Bagatsing V Ramirez

G.R. No. L-41631.
December 17, 1976
HON. RAMON D. BAGATSING vs. HON. PEDRO A. RAMIREZ
Facts
Municipal Board of Manila enacted Ordinance 7522 which regulated markets

and prescribed fees for rentals of stalls
Private Respondent Federation of Manila Market Vendors sought to declare
the ordinance void for (1) failing to meet the publication requirement, (2)
failing to allow the Market Committee to participate in its enactment,
violating Art. 3 of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and (4) the
ordinance violated PD No. 7 which already imposed fees and charges on
livestock and animal products
Lower Court: petition was granted; the court declared ordinance null, for
failing to follow rules on publication.
Petitioners moved for reconsideration arguing that (1) only a post-
publication is required by the Local Tax Code and (2) respondent failed to
exhaust all administrative remedies.
Issue/Holding/Ratio
1. Whether or not the tax ordinance was properly published? YES, the petition
is impressed with merit.
While the Revised Charter of the City of Manila requires publication before
the enactment of the ordinance and after the approval thereof in two daily
newspapers of general circulation in the city, the Local Tax Code only
prescribes for publication after the approval of "ordinances levying or
imposing taxes, fees or other charges" either in a newspaper or publication
widely circulated within the jurisdiction of the local government or by posting
the ordinance in the local legislative hall or premises and in two other
conspicuous places within the territorial jurisdiction of the local government.
There is no question that the Revised Charter of the City of Manila is a
special act since it relates only to the City of Manila, whereas the Local Tax
Code is a general law.
[IMPORTANT] HOWEVER, where a special statute refers to a subject in
general, while a general state treats a subject in particular, the general
statute should prevail.
In this case, although the Revised Charter of the City of Manila is dominant
as to ordinances in general, it is inferior when it approaches the realm of
ordinances levying or imposing taxes, fees or other charges in particular.
This is where the Local Tax Code controls.
Thus, only a post-publication is required, which was accomplished
in this case.
There is no rule which prohibits repeal by implication. A charter provision
may be impliedly modified or superseded by a later statute.
A chartered city is not an independent sovereignty. A charter must yield to
the constitution and general laws of the state.
2. WON respondent failed to exhaust all administrative remedies? It is

unnecessary, as the controversy is deeply rooted in a pure question of law.
Exhaustion is not an absolute rule. It admits of exception when the question
is purely legal, and when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.
3. WON the subject ordinance is a revenue-raising function and not a tax

ordinance, which would make the procedure for publication inapplicable?
Precisely, the raising of revenues is the principal object of taxation.
Art. X, Sec. of the Constitution: Each local government unit shall have the
power to create its own sources of revenue and to levy taxes, subject to
such provisions as may be provided by law.
Local Tax Code: Local governments may collect fees for the occupancy or
use of the public markets and premises
Feeble to argue that the ordinance violates PD 7 because the decree
prescribes the collection of other fees with the exception of ante-mortem
and post-mortem inspection fees, as well as the delivery, stockyard, and
slaughter fees
4. WON the ordinance should be nullified for failing to allow the Market
Committee to participate in its enactment? No, the function of the
committee is purely recommendatory. Its prior acquiescence is not a
condition sine qua non to enactment.
5. WON the market stall fees are being given to a certain Asiatic Integrated
Corporation for its exclusive private use under a Management and
Operating Contract? No, the entrusting of the collection of fees does not
destroy the public purpose. It does not matter whether the agency through
which the money is dispensed is public or private.

Bagatsing V Ramirez

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bagatsing V Ramirez

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bagatsing V Ramirez

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. L-41631.

December 17, 1976

HON. RAMON D. BAGATSING vs. HON. PEDRO A. RAMIREZ

Municipal Board of Manila enacted Ordinance 7522 which regulated markets

2. WON respondent failed to exhaust all administrative remedies? It is

3. WON the subject ordinance is a revenue-raising function and not a tax

You might also like