Case Summary (G.R. No. 231896)
Antecedents of the Speed Limit Ordinance
To curb high accident rates, the Sangguniang Bayan enacted Ordinance No. 688 prescribing maximum speeds: 80 kph from Polonuling to Acmonan, 40 kph from Acmonan to Cebuano, with escalating fines and imprisonment for repeat offenses. Respondent was fined ₱1,000 for driving at 70 kph in the 40 kph zone and sued for annulment, declaratory relief, damages, and refund.
Trial Court’s Findings and Ruling
The Regional Trial Court declared the Ordinance void ab initio for failing to classify and mark highways, to submit certifications to the LTO, and for imposing uniform speed limits contrary to RA 4136’s vehicle classifications. It enjoined enforcement and ordered a full refund of fines.
Present Petition and Contentions
Petitioner appealed, asserting: compliance with RA 4136’s speed tables; LTO deputation of enforcers; substantial compliance with highway classification requirements; and improper refund order extending beyond respondent. Respondent reiterated unconstitutionality for publication lapses and conflict with RA 4136.
Issues for Resolution
- Proper remedy for assailing validity: declaratory relief versus certiorari and prohibition.
- Compliance with publication requirements under the Local Government Code.
- Consistency with RA 4136’s speed limits and classification scheme.
- Validity of trial court’s directive to refund all collected fines.
Proper Remedy: Certiorari and Prohibition
Because the Ordinance was enforced and respondent penalized, declaratory relief was no longer available. Under Rules 63 and 65, certiorari and prohibition are the appropriate remedies to address grave abuse of discretion in legislative acts. The Supreme Court therefore treated the petition as one for certiorari and prohibition.
Publication Requirement under the Local Government Code
Section 59 and Section 511 LGC mandate posting and publication of penal ordinances in a newspaper of general circulation unless none exists. Ordinance 688 provided only for posting, lacked newspaper publication, and presented no evidence of exemption. Its effectivity and enforceability thus failed for lack of mandatory publication.
Violation of RA 4136’s Speed Limit and Classification Provisions
Sections 35 and 36 RA 4136 prohibit local authorities from prescribing limits other than those in the Code and require differentiation by vehicle type. Section 38 demands classification of highways, signage, and LTO approval. Ordinance 688 imposed uniform limits without formal classification, marking, or required LTO certification, contravening RA 4136.
Incidental Relief: Refund of Respondent’s Fine
Refund of the ₱1,000 paid by Faustino is an incidental relief to the principal remedy of annulling the Ordinance. Under Rule 65, incidental reliefs include reimbursement of illegally collected fees. However, refund of fi
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 231896)
Prefatory Question
- Petitioner enacted a speed limit ordinance that effectively reduced accidents but failed to meet statutory formalities.
- The Court must decide whether to invalidate the ordinance for legal infirmities or uphold it as a welfare measure.
Facts and Background
- High accident rate along the national highway from Crossing Polonuling to Crossing Cebuano prompted local action.
- On March 3, 2014, Sangguniang Bayan of Tupi enacted Ordinance No. 688, Series of 2014 (“Speed Limit Ordinance”).
- Two designated zones and speed limits:
- Crossing Polonuling to Crossing Acmonan: 80 kph
- Crossing Acmonan to Crossing Cebuano: 40 kph
- Penalties provided:
- First offense: Fine ₱1,000
- Second offense: Fine ₱1,500
- Third offense: Fine ₱2,000 or thirty-day imprisonment, or both
Respondent’s Apprehension and Petition
- October 6, 2014: Atty. Faustino apprehended for driving 70 kph in the 40 kph zone; fined ₱1,000, paid under protest.
- October 8, 2014: Faustino filed before RTC Polomolok a petition for declaratory relief, annulment of the ordinance, and damages.
- Grounds:
- Ordinance unconstitutional for lack of publication (due process breach)
- Violation of Local Government Code, Tax Code, and RA 4136
- Prayers:
- Declare ordinance unconstitutional
- Refund all fined motorists
- Moral damages for shame and humiliation
Trial Court Ruling
- January 20, 2016: Declared Ordinance No. 688 void ab initio; permanently enjoined its enforcement; ordered refund of all fines.
- Reasoning:
- Prior breach did not bar challenge—further enforcement would cause inevitable violations.
- Substantive conflict with RA 4136:
- No road classification, signage, or LTO certification (Section 38 requirement)
- Uniform vehicle speed limits confli