattributedtopetitionersfailuretopayforthecost
ofreproductionoftheordinance.
The right of the people to information on matters of public concern is recognized under Sec. 7,
[37]
Art.IIIofthe1987Constitution andissubjecttosuchlimitationsasmaybeprovidedbylaw.Thus,
whileaccesstoofficialrecordsmaynotbeprohibited,itcertainlymayberegulated.Theregulationmay
comeeitherfromstatutorylawandfromtheinherentpowerofanofficertocontrolhisofficeandthe
recordsunderhiscustodyandtoexercisesomediscretionastothemannerinwhichpersonsdesiringto
[38]
inspect,examine,orcopytherecordmayexercisetheirrights. TheMunicipalTreasurerinthecase
at bar exercised this discretion by requiring petitioners to pay for the cost of reproduction of Tax
OrdinanceNo.881136.Sucharequirementisreasonableunderthecircumstancesconsideringthatthe
ordinanceisquitevoluminousconsistingofmorethanahundredpages.

PetitionersthenassailTaxOrdinanceNo.881136andTaxOrdinanceNo.901049forfailuretohold
publichearingspursuanttoSec.50oftheLocalTaxCode.Respondents,ontheotherhand,claimthata
public hearing was no longer necessary considering that the ordinances in question were merely
revisionsofanexistingtaxordinanceandnotnewenactments.



[39] [40]
ThepertinentprovisionsoflawonthismatterareSecs.49 and50 oftheLocalTaxCode.

A perusal of these provisions would yield a conclusion that the local board or council has the
powertoimposeataxorfee(1)onataxbaseorsubjectspecificallyenumeratedintheLocalTaxCode,
(2) on a tax base similar to those authorized in the Local Tax Code but which may not have been
specificallyenumeratedtherein,and(3)onataxbaseortaxsubjectwhichisnotsimilarorcomparable
toanytaxbaseorsubjectspecificallymentionedorotherwiseprovidedforintheLocalTaxCode.Public
hearingapparentlyisnotnecessarywhenthetaxorfeeisimposedonataxbaseorsubjectspecifically
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/135928.htm 5/16
4/10/2017 G.R.No.135928
hearingapparentlyisnotnecessarywhenthetaxorfeeisimposedonataxbaseorsubjectspecifically
enumeratedintheLocalTaxCode.

Thebasisfortheabovedistinctionisthatwhenataxbaseorsubjectisspecificallyenumeratedin
the Local Tax Code, the existence of the power to tax is beyond question as the same is expressly
granted.Eveninthedeterminationoftheratesofthetax,apublichearing,evenifideal,isnotnecessary
becausethelawitselfprovidesforaceilingonsuchrates.Thesamedoesnotobtaininasituationwhere
what is about to be taxed is not specifically enumerated in the Local Tax Code because in such a
situation, the issues of whether to tax or not and at what rate a tax is to be imposed are crucial.
Consequently,apublichearingisnecessaryandvital.

AscrutinyofthetaxesorfeesimposedbyTaxOrdinanceNo.881136showsthatsomeofthem
belong to the second and third categories of taxes or fees that may be imposed by a municipality that
require public hearing. Petitioners are thus correct in saying that a public hearing is necessary for its
enactment. With respect to Tax Ordinance No. 891049, however, we hold that no public hearing is
necessaryasitdoesnotimposeanytaxorfee.Saidordinanceisactuallyarestatement,withillustrations,
oftheprovisionsoftheLocalTaxCodeoncivilremediesforthecollectionofthelocaltaxesandfees
imposedbyTaxOrdinanceNo.881136.

AlthoughapublichearingisnecessaryfortheenactmentofTaxOrdinanceNo.881136,stillwe
upholditsvalidityinviewofpetitionersfailuretopresentevidencetoshowthatnopublichearingwas
[41]
conducted. Petitioners,asthepartyassertinganegativeallegation,hadtheburdenofprovinglackof

[42]
publichearing. AlthoughtheSangguniangBayanhadthecontrolofrecordsorthebettermeansof
proof regarding the facts alleged and respondent public officials assumed an uncooperative stance to
petitionersrequestforcopiesoftheMinutesoftheirdeliberation,petitionersarenotrelievedfromthis
[43]
burden. PetitionerscouldeasilyhaveresortedtothevariousmodesofdiscoveryunderRules23to
[44]
28 of the Rules of Court. Furthermore, petitioners could have compelled the production of these
documents through a subpoena duces tecum or they could have required testimony on this issue by
officialsincustodyofthedocumentsthroughasubpoenaadtestificandum.However, petitioners made
nosucheffort.

