Case Digest (G.R. No. 202781)
Facts:
In 2012, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Tagum City, Davao del Norte, enacted City Ordinance No. 558, s-2012, adopting a revised schedule of market values and assessment levels for real property. This followed the passage of Ordinance No. 516, s-2011 on November 3, 2011, its approval by Mayor Rey T. Uy, and its review by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Davao del Norte, which returned the measure for amendments. The city council’s amendments divided Tagum City into zones and applied uniform market values based on location rather than the actual use of each property. On April 30, 2012, residents Engineer Crisanto M. Aala and Colonel Jorge P. Ferido filed an opposition before the provincial board (Case No. DOCS-12-000362), alleging that the ordinance violated Sections 130(a), 198(a) and (b), 199(b), and 201 of the Local Government Code of 1991 by imposing exorbitant real estate taxes and arbitrarily classifying properties. Despite the provincial board’s committee report recommendingCase Digest (G.R. No. 202781)
Facts:
- Enactment and Review of City Ordinances
- July–November 2011: Tagum City Sangguniang Panlungsod (SP) conducted public hearings and passed City Ordinance No. 516, s-2011 adopting a new schedule of market values and assessment levels for real properties; approved by Mayor Uy on November 11, 2011, and forwarded to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan (SPal) of Davao del Norte for review.
- February–March 2012: SPal issued a report declaring Ordinance No. 516 valid but directed revisions; SP returned and amended the ordinance, resulting in City Ordinance No. 558, s-2012, approved by Mayor Uy on April 10, 2012, then transmitted to SPal on April 12, 2012.
- Opposition, Resolutions, and Publication
- April–May 2012: Engineer Aala and Col. Ferido filed opposition with SPal (Case No. DOCS-12-000362), alleging that Ordinance No. 558 (i) violated classification and valuation provisions of the Local Government Code and (ii) imposed exorbitant taxes without regard to actual use; SPal’s Committee issued Report No. 5 (May 4, 2012) returning the ordinance for attention to oppositors’ concerns.
- May–July 2012: Tagum SP passed Resolution No. 808 requesting SPal reconsideration; SPal issued Resolution No. 428 (June 18, 2012) invalidating several sections of the ordinance; Tagum SP promulgated Resolution No. 874 (July 9, 2012) declaring the ordinance valid under Section 56(d), Local Government Code; Ordinance No. 558 was published July 13–19, 2012.
- Original Action and Procedural History
- August 13, 2012: Petitioners (residents and taxpayers) filed an original action for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus in the Supreme Court, praying for injunctive relief to nullify Ordinance No. 558 for grave abuse of discretion.
- October 2012–September 2013: Respondents moved to drop Councilor Gementiza; parties filed comments, reply, and memoranda; the Court required filing of memoranda and manifested that implementation was deferred due to Typhoon Pablo.
- Petitioners’ Main Contentions
- Procedural: exceptions to hierarchy of courts and exhaustion of administrative remedies justify direct resort to the Supreme Court.
- Substantive: (a) Ordinance No. 558 created only two zones (commercial and industrial), ignoring actual use; (b) Schedule of market values was arbitrarily fixed, resulting in unjustifiable tax increases (e.g., residential lands reclassified from ₱600/m² to ₱5,000/m²); (c) SP usurped the City Assessor’s role in setting market values; (d) Ordinance violates equal protection, due process, and uniformity in taxation.
- Respondents’ Counterarguments
- Procedural: certiorari is inappropriate for legislative acts; remedies under Section 187, Local Government Code (appeal to Secretary of Justice), and lower courts should have been exhausted; violation of hierarchy of courts doctrine; Petition raises factual issues.
- Substantive: ordinance provides four classifications (agricultural, residential, commercial, industrial) with actual use still determinative; SPal exceeded 30-day review period making the ordinance presumptively valid under Section 56(d).
Issues:
- Procedural Issues
- Whether exceptions to the doctrine on hierarchy of courts apply.
- Whether exceptions to exhaustion of administrative remedies apply.
- Whether certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus were properly availed.
- Whether Councilor Gementiza should be dropped as respondent.
- Substantive Issues
- Whether respondents committed grave abuse of discretion in preparing, enacting, and approving Ordinance No. 558, s-2012.
- Whether the ordinance limited classification to only commercial or industrial properties.
- Whether the schedule of market values conforms to the principle of valuation based on actual use.
- Whether the ordinance imposes exorbitant real property taxes.
- Whether the ordinance violates the equal protection clause, due process clause, and rule on uniformity in taxation.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)