Case Summary (G.R. No. 175023)
Petitioner
A duly organized association of market vendors in Hagonoy, Bulacan, challenging the validity and retroactive enforcement of increased stall rental rates.
Respondent
The local government of Hagonoy, Bulacan, acting through its legislative body (Sangguniang Bayan), Municipal Mayor, and the Municipal Treasurer, which enacted and implemented Ordinance No. 28.
Key Dates
• October 1, 1996 – Enactment of Ordinance No. 28
• October 7, 1996 – Approval by Acting Municipal Mayor
• November 4–25, 1996 – Posting of the approved ordinance
• December 8, 1997 – Filing of appeal with Secretary of Justice
• February 25, 1998 – Resolution of Secretary of Justice dismissing appeal as time-barred
• December 17, 1998 – Court of Appeals resolution dismissing petition for formal deficiency
• February 15, 1999 – Court of Appeals denial of motion for reconsideration
• February 6, 2002 – Supreme Court decision
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution
• Section 187, Local Government Code of 1991 (procedures for approval, effectivity, and appeal of tax ordinances)
• Section 188, Local Government Code of 1991 (publication/posting requirements)
Factual Background
The Sangguniang Bayan of Hagonoy enacted Kautusan Blg. 28 increasing market stall rentals. The ordinance provided it would take effect upon approval, which occurred on October 7, 1996. It was posted in lieu of publication from November 4 to 25, 1996, in three conspicuous public places. Petitioner's members received personal copies and enforcement notice only in late November 1997.
Procedural History
Petitioner appealed to the Secretary of Justice on December 8, 1997, challenging constitutionality and asserting lack of prior notice. The Secretary dismissed the appeal as filed after the 30-day reglementary period from ordinance effectivity. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied. The petition for review filed in the Court of Appeals was dismissed for failure to attach certified true copies of the Secretary’s resolutions. A motion for reconsideration in the Court of Appeals was likewise denied.
Issues
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in strictly applying Rule 43, Section 6, by dismissing the petition for lack of certified true copies.
- Whether the petition before the Secretary of Justice was time-barred.
- Whether petitioner lacked knowledge of the ordinance’s effectivity and posting.
- Whether Ordinance No. 28 is void for failure of public hearings, deficient posting, retroactive effect, or violation of rate-increase limitations.
Analysis on Procedural Compliance
Under Rule 43, Section 6 of the Rules of Court, certified true copies of assailed resolutions are required. Petitioner demonstrated due diligence: attempts to secure certification were thwarted by Typhoon Loleng and consequent non-working days. The Court of Appeals should have relaxed its strict technical application in light of this fortuitous event. Dismissal on this ground was therefore unduly rigid.
Analysis on Timeliness of Appeal
Section 187 of the Local Government Code mandates an appeal to the Secretary of Justice within 30 days from the ordinance’s effectivity. Ordinance No. 28 took effect upon approval on October 7, 1996; the appeal was filed on December 8, 1997—well beyond the 30-day period. The Secretary correctly dismissed the petition as time-barred. Time limits under Section 187 are mandatory and not a mere technicality.
Analysis on Public Hearing and Posting
Petitioner’s claim of no public hearings is contradicted by records showing multiple hearings conducted in February, July, and August 1996, with petitioner’s own objections recorded. Posting in lieu of publication
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 175023)
Facts
- On October 1, 1996, the Sangguniang Bayan of Hagonoy, Bulacan, enacted Ordinance Kautusan Blg. 28 increasing market stall rentals; Article 3 provided it would take effect upon approval.
- The ordinance was approved on October 7, 1996, and posted from November 4–25, 1996 in three public places in lieu of publication, as there was no local newspaper.
- In the last week of November 1997, the petitioner’s members were personally given copies of the approved ordinance and informed it would be enforced in January 1998.
- On December 8, 1997, the petitioner’s President filed an appeal with the Secretary of Justice, claiming unawareness of the ordinance posting and assailing its constitutionality.
- Respondent Municipality contended the ordinance took effect on October 1, 1996, was duly posted, and that any appeal filed over a year later was time-barred.
- The Secretary of Justice dismissed the appeal as filed beyond the 30-day reglementary period under Section 187 of the 1991 Local Government Code, retroactively fixing effectivity upon approval.
- The petitioner’s motion for reconsideration before the Secretary of Justice was denied.
Procedural History
- December 8, 1997: Appeal filed with the Secretary of Justice; dismissed as time-barred.
- Motion for reconsideration before the Secretary of Justice: denied.
- October 1998: Petition for review filed with the Court of Appeals, unaccompanied by certified true copies of the assailed Resolutions.
- December 17, 1998: Court of Appeals dismissed the petition as formally deficient under Section 6, Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Court.
- Motion for reconsideration before the Court of Appeals: denied on February 15, 1999.
- Petition for review filed with t