Facts:

In the case of Hon. Ramon D. Bagatsing et al. v. Hon. Pedro A. Ramirez et al., with G.R. No. L-41631 and a decision dated December 17, 1976, the petitioners, who include the Mayor of Manila, Ramon D. Bagatsing, and Roman G. Gargantiel, the Secretary to the Mayor, alongside the Market Administrator and the Municipal Board of Manila, faced respondents consisting of the Hon. Pedro A. Ramirez, Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, and the Federation of Manila Market Vendors, Inc. The dispute arose following the enactment of Ordinance No. 7522 on June 12, 1974, which regulated public markets and prescribed fees for stall rentals. Mayor Bagatsing approved the ordinance on June 15, 1974. On February 17, 1975, the Federation initiated Civil Case No. 96787, claiming that the ordinance was null and void for failing to comply with the publication requirements mandated by the Revised City Charter (Republic Act No. 409), lacking participation from the Market Committee as

...

Facts:

Background and Enactment of Ordinance No. 7522

• On June 12, 1974, the Municipal Board of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 7522, “AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE OPERATION OF PUBLIC MARKETS AND PRESCRIBING FEES FOR THE RENTALS OF STALLS AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION THEREOF AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.”
• The ordinance was approved by City Mayor Ramon D. Bagatsing on June 15, 1974.

Initiation of the Dispute

• On February 17, 1975, the Federation of Manila Market Vendors, Inc. filed Civil Case 96787 in the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XXX.
• The petition sought the declaration of nullity of Ordinance No. 7522 based on multiple allegations:
• Non-compliance with the publication requirement under the Revised City Charter of Manila.
• Lack of participation of the Market Committee in the ordinance’s enactment, in accordance with Republic Act No. 6039.
• Violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
• Alleged conflict with Presidential Decree No. 7 regarding fees and charges on livestock and animal products.

Publication Requirements under Conflicting Statutes

• The Revised City Charter of Manila required publication of each proposed ordinance in two daily newspapers of general circulation before discussion and enactment, as well as publication of approved ordinances within ten days after approval.
• In contrast, the Local Tax Code (P.D. No. 231) required that ordinances levying taxes, fees, or other charges be published only after approval, either in a widely circulated newspaper or by posting in designated public places.
• The controversy arose because petitioners complied with the Local Tax Code’s publication requirement rather than that of the Revised City Charter.

Procedural Aspects and Judicial Developments

• In the preliminary stages, the respondent judge denied the plea that the Federation of Manila Market Vendors, Inc. failed to exhaust the administrative remedies prescribed by the Local Tax Code.
• After full hearing on the merits, the court of first instance ruled on August 29, 1975, declaring the ordinance null and void for non-compliance with the pre-enactment and post-approval publication requirements of the Revised City Charter.
• Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration emphasizing:
• That only post-approval publication is mandated by the Local Tax Code.
• That the respondent’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies should not preclude judicial intervention.
• The motion for reconsideration was denied on September 26, 1975, leading petitioners to elevate the matter for review on certiorari.

Additional Allegations Raised by Private Respondents

• It was contended that the ordinance did not constitute a “tax ordinance” since the levied fees (including rentals, permit fees, tolls, etc.) were meant for revenue-raising rather than as an imposition of taxation.
• The non-participation of the Market Committee, whose role under Republic Act No. 6039 was described as merely recommendatory, was also argued to undermine the ordinance’s validity.
• Another claim involved the administrative arrangement with Asiatic Integrated Corporation, raising concerns that fees collected were diverted for private use, allegedly violating the public purpose of the ordinance.

Issue:

Conflict of Statutory Provisions

• Which law governs the publication of the tax ordinance: the Revised City Charter of Manila or the Local Tax Code?
• Does the special provision in the City Charter, which requires pre-enactment publication, prevail over the general provision of the Local Tax Code that mandates only post-approval publication?

Compliance with Publication Requirements

• Whether the ordinance failed to meet the mandatory publication requirements as provided by the Revised City Charter.
• Whether compliance with the Local Tax Code’s less stringent publication requirement renders the ordinance valid.

Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

• Whether the failure to exhaust administrative remedies (as required under Section 47 of the Local Tax Code) before resorting to judicial recourse should bar the court’s review.
• Whether the constitutional and legal nature of the dispute (a pure question of law) exempts it from the exhaustion requirement.

Characterization of the Ordinance

• Whether the ordinance should be classified as a “tax ordinance” or merely a revenue-raising measure, impacting the applicable publication rules.
• The implications of such classification on the validity of the ordinance.

Involvement of the Market Committee

• Whether the non-participation of the Market Committee, as envisioned by Republic Act No. 6039, vitiates the validity of the ordinance.

Use of Collected Fees

• Whether entrusting the collection of fees to a private entity (Asiatic Integrated Corporation) compromises the ordinance’s public purpose and validity.
• Whether the assignment of fee collection to a private party amounts to an impermissible delegation or misdirection of public funds.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)