G.R. No. 231896 - Municipality of Tupi vs. Faustino

Case Summary (G.R. No. 231896)

Factual Background

The Municipality of Tupi observed a high incidence of road accidents along a stretch of the national highway from Crossing Barangay Polonuling to Crossing Barangay Cebuano. To address the problem, the Sangguniang Bayan enacted Ordinance No. 688 prescribing maximum speeds for vehicles traversing two segments of the highway. Two days after his apprehension and payment of the prescribed fine under protest, respondent filed an action in the trial court for declaratory relief, annulment of the ordinance, and damages.

Ordinance Provisions and Penalties

Ordinance No. 688 set a maximum speed of 80 kilometers per hour from Crossing Polonuling to Crossing Acmonan and 40 kilometers per hour from Crossing Acmonan to Crossing Cebuano. The ordinance prescribed penalties of Php1,000.00 for the first offense, Php1,500.00 for the second offense, and Php2,000.00 or thirty days imprisonment or both for the third offense. The ordinance provided that it would take effect immediately after fifteen days posting in three conspicuous places.

Trial Court Proceedings and Ruling

Respondent filed Special Civil Action No. 104-14 in the Regional Trial Court seeking annulment of Ordinance No. 688 and refund of fines. By Decision dated January 20, 2016 the trial court declared the ordinance invalid and void ab initio, permanently enjoined its enforcement, and directed the Municipality to refund all fines collected under the ordinance. The trial court found petitioner had authority to legislate but held that the ordinance contravened RA No. 4136 for failure to classify and mark highways and for prescribing uniform speed limits for all vehicles contrary to the statutory classification. The court did not declare the ordinance unconstitutional on due process or publication grounds for lack of supporting evidence.

Positions of the Parties

Petitioner maintained that the ordinance complied with RA No. 4136 because its prescribed speeds fell within the maximum allowable speeds of Section 35 and because the road segments corresponded to the statutory categories. Petitioner also relied on LTO deputation of PNP and local traffic enforcers to implement the ordinance and argued that only respondent was entitled to a refund. Respondent contended that the ordinance violated Section 36 of RA No. 4136, failed to classify roads and vehicles, and did not satisfy publication and posting requirements under the Local Government Code of 1991. The Office of the Solicitor General noted that the ordinance imposed penalties and corrective measures beyond the authority afforded local governments and that certain sanctions, like license confiscation, exceeded municipal competence.

Issues Presented

The principal legal questions were whether declaratory relief was the proper remedy to assail Ordinance No. 688, whether the ordinance complied with the publication requirement under the Local Government Code of 1991, whether the ordinance violated RA No. 4136, and whether the trial court correctly ordered refund of all fines collected under the ordinance.

Supreme Court's Treatment of Procedural Posture and Remedy

The Court held that an action for declaratory relief is not the proper remedy once an ordinance has been enforced and its penalties imposed, because declaratory relief presupposes absence of breach. The Court treated the petition as one for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65, Rules of Court. The Court relied on Aquino v. Municipality of Malay, Aklan, et al. and on Department of Transportation et al. v. Philippine Petroleum Sea Transport Association et al. to explain that certiorari and prohibition are the appropriate remedies to challenge legislative action alleged to be tainted by grave abuse of discretion.

Supreme Court's Finding on Publication Requirement

The Court found beyond dispute that Ordinance No. 688 did not comply with the publication requirement of the Local Government Code of 1991, specifically Section 59 and the quoted Section 511 on posting and publication of ordinances with penal sanctions. The ordinance’s effectivity clause required only posting and omitted publication in a newspaper of general circulation. The record contained no evidence that no newspaper of general circulation existed in South Cotabato, nor evidence that the ordinance was actually published. Relying on Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. v. City of Manila, et al., the Court emphasized that strict observance of publication is the safeguard that notifies those affected and permits public objection. Because Ordinance No. 688 was not published as required, it never became effective or enforceable.