PetitionersnextclaimthattheimpositionscontainedinTaxOrdinanceNo.881136exceededthe
maximumallowedbytheLocalTaxCode.Inparticular,petitionersassertthat(1)thetaxesimposedby
theordinancearenotbasedonthetaxpayersabilitytopay(2)thetaxesimposedareunjust,excessive,
oppressive,discriminatoryandconfiscatory(3)theordinancesarecontrarytolaw,publicpolicyandare
inrestraintoftrade(4)theordinancesviolatetheruleofaprogressivesystemoftaxationand(5)the
ordinancesarecontrarytothedeclarednationalpolicy.

Thesequestionshavealreadybeenraisedintheirprotestandresolvedbythe27December1989
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/135928.htm 6/16
4/10/2017 G.R.No.135928

findings of the Provincial Treasurer. In fact, said official suspended some of the provisions of Tax
Ordinance No. 881136 for failure to comply with the rates prescribed by the Local Tax Code.
Furthermore,thesubsequentenactmentofMunicipalRevenueOrdinanceNo.900154anditsapproval
bytheProvincialTreasurercorrectedthisnoncompliancewiththeLocalTaxCode.Thelocallegislative
bodysmodificationofTaxOrdinanceNo.881136throughMunicipalRevenueOrdinanceNo.900154
[45]
issanctionedbySec.44 oftheLocalTaxCode.
Moreover,asthepresumptionofregularityofofficialconductwasnotovercomebypetitioners,
thefindingsoftheProvincialTreasurermustbeupheld.
ThereislikewisenomeritinpetitionerscontentionthattheProvincialTreasurersfindingonthe
fisheryrentalfeesisflawed.TheLocalTaxCodeprovidesinSec.21thereofthatmunicipalities,inthe
exercise of their authority to grant exclusive fishery rights and license individual fishing gears in
municipal waters, may levy or fix rentals or fees therefore in accordance with said section and in
conjunctionwithotheroperativelawsandregulationsonmunicipalfisheries.Onesuchoperativelawis
[46]
P.D.No.704 whichprovidesforthejurisdiction

[47]
oftheBureauofFisheriesandAquaticResourcesinSec.4. Thus,itwascorrectfortheProvincial
Treasurer to rule that the fishery rental fees in Tax Ordinance No. 881136 may be given due course

provided that prior approval from the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources has been obtained,
pursuanttotheprovisionsofP.D.No.704,asamended.

Petitioners further fault the Municipal Treasurer for the latters failure to furnish the Provincial
Treasurer with a copy of Tax Ordinance No. 881136 after its approval. By not furnishing the latter
officialwithacopyofthetaxordinance,theMunicipalTreasurerfrustratedareviewthereof.

In this regard, we hold that the submission of Tax Ordinance No. 881136 to the Assistant
Regional Director, DOF Regional Office No. 7, Cebu City complied with the requirement of review
pursuanttoSecs.49and50oftheLocalTaxCode,assaidofficialisthealteregooftheSecretaryof
Finance, under an expanded application of the doctrine of qualified political agency, where the
PresidentspowerofcontrolisdirectlyexercisedbyhimoverthemembersoftheCabinetwho,inturn,
andbyhisauthority,controlthe

[48]
bureausandotherofficesundertheirrespectivejurisdictionsintheexecutivedepartment.

Wenowresolvetheissueofexhaustionofadministrativeremedies.

A perusal of the applicable provisions of the Local Tax Code would show that there are three
administrativeremediesavailabletoanaggrievedtaxpayer.Ataxordinancemayeitherbe(1)reviewed
[49] [50]
orsuspendedbytheProvincialTreasurer ortheSecretaryofFinance, (2)thesubjectofaformal
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/135928.htm 7/16
4/10/2017 G.R.No.135928
orsuspendedbytheProvincialTreasurer ortheSecretaryofFinance, (2)thesubjectofaformal
[51]
protestwiththeSecretaryofFinance, or(3)questionedastoitslegalityandreferredforopinionto
[52]
theProvincialFiscal.

In the case at bar, petitioners question the validity of Tax Ordinance No. 881136 for the
followingreasons:(1)nopublichearingwasconducted(2)thetaxesimposedthereinarenotbasedon
thetaxpayersabilitytopay(3)thetaxesimposedareunjust,excessive,oppressive,discriminatoryand
confiscatory (4) the ordinances are contrary to law, public policy and are in restraint of trade (5) the
ordinancesviolatetheruleofaprogressivesystemoftaxationand(6)theordinancesarecontrarytothe
declarednationalpolicy.

