Case Summary (G.R. No. L-51651)
Background and Ordinance Provisions
Ordinance SP-2095 (Oct. 17, 2011) imposed an additional 0.5% ad valorem tax on land assessed above ₱100,000 to fund socialized housing projects (land banking, site development, core housing, PPP with NHA). Taxpayers continuously paying for five years qualify for a 100% credit spread in equal 20% annual installments over the next five years.
Ordinance SP-2235 (Dec. 16, 2013; effective upon mayoral approval ten days later) mandated annual garbage fees: ₱100–₱500 for lots (by size tiers) and ₱25–₱200 for condominium/socialized housing units (by floor-area tiers), with homeowners’ or associations’ fees for high-rise units, collected alongside real property taxes.
Procedural History
Petitioner filed a Rule 65 certiorari petition with TRO (Jan. 17, 2014; TRO issued Feb. 5, 2014) to enjoin enforcement of both ordinances. Respondents opposed via Comment and motion to dissolve the TRO (Feb. 17, 2014). Petitioner filed Reply and Memorandum (Mar. 3 and Sept. 8, 2014).
Propriety of Certiorari
– The City Council’s enactment is a legislative, not quasi-judicial, act; certiorari under Rule 65 strictly targets judicial or quasi-judicial bodies.
– Supreme Court nonetheless treated the petition as one for prohibition/declaratory relief under its original jurisdiction due to the transcendental and public-interest nature of the constitutional questions involved.
Locus Standi
Petitioner is a real party-in-interest: he owns the property, paid the SHT and garbage fee, and seeks refund and cessation of future impositions. His challenge also benefits similarly situated taxpayers.
Litis Pendentia
Respondents alleged a pending case in RTC Branch 104 challenging SP-2095. The Court dismissed this ground: no pleadings were attached; identity of parties, issues, evidence, or reliefs could not be established to warrant dismissal for lis pendens.
Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
While Section 187, LGC, mandates a DOJ appeal within 30 days for tax ordinances, the Court relaxed this requirement due to the purely legal, novel issues and the need for immediate, binding guidance for LGUs.
Substantive Issue – Socialized Housing Tax
Applicable Law: 1987 Constitution Art X, Sec 5 (local taxing power subject to congressional guidelines); R.A. 7279 (Urban Development and Housing Act) Sec 43 authorizing 0.5% SHT on urban lands above ₱50,000.
Rationale: SHT implements the social-function doctrine of property, funds urban renewal, slum rehabilitation, and socialized housing under police power for general welfare.
Court’s Analysis:
• SP-2095 derives authority from both the 1987 Constitution and UDHA.
• Classification (landowners with assessed value >₱100,000) is reasonable, rests on substantial distinctions, and is germane to housing aims.
• Tax credits mitigate burdens and reflect legislative flexibility below the UDHA ceiling.
Disposition: SP-2095 is constitutional and legal; TRO lifted.
Substantive Issue – Garbage Fee
Applicable Law: 1987 Constitution Art X, Sec 5; LGC Sections 130 (fundamental principles of local taxation), 153 (definitions of taxes vs. fees), 168 (penalty limits), 186 (power to levy other charges), and R.A. 9003 (Ecological Solid Waste Management Act).
Rationale: Garbage fee is a regulatory charge
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-51651)
Facts of the Case
- On October 17, 2011, the Quezon City Council enacted Ordinance No. SP-2095, S-2011 (Socialized Housing Tax), imposing a 0.5% special assessment on the assessed value of land in excess of ₱100,000.00 to accrue to socialized housing programs for five years.
- Section 7 of the SHT ordinance provided a deferred tax‐credit scheme: after five continuous years of payment, owners in good standing receive 20% credit each year for years 6–10, based on total SHT paid, non-transferable to successors.
- On December 16, 2013, Ordinance No. SP-2235, S-2013 (Garbage Fee) was passed, effective upon mayoral approval ten days later, levying annual fees on domestic households, condominium units, socialized housing units, and high-rise apartments based on lot or floor area, with a 25% penalty plus 2% monthly interest for nonpayment.
- Petitioner Ferrer is co-owner of a 371-sqm residential property (TCT No. 216288) in Quezon City; on January 7, 2014 he paid realty tax inclusive of a ₱100 garbage fee.
- He filed a Rule 65 petition on January 17, 2014 to enjoin and declare both ordinances unconstitutional and illegal; a TRO was issued on February 5, 2014.
Procedural History
- Petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with prayer for TRO filed January 17, 2014.
- TRO granted February 5, 2014, enjoining enforcement of both ordinances and requiring respondents’ comment.
- Respondents filed Comment and urgent motion to dissolve TRO on February 17, 2014.
- Petitioner submitted Reply (March 3, 2014) and Memorandum (September 8, 2014).
Issues
- Propriety of certiorari remedy against legislative bodies
- Petitioner’s locus standi
- Alleged litis pendentia before the Regional Trial Court
- Requirement to exhaust administrative remedies under Section 187, LGC
- Substantive validity of the Socialized Housing Tax ordinance
- Substantive validity of the Garbage Fee ordinance
- Compliance with posting/publication and effectivity requirements
Propriety of a Petition for Certiorari
- Respondents argued they exercise purely legislative functions, not judicial or quasi-judicial, thus Rule 65 is improper.
- Petitioner contended the ordinances adjudicate property owners’ obligations akin to quasi-judicial acts.
- Court held the enactments are legislative exercises of taxing power under R.A. 7160, not judicial/quasi-judicial acts—certiorari misnomer.
- Nonetheless, in view of the transcendental importance and abse