G.R. No. 231896 - Municipality of Tupi vs. Faustino

The Municipality of Tupi observed a high accident rate along the national highway from Crossing Barangay Polonuling to Crossing Barangay Cebuano and on March 3, 2014 enacted Speed Limit Ordinance No. 688 prescribing two segments: 80 kph from Polonuling to Acmonan and 40 kph from Acmonan to Cebuano.
The Ordinance imposed fines of ₱1,000 for the first offense, ₱1,500 for the second, and ₱2,000 or 30-day imprisonment (or both) for the third offense; it became effective upon posting in three conspicuous places and was implemented on May 5, 2014.

On October 6, 2014, respondent Herminio B. Faustino was apprehended for driving at 70 kph in the 40 kph zone, fined ₱1,000, and paid under protest.
On October 8, 2014, he filed before the RTC-Branch 39 a petition for declaratory relief, annulment of the Ordinance, and damages, alleging lack of publication (due process violation), conflict with the Local Government Code, the Tax Code, and RA No. 4136, and prayed for refund of fines and moral damages.

On January 20, 2016, the RTC declared Ordinance No. 688 void ab initio, permanently enjoined its enforcement, and ordered refund of all collected fines.
The RTC held the Ordinance invalid for non-compliance with RA 4136 classification and certification requirements but did not declare it unconstitutional.
Motions for reconsideration by both parties were denied on May 15, 2017, and execution was granted to halt the Ordinance’s implementation.

The Municipality petitioned the Supreme Court, contending the Ordinance: conformed with RA 4136 speed limits; substantially complied with classification and LTO deputation; and was presumed valid despite publication questions.
Faustino’s Comment reiterated non-compliance with RA 4136 Section 36 (uniform speed limits) and publication requirement under Section 59 of the Local Government Code.
The Supreme Court framed the issues: (I) proper remedy to assail an enforced ordinance; (II) compliance with publication requirements; (III) ordinance’s conformity with RA 4136; and (IV) propriety of refunding all collected fines.

Is declaratory relief the proper remedy to challenge the validity of an enforced municipal ordinance?
Did Ordinance No. 688 comply with the publication requirement under the Local Government Code of 1991?
Does Ordinance No. 688 violate RA No. 4136 in prescribing speed limits, classifying highways, and securing LTO approval?
Is the RTC’s directive to refund all fines collected under Ordinance No. 688 proper?