Oftheseissues,thefirst,second,fourthandfifthissuesshouldhavebeenreferredforopinionto
[53]
theProvincialFiscalpursuanttoSec.47 oftheLocalTaxCode,becausetheyarenotamongthose
[54]
mentioned in Sec. 44 of the Local Tax Code. The other remaining issues, on the other hand, are
propersubjectsofaprotestwhichshouldhavebeenbroughttotheSecretaryofFinance.

However, petitioners did not even bring the issues relative to the legality or validity of Tax
Ordinance No. 881136 to the Provincial Fiscal. What they brought for the consideration of the
[55]
ProvincialFiscalwasTaxOrdinanceNo.891049.Thus,inOpinionNo.901, theProvincialFiscal
foundsaidordinancevalidexceptinsofarasitprovidedforthepadlockingoftheestablishmentasamong
the civil remedies available against a delinquent taxpayer. The ruling of the Provincial Treasurer
declaringTaxOrdinanceNo.891049validandinorderisofnomomentbecause,underSec.47,the
opinionoftheProvincialFiscalisappealabletotheSecretaryofJustice.

Withrespecttotheremainingissuesproperforaformalprotest,petitionersdidnotbringthesame
totheSecretaryofFinance.WhattheyfiledinsteadwasapetitionwiththeMunicipalMayorrequesting
for a suspension of the implementation of the ordinance pending final determination of its legality by
appropriateauthorities.PetitionersthereafterwenttotheProvincialTreasurerreiteratingtheirrequestfor
a review and suspension of the ordinance. In fact, the first time petitioners wrote the DOF was on 13
June1989,whentheymerelyrequestedsaidofficialtorequiretheProvincialTreasurertoresolvetheir
protestexpeditiously.

Obviously,petitionersdidnotformallyprotestTaxOrdinanceNo.881136asthesamemayproperlybe
brought not before the Provincial Treasurer but before the Secretary of Finance. What the Provincial
TreasurermerelyconductedwasareviewofTaxOrdinanceNo.881136underSec.44oftheLocalTax
Code,limitingitselftotheissuesproperforareviewthereof.Thus,saidofficialinitiallysuspendedsome
oftheprovisionsofTaxOrdinanceNo.881136fortheirfailuretocomplywiththeratesprescribedby
theLocalTaxCodeandeventuallydecidedinfavorofitsvalidityaftertheSangguniangBayanmodified
the objectionable provisions thereof via Municipal Revenue Ordinance No. 900154. That what was
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/135928.htm 8/16
4/10/2017 G.R.No.135928
the objectionable provisions thereof via Municipal Revenue Ordinance No. 900154. That what was
filedbeforetheProvincialTreasurerwasmerelyareviewisevidentfromtheDOFsrefusaltoreviewthe
findingsoftheProvincialTreasurer,which,itsaid,wasmadepursuanttoSec.44oftheLocalTaxCode.

EvenifweweretoconsiderpetitionersappealwiththeSecretaryofFinanceasaformalprotest,
despiteitsunseasonableness,still,itwouldbeunavailingsincetheydidnotofferproofonhowandin
whatmannerTaxOrdinanceNo.881136couldbeinvalid.Infact,theDeputyDirectorandOfficerin
ChargeoftheBureauofLocalGovernmentFinance,byauthorityoftheSecretaryofFinance,notedthat
petitionerscounseldidnotstatethegroundsofhisprotestasprovidedunderSection45oftheLocalTax
[56]
Code, as amended, in relation to Section 44 thereof. Verily, mere allegation that an ordinance is
invalid on the grounds enumerated in Sec. 44 of the Local Tax Code will not work to rebut the
presumptionoftheordinancesvalidity.

Clearly, for failure to file a formal protest with the Secretary of Finance, or a legal question with the
ProvincialFiscalonTaxOrdinanceNo.881136svalidity,petitionerscannotbesaidtohaveexhausted
administrativeremediesavailabletothem.
The underlying principle of the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies rests on the
presumptionthattheadministrativeagency,ifaffordedacompletechancetopassuponthematter,will
[57]
decide the same correctly. There are both legal and practical reasons for the principle. The
administrative process is intended to provide less expensive and speedier solutions to disputes. Where
the enabling statute indicates a procedure for administrative review and provides a system of
administrativeappealorreconsideration,thecourtsforreasonsoflaw,comity,andconveniencewillnot
entertainacaseunlesstheavailableadministrativeremedieshavebeenresortedtoandtheappropriate
authoritieshavebeengivenanopportunitytoactandcorrecttheerrorscommittedintheadministrative
[58]
forum.

Fromtheabovedisquisitions,itfollowsthatthevalidityofthequestionedtaxordinancesmustbe
upheld. However, their enforceability is another matter that merits further deliberation considering the
apparentlackofpublicationorpostingofthequestionedordinances.

