Case Digest (G.R. No. 152492)
Facts:
Palma Development Corporation v. Municipality of Malangas, G.R. No. 152492, October 16, 2003, Supreme Court Third Division, Panganiban, J., writing for the Court.Palma Development Corporation (petitioner) is engaged in milling and selling rice and corn and uses the municipal port of Malangas, Zamboanga del Sur (respondent) as a transshipment point for shipments to Zamboanga City. The municipal port and the access roads to it are owned and maintained by the Municipality of Malangas.
On January 16, 1994 the Municipality enacted Municipal Revenue Code No. 09, Series of 1993, approved by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan on August 4, 1994. Section 5G.01 imposed various “service fees” for (a) use of municipal roads leading to the wharf and (b) “police surveillance on all goods and all equipment harbored or sheltered in the premises of the wharf,” with specific rate schedules including a P0.50 fee per sack for rice and corn. Petitioner paid the fees under protest and, asserting that municipal governments lack authority to impose fees on goods passing through their territory under the Local Government Code of 1991 (Republic Act No. 7160), filed a declaratory relief action against the Municipality in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pagadian City on November 20, 1995.
The RTC ordered comments from the Solicitor General and opinions from the Departments of Finance and Justice. When those opinions were unavailable, and without objection by respondent, petitioner moved to submit the case for decision on a pure question of law. The RTC rendered a November 13, 1996 decision declaring the entire Municipal Revenue Code No. 09 ultra vires and void.
The Court of Appeals (CA) in an August 31, 2001 decision (CA-G.R. CV No. 56477) recognized that Sections 153 and 155 of RA No. 7160 confer service-fee and toll-collection powers on local sanggunian, and that Section 5G.01 on its face could fall within those powers. However, because the parties had submitted the case on a pure question of law without trial, the CA held it could not determine whether, as applied, Section 5G.01 in fact imposed fees on the movement of goods (thus disguising a prohibited tax), and remanded the case to the trial court for reception of evidence. The CA’s February 6, 2002 resolution denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration....(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in ordering that the case be remanded to the trial court for reception of evidence?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in holding that a full-blown trial was necessary for petitioner to prove that Section 5G.01 in effect imposes fees on the movement of goods?
- Is Section 5G.01 of Municipal Revenue Code No. 09 — specifically the service fee for police surveillance on goods harbored at the municipal port — contrary to and therefore invalid un...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)