Case Digest (G.R. No. 145993) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Hagonoy Market Vendor Association vs. Municipality of Hagonoy, Bulacan (G.R. No. 137621, February 6, 2002), the petitioner, a group of public market stallholders, challenged Municipal Ordinance No. 28, approved October 1, 1996, which increased stall rentals. Article 3 of the ordinance provided that it would take effect upon approval, and certified copies were posted from November 4 to 25, 1996, in three public places. The vendors alleged they were unaware of the ordinance until the last week of November 1997, when each member received a personal copy and was informed that the increase would be enforced in January 1998. On December 8, 1997, the association’s president filed an appeal with the Secretary of Justice, arguing the ordinance was unconstitutional and void. The municipality countered that the ordinance became effective in October 1996, and the appeal was thus filed more than 30 days after effectivity, rendering it time-barred under Section 187 of the 1991 Local Govern Case Digest (G.R. No. 145993) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Enactment and Effectivity of Ordinance No. 28
- On October 1, 1996, the Sangguniang Bayan of Hagonoy, Bulacan, enacted Ordinance No. 28 increasing market stall rentals; Article 3 provided it would take effect upon approval.
- The Ordinance was approved by the Acting Municipal Mayor on October 7, 1996, and by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan on November 9, 1996.
- Publication/Posting and Notice
- From November 4–25, 1996, copies were posted in lieu of newspaper publication at three public places: the municipal building, Sta. Ana Parish Church bulletin board, and the market master’s office.
- In late November 1997, petitioner’s members were personally given copies and informed the Ordinance would be enforced in January 1998.
- Administrative and Judicial Proceedings
- On December 8, 1997, petitioner filed an appeal with the Secretary of Justice, claiming unawareness of the Ordinance’s posting; respondent asserted the Ordinance took effect October 1, 1996, rendering the appeal time-barred under Section 187 of the 1991 Local Government Code.
- The Secretary of Justice dismissed the appeal as filed beyond 30 days from effectivity; petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals without certified true copies of the DOJ Resolutions; the CA dismissed the petition for formal deficiency and denied reconsideration.
Issues:
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in strictly applying Section 6, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court and dismissing the petition for lack of certified true copies, thereby frustrating substantive issues on the Ordinance’s validity and constitutionality.
- Whether the CA erred in denying reconsideration despite petitioner’s explanation of a fortuitous event (Typhoon Loleng) preventing timely certification, and whether actual copies constituted substantial compliance.
- Whether petitioner suffers irreparable damage warranting nullification of Ordinance No. 28 and preventing its retroactive enforcement from October 1, 1996, contrary to Article 4 of the Civil Code.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)