Case Digest (G.R. No. 204429) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Smart Communications, Inc. v. Municipality of Malvar, Batangas (G.R. No. 204429, October 27, 2014), the petitioner, Smart Communications, Inc. (“Smart”), a domestic telecommunications provider, erected a cellular tower within the territorial jurisdiction of the respondent, the Municipality of Malvar, Batangas (“Municipality”). On July 30, 2003, the Municipal Council enacted Ordinance No. 18, series of 2003, entitled “An Ordinance Regulating the Establishment of Special Projects,” which for the first time imposed fees on the placing, stringing, attaching, installing, repair and construction of certain structures, including telecommunications towers. On August 24, 2004, the Municipality’s Permit and Licensing Division issued an assessment letter demanding payment of ₱389,950.00, covering alleged unpaid fees from 2001 through 2004, and posted a closure notice on the tower for nonpayment. Smart filed an administrative protest on September 9, 2004, challenging both the lack of due Case Digest (G.R. No. 204429) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Subject Matter
- Smart Communications, Inc. (Smart) is a domestic corporation providing telecommunications services.
- Municipality of Malvar, Batangas (Municipality) is a local government unit.
- Tower Construction and Ordinance
- Smart constructed a cellular telecommunications tower within Malvar.
- On 30 July 2003, the Municipality enacted Ordinance No. 18, Series of 2003 (“Ordinance 18”) entitled “An Ordinance Regulating the Establishment of Special Projects,” to regulate the placing, stringing, attaching, installing, repair and construction of specified infrastructures and to impose fees therefor.
- Assessment, Protest, and Closure Notice
- On 24 August 2004, the Municipality’s Permit and Licensing Division sent Smart an assessment letter totaling ₱389,950.00, computed as follows:
- Years 2001–2003: 50% of 1% of project cost (₱11,000,000) plus 45% surcharge, multiplied by 3 years = ₱239,250.00.
- Year 2004: 1% of project cost plus 37% surcharge = ₱150,700.00.
- The Municipality posted a closure notice on the tower for nonpayment.
- On 9 September 2004, Smart filed a protest alleging lack of due process and invalidity of Ordinance 18; the Municipality denied it on 28 September 2004.
- Procedural History
- Smart appealed to RTC Tanauan City (SP Civil Case No. 04-11-1920) on 17 November 2004.
- RTC Decision of 2 December 2008: voided assessment for 2001–July 2003 (ordinance effective 30 July 2003) and upheld assessment starting 1 October 2003.
- RTC Order of 21 May 2009 denied reconsideration.
- Smart elevated to CTA First Division (CTA AC No. 58):
- Decision of 17 December 2010 and Resolution of 7 April 2011 affirmed RTC findings.
- Smart moved to CTA En Banc: Decision of 26 June 2012 and Resolution of 13 November 2012 dismissed petition for lack of jurisdiction.
- Smart filed a petition for review under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court.
Issues:
- Jurisdiction of the CTA
- Whether the CTA En Banc erred in dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction to declare Ordinance 18 illegal.
- Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
- Whether the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies applies to Smart’s challenge.
- Authority to Impose Fees
- Whether the Municipality had the authority under Ordinance 18 to impose fees on Smart’s telecommunications tower.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)