G.R. No. 202781 - Aala vs. Uy

Case Summary (G.R. No. 202781)

Petitioners

Petitioners are concerned residents and taxpayers of Tagum City who challenged the validity of City Ordinance No. 558, s-2012, alleging that it (a) improperly classified and valued real properties, (b) imposed exorbitant real property taxes, and (c) was enacted with grave abuse of discretion.

Respondents

Primary respondents include the City Mayor and City Assessor of Tagum City and the City Councilors who enacted the ordinance; the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Davao del Norte and its Committee on Ways and Means/Games and Amusement were involved in the review and returned reports and resolutions concerning the ordinance.

Key Dates and Administrative History (selected)

July 12, 2011: Public hearing by City Committee on Finance on proposed new market values and assessment levels.
November 3, 2011: Sangguniang Panlungsod passed City Ordinance No. 516, s-2011 (new schedule of market values).
March 19, 2012: Sangguniang Panlungsod passed City Ordinance No. 558, s-2012 (amendment resulting from provincial review).
April 10–12, 2012: Ordinance approved by Mayor and transmitted to Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Davao del Norte; receipt by the provincial body.
April 30, 2012: Opposition/Objection filed by Aala and Ferido before the Sangguniang Panlalawigan (docketed and referred to committee).
May–June 2012: Committee report returned the ordinance for modification; Sangguniang Panlalawigan subsequently declared certain sections invalid; Sangguniang Panlungsod declared ordinance valid and relied on Section 56(d), Local Government Code.
July 13, 2012: Ordinance published in a newspaper of general circulation in Tagum City.
August 13, 2012: Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus filed by petitioners before the Supreme Court.

Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis

Primary statutory provisions: Local Government Code of 1991 (Republic Act No. 7160) — notably Sections 56(d) (review by sangguniang panlalawigan), 130(a), 166, 187, 191, 195, 198, 199(b), 201, and 212 (preparation of schedule of fair market values). Constitutional basis for invoking original jurisdiction: 1987 Constitution, Article VIII, Section 5(1) (Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus). The Court also relied on established doctrines concerning hierarchy of courts and exhaustion of administrative remedies.

Legislative and Factual Background

The Sangguniang Panlungsod of Tagum City moved to adopt a revised schedule of market values and assessment levels for real property. Ordinance No. 516, s-2011 was passed and later returned for modification by the provincial sanggunian based on recommendations of the Provincial Assessor’s Office. As amended, Ordinance No. 558, s-2012 was enacted by the City Council and approved by the Mayor before submission for provincial review. Petitioners challenged specific provisions that they alleged effectively zoned large portions of Tagum City as commercial or industrial and fixed market values without regard for the “actual use” principle, producing allegedly exorbitant increases in assessed values and taxes.

Administrative Opposition and Provincial Review

Two residents filed an opposition/objection before the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, leading to committee hearings that included oppositors, their counsel, the City Assessor, and the City Legal Officer. The provincial committee issued a report returning the ordinance and advising the City to address oppositors’ concerns. The Sangguniang Panlalawigan later issued a resolution declaring several sections of Ordinance No. 558 invalid. The Sangguniang Panlungsod of Tagum City countersued procedurally by passing its own resolution declaring the ordinance valid, invoking Section 56(d) of the Local Government Code and a Department of Interior and Local Government opinion; the ordinance was published thereafter.

Nature of Petition and Relief Sought

Petitioners filed an original action in the Supreme Court under Rule 65 (certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus), seeking nullification of the ordinance on the ground of grave abuse of discretion and a temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction to prevent implementation and collection of alleged exorbitant real property taxes. Petitioners invoked the Court’s original jurisdiction under Article VIII, Section 5(1) of the 1987 Constitution, asserting urgency and potential irreparable harm to taxpayers.

Respondents’ Procedural and Merits Defenses

Respondents argued that: (a) certiorari is inappropriate because the Sangguniang Panlungsod’s enactment of a tax ordinance is a legislative act beyond the target of certiorari for judicial or quasi‑judicial acts; (b) petitioners failed to exhaust administrative remedies under Section 187 of the Local Government Code, which requires aggrieved taxpayers to appeal to the Secretary of Justice within 30 days from effectivity of a tax ordinance and allows judicial recourse only after exhaustion; and (c) the doctrines on hierarchy of courts were violated because lower courts share the power to issue the writs sought.