Petitioners assert that pursuant to Sec. 43 of the Local Tax Code, certified true copies of the
ordinanceshouldhavebeenpublishedforthree(3)daysinanewspaperorpublicationwidelycirculated
withinthejurisdictionofthelocalgovernment,orpostedinthelocallegislativehallorpremisesandtwo
otherconspicuousplaceswithintheterritorialjurisdictionofthelocalgovernmentwithinten(10)days
afteritsapproval.

ProvincialCircularNo.2273states:

All taxes, fees and charges authorized by the Code to be imposed by local governments, may only be
collected by the treasurer concerned if an ordinance embodying the same has been duly enacted by the
localboardorcouncilandapprovedinaccordancewiththeprovisionsoftheCode.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/135928.htm 9/16
4/10/2017 G.R.No.135928
localboardorcouncilandapprovedinaccordancewiththeprovisionsoftheCode.

Section43oftheCodeprovidesthatwithinten(10)daysaftertheirapproval,certifiedtruecopiesofall
provincial,city,municipalandbarrioordinancelevyingorimposingtaxes,feesorotherchargesshallbe
published for three (3) consecutive days in a newspaper or publication widely circulated within the
jurisdictionofthelocalgovernment,orpostedinthelocallegislativehallorpremisesandintwoother
conspicuousplaceswithintheterritorialjurisdictionofthelocalgovernment.Ineithercase,copiesofall
provincial,city,municipalandbarriorevenueordinancesshallbefurnishedthetreasurersoftherespective
componentandmotherunitsofalocalgovernmentfordissemination.

WhilenoncompliancewiththeforegoingprovisionsoftheCodewillnotrenderthetaxorrevenue
ordinancesnullandvoid,stilltheremustbepublicationanddisseminationasprovidedintheCode
to obviate abuses in the exercise of the taxing powers and preclude protests from the people
adversely affected. Such publication and dissemination of tax ordinances will not only be in
consonancewiththeobjectivesoftheCodetosecurefair,justanduniformlocalimpositionsbutwill
alsoenhancetheefficientcollectionofvalidtaxes,feesandothercharges.[Emphasissupplied]

Thus,itwouldseemthatwhilelackofpublicationdoesnotrenderataxordinancenullandvoid,
said requirement must still be complied with in order to obviate abuses in the exercise of the taxing
powers and preclude protests from the people adversely affected. Publication is thus a condition
precedenttotheeffectivityandenforceabilityofanordinancetoinformthepublicofitscontentsbefore
rightsareaffectedbythesame.

The records are bereft of any indication that evidence was presented to prove petitioners negative
allegationthattherewasnopublication.Neitheristhereapositivedeclarationonthepartofrespondents
that there was publication or posting. Even the RTC and the CA decisions are silent on this issue.
Consequently,anuncertaintyexistsonwhethertheordinanceswereindeedpublishedornot.Weresolve
thisuncertaintyinfavorofpetitionersandaccordinglyrulethatthequestionedtaxordinancesmustbe
publishedbeforethenewtaxratesimposedthereinaretobecollectedfromtheaffectedtaxpayers.

Thisdoesnotmeanhoweverthatthemunicipalityisdeprivedoftheincomethatwouldhavebeen
collectedunderthesubjecttaxordinancesbecausetaxesmaystillbecollectedattheoldratespreviously
imposed.
Whilewepartiallygrantthispetition,wenotewithdisapprovalpetitionerscommissionofforum
shopping prior to the filing of this petition. Petitioners simultaneously prayed for the same relief of
suspensionoftheordinanceinfourdifferentfora.Itshouldberememberedthatpetitionersinitiallyfiled
aprotestofTaxOrdinanceNo.881136withtheMunicipalMayorandtheMunicipalTreasureron11
January 1989. Even as this protest was unresolved, they elevated their request for a review and
suspensionofthesameordinancetotheProvincialTreasureron17February1989.Again,inviewofthe
threatofclosureoftheirestablishment,petitionerssentalettertotheDOFon21August1989 praying
forthesamereliefofsuspensionoftheordinance.Again,despitethependencyofthevariousrequests,
petitioners filed Civil Case No. 4577, again praying for a writ of preliminary injunction to restrain
respondentsfromenforcingtheordinance,aprayerwhichisessentiallyaprayerforthesuspensionofthe
ordinance.


http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/135928.htm 10/16
4/10/2017 G.R.No.135928

WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,theinstantpetitionisGRANTEDINPART.Thedecisionof
theCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.SPNo.39045isherebyMODIFIEDinthattheSangguniangBayanof
Tubigon, Bohol is hereby DIRECTED to cause the publication of Tax Ordinance No. 881136, Tax
Ordinance No. 891049, and Municipal Revenue Ordinance No. 900154 for three (3) days in a
newspaper or publication widely circulated within the jurisdiction of the local government, or their
posting in the local legislative hall or premises and two other conspicuous places within the territorial
jurisdictionofthelocalgovernment.Inallotherrespects,thedecisionoftheCourtofAppealsinCA
G.R.SPNo.39045affirmingthe26May1998DecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourtinCivilCaseNo.
4577isherebyAFFIRMED.

