Title
Hagonoy Market Vendor Association vs. Municipality of Hagonoy, Bulacan
Case
G.R. No. 137621
Decision Date
Feb 6, 2002
Hagonoy vendors challenged a 1996 ordinance raising stall rentals, claiming lack of notice and retroactive enforcement. Appeal dismissed as time-barred; ordinance upheld as validly enacted.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 145993)
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)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.