Issues Framed by the Court

The Supreme Court distilled procedural issues (whether exceptions to the hierarchy of courts and to exhaustion of administrative remedies apply; whether the extraordinary remedies were properly invoked; whether a respondent should be dropped) and substantive issues (whether respondents committed grave abuse of discretion; whether the ordinance effected a blanket classification into commercial/industrial categories; whether the schedule of market values adhered to the actual‑use principle; whether the ordinance imposed exorbitant taxes; whether the ordinance violated equal protection, due process, and the rule on uniformity in taxation).

Doctrine on Hierarchy of Courts — Court’s Reasoning

The Court reiterated the purpose of the doctrine on hierarchy of courts: to preserve the Supreme Court as a court of last resort and to prevent clogging of its docket with matters appropriately addressed by lower courts. While acknowledging that the writs of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus are within the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, the Court emphasized concurrence of such jurisdiction with the Court of Appeals and Regional Trial Courts and explained that resort to the Supreme Court will be refused where relief could be obtained in lower forums. The Court noted well‑recognized exceptions permitting direct resort to the Supreme Court (e.g., genuine constitutional issues, transcendental importance, purely legal questions, urgency, absence of plain, speedy, adequate remedy), and then found that none of those exceptions applied because factual disputes would need resolution.

Factual Nature of Core Issues and Improper Forum

The Court held that key substantive questions—whether the City Council usurped the assessor’s authority, whether the ordinance effected a blanket classification, the conformity of the schedule of market values with the actual‑use principle, and whether increases were exorbitant—raise mixed questions of fact and law or primarily questions of fact that require evidence. The Supreme Court emphasized that it is not a trier of facts and that trial courts and the Court of Appeals are better suited for initial reception and appreciation of evidence (credibility assessments, factual calibration). Petitioners’ allegations were characterized as speculative and unsupported by evidence in the petition; thus, the Court could not responsibly resolve these factual disputes in the exercise of its original jurisdiction.

Doctrine on Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies — Court’s Reasoning

The Court reviewed Section 187 of the Local Government Code, which mandates administrative appeal to the Secretary of Justice for challenges to the constitutionality

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 202781)

Procedural and Factual Background

July 12, 2011: Sangguniang Panlungsod of Tagum City’s Committee on Finance conducted a public hearing to consider a proposed ordinance adopting a new schedule of market values and assessment levels of real properties in Tagum City.
November 3, 2011: Sangguniang Panlungsod passed City Ordinance No. 516, s-2011, entitled “An Ordinance Approving the New Schedule of Market Values, its Classification, and Assessment Level of Real Properties in the City of Tagum.”
November 11, 2011: Mayor Rey T. Uy approved City Ordinance No. 516, s-2011; ordinance was forwarded to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Davao del Norte for review.
February 7, 2012: Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Davao del Norte’s Committee on Ways and Means/Games and Amusement issued a report (dated February 1, 2012) declaring City Ordinance No. 516, s-2011 valid but directed revision based on Provincial Assessor’s recommendations; the ordinance was returned to Sangguniang Panlungsod for modification.
March 19, 2012: Amendments resulted in the passage of City Ordinance No. 558, s-2012 by the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Tagum City.
April 10, 2012: Mayor Uy approved City Ordinance No. 558, s-2012 and transmitted it for review to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Davao del Norte; the Sangguniang Panlalawigan received it on April 12, 2012.
April 30, 2012: Engineer Crisanto M. Aala and Col. Jorge P. Ferido filed an Opposition/Objection to City Ordinance No. 558, s-2012 before the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, docketed as Case No. DOCS-12-000362 and referred to the Committee on Ways and Means/Games and Amusement.
A hearing on the Opposition was conducted; oppositors Aala and Ferido, their counsel, City Assessor Alfredo H. Silawan, and City Legal Officer Rolando Tumanda were present.
May 4, 2012: Committee Report No. 5 returned City Ordinance No. 558, s-2012 to the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Tagum City and directed attention to oppositors’ concerns.
May 14, 2012: Sangguniang Panlungsod issued Resolution No. 808 (filed May 22, 2012) requesting Sangguniang Panlalawigan to reconsider.
June 18, 2012: Sangguniang Panlalawigan issued Resolution No. 428 declaring invalid Sections III C 1–3, Sections III D (1) and (2), and Sections G 1(b) and 4(g) of City Ordinance No. 558, s-2012.
July 9, 2012: Sangguniang Panlungsod of Tagum City passed Resolution No. 874, s-2012, declaring City Ordinance No. 558, s-2012 valid, citing Section 56(d) of the Local Government Code and DILG Opinion No. 151 (Nov. 25, 2010), and arguing the Sangguniang Panlalawigan failed to act within 30 days.
July 13, 2012: City Ordinance No. 558, s-2012 was published in the July 13–19, 2012 issue of Trends and Time, a local newspaper of general circulation.
August 13, 2012: Petitioners filed before the Supreme Court an original action for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus (Rule 65), including a prayer for temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction, seeking nullification of City Ordinance No. 558, s-2012 for grave abuse of discretion.
Subsequent procedural filings included respondents’ Comment, various motions including respondent Gementiza’s motion to be dropped, petitioners’ Reply, Manifestation that implementation was deferred due to Typhoon Pablo, and memoranda filed by both parties (petitioners’ memorandum dated June 20, 2013; respondents’ memorandum dated August 2, 2013).