Costsagainstpetitioners.

SOORDERED.


DANTEO.TINGA
AssociateJustice



WECONCUR:



(OnOfficialLeave)
LEONARDOA.QUISUMBING
AssociateJustice
Chairperson



ANTONIOT.CARPIOCONCHITACARPIOMORALES
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice




PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
AssociateJustice




ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
casewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/135928.htm 11/16
4/10/2017 G.R.No.135928
casewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.



ANTONIOT.CARPIO

AssociateJustice
ActingChairperson,SecondDivision



CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Acting Chairpersons
Attestation,itisherebycertifiedthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedin
consultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.



REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

*Onofficialleave.

**ActingChairperson.

[1]
Rollo,pp.829.

[2]
Id.at454461.PennedbyJusticeHectorL.HofileaandconcurredinbyJusticesJesusM.ElbiniasandOmarU.Amin.

[3]
Id.at428435.PennedbyPresidingJudgeAchillesL.Melicor.

[4]
Id.at279383.Thetaxesimposedbytheordinanceareasfollows:

ChapterII.MunicipalTaxes
(A)RealPropertyTax
(B)BusinessTax,and
(C)TaxonAdvertisements

ChapterIII.PermitandRegulatoryFees
(A)MayorsPermitFeesonBusiness
(B)PermitFeesforGaffer,Referee,Bettaker,PromoterandCashier
(C)CartandSledgeRegistrationFee
(D)LargeCattleRegistrationandTransferFees
(E)Registration/PermitFeesonBicycles,Tricycles,PedicabsandMotorcabs
(F)PoundageFee
(G)RegistrationFeesonFishingBoatsandMotorboats
(H)PermitFeeonParades
(I)RegistrationFeeonCalesaorCaretela
(J)PermitFeeonFilmMakingandVideoTapeCoverage,and
(K)PermitFeeonAgriculturalMachineriesandotherHeavyEquipment

ChapterIV.OtherPermitandRegulatoryFees
(A)PermitFeeonSandandGravel
(B)BuildingPermitFees
(C)PermitFeeonStorageofFlammable,CombustibleorExplosiveSubtances
(D)PermitandInspectionFeesonMachineriesandEngines
(E)PermitFeeforExcavation
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/135928.htm 12/16
4/10/2017 G.R.No.135928
(E)PermitFeeforExcavation
(F)PermitFeeforInspectionandVerificationofSubdivisions

(G) Permit Fee for the Use of Sidewalks, Alleys, Roads, Streets, Parks, Plazas, Public Structures and Buildings Other
Personal/RealOwnedbytheState
(H)PermitFeeforHunting
(I)PermitFeesforotheractivities

ChapterV.ServiceFees
(A)SecretarysFees
(B)LocalRegistryFees
(C)Clearance,CertificationandOtherSimilarFees
(D)ServiceFeeforHealthExamination
(E)SanitaryInspectionFee
(F)ServiceChargeforGarbageCollection

ChapterVI.MunicipalCharges
(A)MarketFees
(B)FisheryRentalsorFees
(C)SlaughterandCorralFees
(D)RentalofMunicipalCemeteryLots
(E)WaterworksFees
(F)MunicipalServiceFees
(G)ParkingFees

[5]
Id. at 39. Petitioner Berdin reiterated his request in another letter (Id. at 42). He also requested a copy of the Minutes of the
deliberationsoftheSangguniangBayanonTaxOrdinanceNo.881136.

[6]
Id.at4041.

[7]
Id.at43.

[8]
See1stIndorsement,id.at44.Petitionerswouldsubsequentlywrite:(1)theSecretaryofFinance,requestingsaidofficialtorequirethe
Provincial Treasurer to resolve their protest expeditiously (Id. at 210), and (2) the Provincial Treasurer, reminding him of the protest and
requestinghimforeitherasuspensionoftheordinanceoradeterminationofitsvalidity(Id.at209).

TheFinanceServiceChiefoftheLocalFinancePolicyEnforcementServiceoftheDOFwouldthereafterreferpetitionerslettertothe
ProvincialTreasurerforcommentwithin10days,withaninquiryonwhetherTaxOrdinanceNo.881136hadalreadybeenreviewedbythe
ProvincialTreasurer,andwithinstructionsthatiftheordinancehadalreadybeenreviewed,theProvincialTreasurerfurnishhisofficewiththe
resultsofthereview(Id.at211).

