Case Summary (G.R. No. 116239)
Procedural History
This appeal seeks to reverse the earlier decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the appeal on procedural grounds, asserting it should have been directly filed with the Supreme Court as a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 due to the nature of the issues raised, which involved pure questions of law.
Antecedent Facts
The dispute originates from a resolution by Barangay San Rafael demanding funds from the real property taxes collected. Petitioners argued that the tax share was wrongly withheld because Barangay San Rafael had been abolished and merged into Barangay Dacanlao as per Ordinance No. 5 enacted on June 23, 1997. The Commission on Elections (COMELEC), following a plebiscite approving the merger on February 28, 1998, facilitated the merger, although legal battles regarding the status of the barangay ensued.
Relevant Legislation
The applicable law includes the Local Government Code (Republic Act No. 7160) and the 1987 Philippine Constitution, particularly Article X, Section 10, which stipulates the procedural requirements for the creation, division, merger, and abolition of local government units (LGUs), including the necessity of a plebiscite.
Court Rulings
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially upheld the validity of Ordinance No. 5 but later dismissed a petition challenging Ordinance No. 2 (which aimed to reinstate Barangay San Rafael) for failing to present compelling evidence against the presumption of validity of local ordinances. The Court of Appeals further affirmed this stance by ruling that the petitioners improperly sought appeal through Rule 41 rather than a petition for review under Rule 45.
Issues Raised on Appeal
Petitioners contended that the Court of Appeals erred in deeming their appeal improper, ignoring the established abolition and merger of Barangay San Rafael as articulated in Ordinance No. 5. They argued that the requirements for the enactment of Ordinance No. 2 were not satisfied, including the necessary plebiscite and a minimum population threshold.
Judicial Findings on Procedures
The Supreme Court found that the petitioners did properly raise questions of fact regarding the procedural validity of Ordinance No. 2. Importantly, the Court ruled that the issues involved did not solely pertain to law but required fact-finding regarding compliance with statutory and constitutional mandates surrounding the enactment of local ordinances.
Authority of Local Government Units
The ruling clarified that while local governments possess the authority to create, divide, merge, or abolish barangays through ordinances, such actions must adhere to constitutional requirements of plebiscites and minimum population certifications, emphasizing the necessity for the local government to act within the bounds set by the Local Government Code.
Constitutional Compliance
The Court determined that Ordinance No. 2, which sought to repeal Ordinance No. 5, was void due to its non-compliance with constitutional requirements. Specifically, it faile
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 116239)
Background and Parties
- Petitioners: Justo Q. Sinag and numerous former officials and residents of Barangay Dacanlao, Calaca, Batangas.
- Respondents: The Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Batangas, Provincial Assessor, Provincial Treasurer, Municipal Treasurer of Calaca, and Barangay San Rafael officials.
- The controversy arose from a dispute over shares of real property taxes (RPT) between Barangay San Rafael and Barangay Dacanlao following the purported abolition of Brgy. San Rafael and merger with Brgy. Dacanlao through Ordinance No. 5, series of 1997.
Chronology of Key Events
- June 23, 1997: Sanggunian enacted Ordinance No. 5 abolishing Barangay San Rafael and merging it with Barangay Dacanlao.
- February 28, 1998: COMELEC conducted plebiscite ratifying abolition and merger.
- Legal challenges arose questioning the validity and implementation of the ordinance and plebiscite results.
- RTC Branch 11 initially denied jurisdiction to issue TRO against plebiscite.
- Supreme Court (G.R. No. 132603) held that COMELEC’s issuance of plebiscite rules was ministerial and could be questioned in ordinary civil action.
- RTC Branch 9 upheld the validity of Ordinance No. 5 in Civil Case No. 3442 but the implementation of plebiscite results deferred pending final resolution.
- Sangguniang Panlalawigan passed Ordinance No. 2 in 2009 repealing Ordinance No. 5, effectively reinstating Barangay San Rafael.
- Petitioners filed to nullify Ordinance No. 2, alleging procedural irregularities and lack of compliance with constitutional and statutory requisites.
Procedural History
- The RTC Branch 9 dismissed the nullification petition, holding Ordinance No. 5 was never implemented and Brgy. San Rafael maintained existence.
- The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for improper remedy, ruling that a petition under Rule 45 should have been filed instead of an appeal under Rule 41.
- Petitioners elevated case to the Supreme Court via appeal by certiorari.
Issues Presented
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal as an improper remedy.
- Whether the trial court erred in disregarding the legal abolishment of Barangay San Rafael via Ordinance No. 5.
- Whether the trial court erred in not applying the constitutional and statutory requirements for creation of barangays in enacting Ordinance No. 2.
- Whether the trial court erred in declaring the validity of Ordinance