Case Digest (G.R. No. 224825)
Facts:
City of Cagayan de Oro v. Cagayan Electric Power & Light Co., Inc., G.R. No. 224825, October 17, 2018, Supreme Court Second Division, A. Reyes, Jr., J., writing for the Court. The petition is a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari seeking reversal of the Court of Appeals decision that declared a city ordinance void.The petitioner is the City of Cagayan de Oro (the City); the respondent is Cagayan Electric Power & Light Co., Inc. (CEPALCO), a public utility and owner of roughly 17,000 utility poles within the city. On January 24, 2005 the City enacted Ordinance No. 9527-2005, imposing an annual Mayor’s Permit Fee of Five Hundred Pesos (P500.00) per electric or telecommunications post erected along public ways, with exemptions for national government poles and instrumentalities. The ordinance’s whereas clauses stated the purpose as regulation of proliferation and hazards posed by such posts.
On September 30, 2005 CEPALCO filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief with Damages and sought injunctive relief in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), arguing the exaction was unjust, excessive, oppressive and conflicted with its legislative franchise. The City answered and asserted the ordinance was a valid exercise of local powers and that CEPALCO’s franchise subjected it to taxes and fees. The RTC issued a writ of preliminary injunction on May 5, 2006.
On February 8, 2008, Branch 17 of the Cagayan de Oro RTC dismissed CEPALCO’s petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under Section 187 of the Local Government Code and for being time-barred; the preliminary injunction was dissolved. CEPALCO appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).
On June 10, 2015 the CA, in CA-G.R. CV No. 02771-MIN, reversed the RTC and declared Ordinance No. 9527-2005 void as exorbitant and unreasonable. The CA concluded the ordinance was a regulatory fee but held the City fa...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Should CEPALCO have exhausted administrative remedies under Section 187 of the Local Government Code by appealing to the Secretary of Justice before filing its petition in court?
- Is the P500.00 per-pole annual Mayor’s Permit Fee excessive, unreasonable, or otherwise invalid under the L...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)