Forhispart,theProvincialTreasurerwouldagainwritetheMunicipalTreasurerforthelatterofficialtotransmitacopyoftheordinance
sothatthesamemaybereviewedandtocommentandanswertheprotestoftheAssociation(Id.at212).

[9]
Id.at269.Itappearsthatacopyoftheordinancehadearlierbeensubmittedtosaidofficialon29December1988forreview.

[10]
Id.at204207.

[11]
Id.at208.

[12]
Id.at213.

[13]
Id. at 3238. The complaint in Civil Case No. 4577 was amended (with leave of Court) on 2February1990 (Id. at 7581). The
followingallegationswereadded:

17.Thatinadditiontothegroundssetforthintheirprotest,theordinanceinquestionhave[sic]beenenactedwithout
themandatorypublichearingwhichisaconditionprecedentunderSecs.49and50oftheLocalTaxCodesincethesamerefer
tosimilartaxorfeenotspecificallyenumeratedand/ornotprovidedbylawtothefailuretocomplywithSec.5ofExecutive
OrderNo.249whichtookeffectJuly1987impl[e]mentedonOct.22,1987,fortheclassificationtobethebasisforfixingthe
maximumtaxceilingsimposable

xxxx

22.xxxEffortswereexertedtoascertainwhethertheordinancewaspublishedinanewspaperofgeneralcirculation
orpostedasrequiredbylaw,butPlaintiffswerenotawarethereof(Id.at7879.)

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/135928.htm 13/16
4/10/2017 G.R.No.135928

The complaint was further amended on 19 October 1991 with the inclusion of Cresenciana P. La Fuente and Samuel Purisima,
incumbentMunicipalTreasurerandINPStationCommander,respectively,asdefendants.

[14]
TheRTCissuedawritofpreliminaryinjunctionon11March1990uponpetitionersfilingofabondintheamountofP10,000.00.

[15]
Rollo,p.147.

[16]
TaxOrdinanceNo.881136merelystatedthat[t]hecivilremediesavailableshallbebydistraintofpersonalpropertyandbylegal
action.

[17]
Rollo,p.272.TheLocalTaxCode,asamendedbyP.D.No.426,becameeffectiveon30March1974andhasbeensupersededbythe
LocalGovernmentCode.

[18]
Id.at221223.

[19]
Id.at224.

[20]
Id.at253.SaidofficialwrotetheSangguniangBayan.

Aftercarefulreviewthereof,pursuanttoSection44ofP.D.231,asamended,theimpositionofpermitandregulatory
feesarewithinthetaxingpoweroftheSangguniangBayan and the rates are found to be just and reasonable as authorized
underSection36oftheLocalTaxCode.

HowevertheeffectivityoftheratesimposedunderSection2B.02(115),(16b15)ofArticleBSection2C.01(ah)ofArticle
C Section 5A.01 (17) of Article A Section. 5B.01 (a1) (bc) of Article B Section 5C.01 (ae),(h4) of Article C Section
6C.01 (da) of Article C and all other rates not allowed under P.D. 231, as amended, are hereby suspended pending the
enactmentofanamendatoryordinancebythatHonorableBodyinordertoconformwiththeratesprescribedundertheLocal
TaxCode.

PursuanttoSection30ofP.D.231,asamended,theratesfixedfortherentalsofstalls,boothsandblocktiendasarealsohereby
approveditappearingthatthesamearereasonable.

TheFisheryrentalfeesmaybe[sic]givenduecourseprovidedthatpriorapprovalfromtheBureauofFisheriesandAquatic
Resourceshasbeenobtained,pursuanttotheprovisionsofP.D.704,asamended.

Therefore,thesaidordinancemaybe[sic]givenforceandeffectnotearlierthanthedatefixedforitseffectivity,exceptthose
sectionsandarticleswhicharedeclaredtobesuspended.

[21]
Id.at387400.

[22]
Id.at401.

[23]
Id.at252.

[24]
Id.at254.

[25]
Id.at255.

[26]
See1stIndorsement,id.at261.

[27]
See2nd Indorsement,id.at260.

[28]
See3rd Indorsement,id.at257258.Saidofficialwrote:

Apparently, it is the intention of Atty. Legaspi to raise a protest on the impositions prescribed under the said
Ordinance.However,hedidnotstatethegroundsofhisprotestasprovidedforunderSection45oftheLocalTaxCode,as
amended,inrelationtoSection44thereof.

