Case Digest (G.R. No. 231896)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 231896)
Facts:
Municipality of Tupi, represented by its Municipal Mayor Reynaldo S. Tamayo, Jr., petitioner, v. Herminio B. Faustino, respondent, G.R. No. 231896, August 20, 2019, Supreme Court En Banc, Lazaro‑Javier, J., writing for the Court.The Sangguniang Bayan of Tupi, South Cotabato enacted Ordinance No. 688, Series of 2014 (the "Speed Limit Ordinance") on March 3, 2014 prescribing maximum speeds along a stretch of the national highway: 80 kph from Crossing Polonuling to Crossing Acmonan and 40 kph from Crossing Acmonan to Crossing Cebuano, with graduated fines and possible imprisonment for repeat offenses. The Ordinance provided effectivity after fifteen days posting in three conspicuous places.
On October 6, 2014, Herminio B. Faustino was apprehended for allegedly exceeding the 40 kph limit on the Acmonan–Cebuano portion; he paid a P1,000 fine under protest. On October 8, 2014 he filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 39, Polomolok a petition titled for declaratory relief, annulment of the Ordinance, and damages (Special Civil Action No. 104‑14), alleging among others that the Ordinance violated due process and specific statutory commands: the Local Government Code (publication requirement) and RA No. 4136 (Land Transportation and Traffic Code).
The Office of the Solicitor General (through the Provincial Prosecutor) commented that the Ordinance imposed penalties and enforcement measures beyond the LTO's authority and that the Ordinance failed to comply with RA No. 4136’s requirements on classification, signage, and submission to the LTO.
By Decision dated January 20, 2016, the RTC declared Ordinance No. 688 void ab initio, permanently enjoined its enforcement, and ordered the Municipality to refund all fines collected under it. The RTC found that, although the municipality possessed ordinance‑making power, Ordinance No. 688 contravened RA No. 4136 because it lacked prior classification, marking and LTO certification, and because it imposed uniform speed limits for all vehicle classes contrary to RA No. 4136. Motions for reconsideration were denied by Omnibus Order dated May 15, 2017, which also granted respondent’s motion for execution.
Petitioner brought the case to the Supreme Court by a petition for review on certiorari. Petitioner argued the Ordinance complied with RA No. 4136, pointed to LTO deputation of local enforcers, and emphasized the Ordinance’s accident‑reduction results; respondent maintained the Ordinance contravened RA No. 4136 and the Local Government Code’s publication requirement.
Issues:
- Is a petition for declaratory relief the proper remedy at the first instance to assail the validity of Municipal Ordinance No. 688, Series of 2014?
- Did Municipal Ordinance No. 688, Series of 2014 comply with the publication requirement under the Local Government Code of 1991?
- Does Municipal Ordinance No. 688, Series of 2014 violate RA No. 4136 (Land Transportation and Traffic Code), particularly Sections 35, 36, and 38?
- Is the trial court’s directive for refund of all fines thus far collected pursuant to Municipal Ordinance No. 688, Series of 2014 proper?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)