Supreme Court's Finding on Compliance with RA No. 4136

The Court held that Ordinance No. 688 contravened Sections 35, 36, and 38 of RA No. 4136. The Court explained the mandatory prerequisites for a valid local traffic ordinance: classification of public highways pursuant to the categories in Section 35, visible marking and signposting of classified highways, certification by the local secretary to the Land Transportation Office of names, locations, and limits of designated through streets, and approval by the LTO Commissioner. The Court found these steps entirely absent in this case. The Court relied on its earlier decision in Primicias v. the Municipality of Urdaneta, Pangasinan, et al. to reaffirm that failure to comply w

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 231896)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Municipality of Tupi, represented by its Municipal Mayor Reynaldo S. Tamayo, Jr. enacted Municipal Ordinance No. 688, Series of 2014, the subject of the litigation.
Herminio B. Faustino was apprehended for an alleged violation of Ordinance No. 688, paid a fine of P1,000.00 under protest, and initiated suit challenging the ordinance.
Respondent filed a petition for declaratory relief, annulment of the ordinance, and damages before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 39, Polomolok, South Cotabato, docketed as Special Civil Action No. 104-14.
The Regional Trial Court declared Ordinance No. 688 void ab initio, enjoined its enforcement, and ordered the refund of fines collected under the ordinance.
Petitioner elevated the case to the Court by a petition for review on certiorari seeking reversal of the trial court's judgment and the deletion of its refund directive.

Key Factual Allegations

Petitioner enacted Ordinance No. 688 on March 3, 2014 to prescribe speed limits on a stretch of the national highway from Crossing Polonuling to Crossing Cebuano.
The ordinance set a maximum speed of 80 kph from Crossing Polonuling to Crossing Acmonan and 40 kph from Crossing Acmonan to Crossing Cebuano.
Respondent was apprehended on October 6, 2014 for traveling at 70 kph in the 40 kph zone and was fined P1,000.00 which he paid under protest.
Petitioner asserted that the ordinance reduced accidents during its implementation and that the speed limits corresponded to classifications in RA No. 4136.
The Office of the Solicitor General observed that the ordinance imposed penalties and sanctions beyond those authorized by RA No. 4136, and that certain enforcement acts were proper only to the LTO personnel.

Ordinance Provisions

Ordinance No. 688 prescribed uniform maximum speeds for the covered highway segments and imposed penal sanctions of escalating fines and imprisonment for repeated offenses.
Section IX of the ordinance provided that it would take effect fifteen days after posting in three conspicuous places.
The ordinance authorized enforcement measures that included confiscation of driver's licenses and issuance of Temporary Operator's Permits.

Procedural History

The trial court issued its Decision on January 20, 2016 declaring Ordinance No. 688 invalid and void ab initio and ordering refunds of accrued-collected fines.
The trial court denied motions for reconsideration and, by Omnibus Order dated May 15, 2017, granted respondent’s motion for execution to halt implementation.
The parties filed memoranda and briefs before this Court and the Office of the Solicitor General filed its comment through the Provincial Prosecutor.

Issues Presented

Whether a petition for declaratory relief was the proper remedy to assail Municipal Ordinance No. 688, Series of 2014 after enforcement.
Whether Ordinance No. 688 complied with the publication requirement under Section 59 of the Local Government Code of 1991.
Whether Ordinance No. 688 violated RA No. 4136, specifically Sections 35, 36, and 38.
Whether the trial court's directive to refund all fines collected pursuant to Ordinance No. 688 was proper.

Parties' Contentions

Petitioner contended that the ordinance conformed with RA No. 4136, that the prescribed speeds fell within Section 35 limits, that the LTO deputation supported enforcement, and that only respondent's paid fine (if any) should be refunded.
Respondent contended that the ordinance contravened Section 36 of RA No. 4136, failed to classify covered roads and vehicles, and violated the publication requirement of Section 59, Local Government Code of 1991.

Statutory Framework

RA No. 4136, Sections 35, 36, and 38 prescribe maximum a