Case Digest (G.R. No. 150382) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
On November 26, 2013, the City Council of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 8331, the “2013 Omnibus Revenue Code of the City of Manila,” approved by Mayor Joseph Ejercito Estrada on December 3 and published on December 6–8, 2013. It took effect on December 9, 2013, and was implemented on January 2, 2014. On January 6, 2014, operators of retail businesses in Manila filed an appeal with Secretary of Justice Leila M. De Lima, challenging Section 104 of Ordinance No. 8331 that imposed a percentage tax on gross sales ranging from 1% to 3%, for allegedly exceeding the 10% increase limit under Section 191 of the Local Government Code (LGC) and violating Article X, Section 5 of the 1987 Constitution. Secretary De Lima issued a resolution on April 7, 2014, declaring Section 104 void for contravening Section 191 of the LGC. The City of Manila filed a Motion for Reconsideration and, without awaiting its resolution, a Petition for Review ad Cautelam with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) which was Case Digest (G.R. No. 150382) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Enactment and Effectivity of Ordinance No. 8331
- On November 26, 2013, the Manila City Council enacted Ordinance No. 8331, titled “2013 Omnibus Revenue Code of the City of Manila.”
- Mayor Joseph Estrada approved the ordinance on December 3, 2013; it was published on December 6–8, 2013, and took effect on December 9, 2013.
- Appeal Before the Secretary of Justice
- On January 6, 2014, retail business operators challenged Section 104 of Ordinance No. 8331 (imposing percentage tax of 1%–3% on gross sales) as unconstitutional under Art. X, Sec. 5, and beyond the 10% adjustment limit under Secs. 130, 186, 191 of the Local Government Code (LGC).
- By Order of February 3, 2014, the Secretary of Justice required the City of Manila to comment.
- Secretary of Justice Resolution
- On April 7, 2014, the Secretary issued a Resolution declaring Section 104 void for violating the 10% maximum increase rule under Sec. 191, LGC, since the City had previously set rates in Ordinances No. 7794 (1993) and 7807 (1993).
- The City moved for reconsideration on April 24, 2014.
- Proceedings in the Regional Trial Court
- While the motion was pending, the City filed a “Petition for Review Ad Cautelam” in the RTC on May 15, 2014, seeking to annul the Secretary’s Resolution.
- On July 25, 2014, RTC Branch 7 dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction; its October 30, 2014 order denied reconsideration.
- Proceedings in the Court of Appeals
- The City took certiorari to the CA. On July 9, 2015, the CA set aside the RTC orders and remanded for further proceedings, ruling the RTC had jurisdiction and that issues of validity should be threshed out there.
- On January 8, 2016, the CA denied motions for reconsideration, prompting the Secretary to file this Rule 45 petition.
Issues:
- Jurisdictional Issue
- Did the CA err in holding that the RTC had jurisdiction to entertain the City’s petition for review ad cautelam from the Secretary’s Resolution?
- Was certiorari the proper remedy and, if so, before which court should it have been filed?
- Forum Shopping Issue
- Did the City commit forum shopping by filing the RTC petition while its motion for reconsideration was pending before the Secretary?
- Does Section 187 of the LGC require a motion for reconsideration before judicial appeal?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)