Foremphasisandclarity,itisinformedthattaxordinancesofmunicipalitiesarereviewedbyProvincialTreasurerspursuantto
theprovisionsofSection44oftheCode.TheProvincialTreasurer,byvirtueofitspowertoreview,maysuspendtheordinance
inwholeorinpartonthegroundthatthetaxorfeethereinleviedorimposedisunjust,excessive,oppressive,confiscatory,or
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/135928.htm 14/16
4/10/2017 G.R.No.135928
notamongthosethataparticularlocalgovernmentmayimposeorwhentheordinanceiscontrarytodeclarednationalpolicy.

Aformalprotestagainstataxordinancemaybefiledbasedonthesamegroundsforsuspendinganordinancepursuant
toSection45oftheCode.xxx

[29]
See4th Indorsement,id.at256.

[30]
Id.at428435.

[31]
Id.at435.

[32]
Id.at437.

[33]
Id.at439.TheappealwasdocketedasCAG.R.SPNo.39045.

[34]
Id.at454461.PennedbyJusticeHectorL.Hofilea,concurredinbyJusticesJesusM.ElbiniasandOmarU.Amin.

[35]
SeeResolution,id.at467.

[36]
Id.at507529.

[37]
CONST.,Art.III,Sec.7states:Therightofthepeopletoinformationonmattersofpublicconcernshallberecognized.Accessto
officialrecords,andtodocuments,andpaperspertainingtoofficialacts,transactions,ordecisions,aswellastogovernmentresearchdatausedas
basisforpolicydevelopment,shallbeaffordedthecitizen,subjecttosuchlimitationsasmaybeprovidedbylaw.

[38]
SeeJ.G.BERNAS,THECONSTITUTIONOFTHEREPUBLICOFTHEPHILIPPINES:ACOMMENTARY(FirstEd.,1987),p.
265,citingSubidov.Ozaeta,80Phil.383(1948).

[39]
SEC.49.Similartaxorfeenotspecificallyenumerated.Thelocalboardorcouncilmayexercisethepowertoimposeataxorfee
onataxbaseorsubjectsimilartothoseauthorizedinthisCodebutwhichmaynothavebeenspecificallyenumeratedherein,therateof
whichshallinnocaseexceedthatfixedforthesimilartaxbaseorsubject.Noordinance,however,imposingsuchataxorfeeshallbeenacted
withoutanypublichearinghavingbeenheldforthepurpose.TheSecretaryofFinanceshallwithinsixmonthsfromthedateofreceiptofcopy
oftheordinancereviewthesameandthetaxorfeethereinimposedshallaccrue,shouldtheordinancebeapprovedbytheSecretaryofFinance,at
suchdateasmaybedeterminedandfixedbyhim.(AsamendedbyP.D.No.426)[Emphasissupplied]

[40]
SEC.50.Taxorfeenotprovidedfor.Wherethetaxbaseortaxsubjectisnotsimilarorcomparabletoanytaxbaseorsubject
specificallymentionedorotherwiseprovidedforinthisCode,thelocalboardorcouncilmayimposeatax,feeorotherimpositionthereon.No
ordinance,however,imposingsuchataxorfeeshallbeenactedwithoutanypublichearinghavingbeenheldforthepurpose.TheSecretary
ofFinanceshallwithinsixmonthsfromthedateorreceiptofcopyoftheordinancereviewthesameandthetaxorfeethereinimposedshall
accrue,shouldtheordinancebeapprovedbytheSecretaryofFinance,atsuchdateasmaybedeterminedandfixedbyhim.(AsamendedbyP.D.
No.426)[Emphasissupplied]

[41]
SeeReyesv.CourtofAppeals,378Phil.232(1999),citingFiguerresv.CourtofAppeals,364Phil.683(1999).

[42]
Id.

[43]
SeeReyesv.CourtofAppeals,supranote41at239,citingPeoplev.Pajenado,142Phil.702,707(1970).

[44]
Thesemodesofdiscoveryarethefollowing:(1)DepositionsPendingAction,(2)DepositionsBeforeActionorPendingAppeal,(3)
InterrogatoriestoParties,(4)AdmissionbyAdverseParty,(5)ProductionorInspectionofDocumentsofThings,and(5)PhysicalandMental
ExaminationofPersons.

[45]
SEC.44.Reviewandsuspensionoftaxordinance.xxxThexxxprovincialtreasurerxxxshallreviewandhavetheauthorityto
suspendtheeffectivityofanytaxordinancewithinonehundredandtwentydaysafterreceiptofacopythereof,ifinhisopinion,thetaxorfee
thereinleviedorimposedisunjust,excessive,oppressive,confiscatory,ornotamongthosethattheparticularlocalgovernmentmayimposein
theexerciseofitspowerinaccordancewiththisCodeorwhenthetaxordinanceis,inwholeorinpart,contrarytodeclarednationaleconomic
policyorwhentheordinanceisdiscriminatoryinnatureontheconductofbusinessorcallingorinrestraintoftrade.

