Case Digest (G.R. No. 91718) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Abraham P. Rimando v. Naguilian Emission Testing Center, Inc. (G.R. No. 198860, July 23, 2012), the respondent corporation, headed by President Rosemarie Llarenas, operated an emission testing facility on a parcel of land certified by the DENR as alienable and disposable from 2005 to 2007. On January 18, 2008, it applied for renewal of its business permit in the Municipality of Naguilian, La Union, and paid the requisite fees. The petitioner, then Mayor Abraham P. Rimando, refused to issue the permit unless the company executed a lease contract with the municipality. Efforts to reconcile proposed amendments failed, prompting the respondent to file a special civil action for mandamus and damages before Branch 67 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bauang, La Union. On May 26, 2009, the RTC denied relief, holding that (a) Tax Declaration No. 002-01197 vested ownership of the land in the municipality; (b) Section 6A.01 of the municipal revenue code validly required a lease cont Case Digest (G.R. No. 91718) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Background of the dispute
- Naguilian Emission Testing Center, Inc. (respondent), represented by its President Rosemarie Llarenas, has operated an emission‐testing business since 2005 on a parcel of land formerly belonging to the national government and later certified by the DENR as alienable and disposable public domain.
- On January 18, 2008, respondent applied for renewal of its business permit and paid the required fees. Mayor Abraham P. Rimando (petitioner) of Naguilian, La Union, refused to issue the permit unless respondent first executed a lease contract with the municipality. Respondent proposed revisions to the form contract, but the parties could not agree.
- Proceedings in the lower courts
- RTC Decision (May 26, 2009): Branch 67, Regional Trial Court of Bauang, La Union, dismissed respondent’s petition for mandamus and damages for lack of merit, ruling that (a) the tax declaration vested ownership in the municipality; (b) Municipal Revenue Code § 6A.01 authorized the lease requirement; and (c) the mayor’s duty to issue business permits is discretionary.
- CA Decision (March 30, 2011): The Court of Appeals declared the appeal moot (permit period lapsed) but, for academic purposes, reversed and set aside the RTC decision. It held that (a) the tax declaration alone did not justify a lease precondition; (b) Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 2007-81 imposing rental fees was void for non-compliance with the Local Government Code; and (c) the mayor’s actions were protected by the presumption of good faith.
- CA Resolution (September 30, 2011): Denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the CA decision.
- Petition for Review: Petitioner filed a Rule 45 petition before the Supreme Court to annul the CA decision.
Issues:
- Mootness
- Whether the petition for mandamus is moot and academic after the expiration of the permit period (2008–2009) and the mayor’s term.
- Mandamus and discretionary power
- Whether mandamus is a proper remedy to compel a municipal mayor to issue or renew a business permit.
- Whether the requirement to execute a lease contract as a condition for permit renewal is valid.
- Whether Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 2007-81 imposing lease or rental fees is valid under the Local Government Code.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)