G.R. No. L-41631 December 17, 1976HON. RAMON D.

BAGATSING, as Mayor of the City of

Manila; ROMAN G. GARGANTIEL, asSecretary to the Mayor; THE MARKET ADMINISTRATOR;
and THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OFMANILA,
petitioners,vs.
HON. PEDRO A. RAMIREZ, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance
of Manila, Branch XXX and the FEDERATION OF MANILA MARKET VENDORS, INC.,
respondents.
FACTS:
On June 12, 1974, the Municipal Board of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 7522, "AN
ORDINANCEREGULATING THE OPERATION OF PUBLIC MARKETS AND PRESCRIBING
FEES FOR THERENTALS OF STALLS AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION
THEREOF AND FOROTHER PURPOSES." The petitioner City Mayor, Ramon D. Bagatsing, approved
the ordinance on June 15, 1974.On February 17, 1975, respondent Federation of Manila Market
Vendors, Inc. commenced CivilCase 96787 before the CFI of Manila presided over by respondent
Judge, seeking the declaration of nullity of Ordinance No. 7522 for the reason that (a) the publication
requirement under the RevisedCharter of the City of Manila has not been complied with; (b) the Market
Committee was not givenany participation in the enactment of the ordinance, as envisioned by Republic Act
6039; (c) Section3 (e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act has been violated; and (d)
the ordinance wouldviolate Presidential Decree No. 7 of September 30, 1972 prescribing
the collection of fees andcharges on livestock and animal products.A f t e r d u e h e a r i n g o n t h e
m e r i t s , r e s p o n d e n t J u d g e r e n d e r e d i t s d e c i s i o n o n A u g u s t 2 9 , 1 9 7 5 , declaring the
nullity of Ordinance No. 7522 of the City of Manila on the primary ground of non- compliance
with the requirement of publication under the Revised City
Charter.P e t i t i o n e r s m o v e d f o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e a d v e r s e d e c i s i o n , s t r e s s i n g t
h a t ( a ) o n l y a p o s t - p u b l i c a t i o n i s r e q u i r e d b y t h e L o c a l Tax C o d e ; a n d ( b )
p r i v a t e r e s p o n d e n t f a i l e d t o e x h a u s t a l l administrative remedies before instituting an action
in court.
ISSUE:
What law governs the publication of a tax ordinance enacted by the Municipal Board of Manila, theRevised
City Charter (R.A. 409, as amended) which requires publication of the ordinance before itse n a c t m e n t
a n d a f t e r i t s a p p r o v a l , o r t h e L o c a l Tax C o d e ( P.D . N o . 2 3 1 ) , w h i c h o n l y
d e m a n d s publication after approval?
HELD:
There is no question that the Revised Charter of the City of Manila is a
special act
since it relateso n l y t o t h e C i t y o f M a n i l a , w h e r e a s t h e L o c a l Tax C o d e i s
a g e n e r a l l a w b e c a u s e i t a p p l i e s universally to all local governments. Blackstone defines general
law as a universal rule affecting theentire community and special law as one relating to particular persons
or things of a class. And therule commonly said is that a prior special law is not ordinarily repealed by a
subsequent general law.The fact that one is special and the other general creates a
presumption that the special is to beconsidered as remaining an exception of the general, one as a
general law of the land, the other asthe law of a particular case. However, the rule readily yields to a
situation where the special statuter e f e r s t o a s u b j e c t i n g e n e r a l , w h i c h t h e g e n e r a l
statute treats in
particular
. T h e e x a c t l y i s t h e circumstance obtaining in the case at bar. Section 17 of the Revised
Charter of the City of Manila