Whenthexxxprovincialtreasurerxxxexercisesthisauthority,theeffectivityofsuchordinanceshallbesuspended,eitherinpartor,if
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/135928.htm 15/16
4/10/2017 G.R.No.135928
necessary,intoto.Thelocallegislativebody,withinthirtydaysafterreceiptofthenoticeofsuspension,mayeithermodifythetaxordinance
to meet the objections thereto or file an appeal with the proper court, otherwise, the tax ordinance or the part or parts thereof declared
suspendedshallbeconsideredasrevoked.[Emphasissupplied]

[46]
EntitledRevisingandConsolidatingAllLawsandDecreesAffectingFishingandFisheries.

[47]
The first paragraph of this provision states that: The Bureau shall have jurisdiction and responsibility in the management,
conservation,development,protection,utilizationanddispositionofallfisheryandaquaticresourcesofthecountryexceptmunicipalwaters
whichshallbeunderthemunicipalorcitygovernmentconcerned:Provided,Thatfishpensandseaweedcultureinmunicipalcentersshallbe
underthejurisdictionoftheBureau:Provided,further,Thatallmunicipalorcityordinancesandresolutionsaffectingfishingandfisheries
andanydispositionthereundershallbesubmittedtotheSecretaryforappropriateactionandshallhavefullforceandeffectonlyuponhis
approval. The Bureau shall also have authority to regulate and supervise the production, capture and gathering of fish and fishery/aquatic
products.[Emphasissupplied]

[48]
SeealsoConstantino.Jr.v.Cuisia,G.R.No.106064,13October2005,472SCRA505Carpiov.ExecutiveSecretary,G.R.No.
96409,14February1992,206SCRA290,295296DeLeonv.Carpio,G.R.No.85243,12October1989,178SCRA457LacsonMagallanes
Co.,Inc.v.Pao,etal.,129Phil.123(1967)Mondanov.Silvosa,97Phil.143(1955)Villenav.SecretaryofInterior,67Phil.451(1939).

[49]
LOCALTAXCODE(1974),Sec.44.

[50]
LOCALTAXCODE(1974),Secs.49and50.

[51]
LOCALTAXCODE(1974),Sec.45.

[52]
LOCALTAXCODE(1974),Sec.47.

[53]
Sec.47.Question on the legality of a tax ordinance.Any question or issue raised against the legality of any tax ordinance, or
portionthereof,ongroundsotherthanthosementionedinSection44ofthisCode,shallbereferredforopiniontotheProvincialFiscal,inthe
caseofprovincial,municipalandbarriotaxordinances,ortotheCityFiscal,inthecaseoftaxordinancesofthecityandbarrioswithinthecity,
whoseopinionshallberenderedwithinaperiodofthirtydaysafterreceiptbyhimofthequeryorprotest.TheopinionoftheProvincialorCity
Fiscal,asthecasemaybe,shallbeappealabletotheSecretaryofJusticewhoshallrenderanopiniononthematterwithinsixtydaysafterreceipt
oftheappeal.ThedecisionoftheSecretaryofJusticeshallbefinalandexecutoryunless,withinthirtydaysuponreceiptthereof,theaggrieved
partyconteststhesameinacourtofcompetentjurisdiction.

[54]
ThegroundsenumeratedbySec.44arethefollowing:1)thetaxorfeethereinleviedorimposedisunjust,excessive,oppressive,
confiscatory(2)thetaxisnotamongthosethattheparticularlocalgovernmentmayimposeinaccordancewiththeLocalTaxCode(3)thetax
ordinanceis,inwholeorinpart,contrarytodeclarednationaleconomicpolicyor(4)theordinanceisdiscriminatoryinnatureontheconductof
businessorcallingorinrestraintoftrade.

[55]
Rollo,pp.221223.

[56]
See3rd Indorsement,id.at257258.

[57]
UniversityofthePhilippinesv.Hon.Catungal,Jr.,338Phil.728,747(1997),citingDelosSantosv.Limbaga,No.L15976, 31
January1962,4SCRA224,226.
[58]
UniversityofthePhilippinesv.Hon.Catungal,supra,citingR.CORTES,PHILIPPINEADMINISTRATIVELAW,CASES AND
MATERIALS394(Rev.2nded.,1984).SeeHon.Caralev.Hon.Abarintos,336Phil.126(1997).

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/135928.htm 16/16