Petitioners’ Principal Allegations and Contentions

Petitioners challenged the validity of City Ordinance No. 558, s-2012 on grounds of grave abuse of discretion by respondents in preparing, enacting, and approving the ordinance, and sought immediate relief from this Court’s original jurisdiction.
Petitioners alleged the ordinance:
- Violated Sections 130(a), 198(a) and (b), 199(b), and 201 of the Local Government Code of 1991 (references and quotations provided in the record).
- Divided Tagum City into zones and classified and fixed market values by location (Sections III C 1–3 and III G 1(b) and 4(g) among others) without taking into account “distinct and fundamental differences … and elements of value” of each property.
- Erroneously classified properties in predominantly commercial areas as commercial regardless of actual use; argued classification and assessment should be based on actual use, not location.
- Imposed exorbitant real estate taxes unaffordable to residents, discriminated against poor landowners, and equated values of undeveloped lands with fully developed lands.
- Created effectively only two categories (commercial and industrial) for real properties by listing streets and barrios under Sections III C and D, thereby producing a blanket classification and inconsistent classifications between land and buildings.
- Usurped or arrogated the authority of the City Assessor to fix schedules of fair market values; contended schedules were arbitrarily prepared by persons lacking valuation expertise.
- Presented numerical example: market value of certain residential lands reclassified as commercial increased from P600.00/sq.m. to P5,000.00/sq.m. (an 833% increase over three years), which petitioners said violated Section 191 of the Local Government Code.
Petitioners argued immediate resort to the Supreme Court was justified:
- On the basis that the relief sought could not be obtained in the appropriate courts or administrative fora (a claimed “catch-22”).
- By asserting that the issues raised are purely legal and involve paramount public interest warranting relaxation of the exhaustion doctrine.
- By contending Section 187’s procedures (appeal to Secretary of Justice) would not prevent the City from collecting exorbitant taxes and would only cause delay; noted the Secretary of Justice cannot suspend implementation and has 60 days to act.
- By asserting taxpayers would be precluded from litigating excessive tax claims due to inability to pay assessments before protesting.

Respondents’ Principal Defenses and Contentions

Respondents attacked the propriety of petitioners’ chosen remedy and venue:
- Argued certiorari is directed only against judicial and quasi-judicial acts; the Sangguniang Panlungsod’s enactment of the ordinance was legislative and therefore beyond certiorari’s scope.
- Asserting the existence of plain, speedy, and adequate remedies under the law (specifically Section 187 of the Local Government Code) requiring appeal to the Secretary of Justice, and that petitioners violated the doctrine on hierarchy of courts by directly resorting to the Supreme Court.
- Noted that the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and Regional Trial Courts share concurrent jurisdiction to issue extraordinary writs; petitioners cannot pick the Supreme Court at will.
- Asserted the petition raised factual issues warranting dismissal.
On substantive points, respondents countered petitioners’ characterizations:
- Argued the ordinance actually provides four categories of real property classification: agricultural, residential, commercial, and industrial, and did not, as petitioners claimed, automatically classify all properties in listed commercial/industrial areas as commercial or industrial regardless of use.
- Emphasized the continued application of the principle of actual use: properties located in commercial or industrial areas would be assessed according to actual use and could be apportioned (e.g., part commercial, part agricultural) with corresponding market values applied to each portion.
- Maintained that the Sangguniang Panlalawigan acted beyond the 30-day reglementary period under Section 56(d) because it received the ordinance on April 12, 2012 and issued Resolution No. 428 only on June 18, 2012.
- Relied on DILG Opinion No. 151 (Nov. 25, 2010) interpreting “take action” under Section 56(d) to require a legislative resolution disapproving in who