Coca-Cola Bottlers v. City of Manila
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. (CCBPI) is a corporation engaged in manufacturing and selling beverages with a sales office in the City of Manila. On February 25, 2000, the City of Manila approved Tax Ordinance No. 7988, which amended the previous Revenue Code by increasing tax rates. CCBPI questioned Section 21 of this ordinance before the Department of Justice (DOJ), arguing it imposed an additional business tax beyond the City's taxing power and violated the Local Government Code (LGC) and the Constitution. On August 17, 2000, the DOJ declared Tax Ordinance No. 7988 null and void for failure to comply with the mandatory publication requirement under Section 188 of the LGC, as it was published only once, not for three consecutive days. The City of Manila did not appeal this decision. Subsequently, the Bureau of Local Government Finance (BLGF) directed the City Treasurer to cease and desist from enforcing the void ordinance. Despite this, the City continued to assess CCBPI business tax for 2001 based on Ordinance No. 7988. CCBPI filed a complaint with the RTC of Manila, Branch 21, seeking an injunction. On November 28, 2001, the RTC granted a permanent injunction, finding that the ordinance was not published according to law. Meanwhile, on February 22, 2001, the City Mayor approved Tax Ordinance No. 8011, which amended Ordinance No. 7988. CCBPI again challenged this new ordinance before the DOJ, arguing it amended a void ordinance and was also not published properly. On July 5, 2001, the DOJ declared Tax Ordinance No. 8011 null and void, stating that an amendatory ordinance to a void ordinance is also void. The DOJ's resolution was later affirmed by the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 157490. Procedural History: The RTC of Manila, Branch 21, initially issued a permanent injunction against the enforcement of Tax Ordinance No. 7988. However, it later dismissed CCBPI's case in an Order dated May 8, 2002, citing the enactment of Tax Ordinance No. 8011 as an amendment to Ordinance No. 7988. The RTC denied CCBPI's motion for reconsideration in an Order dated December 5, 2002. CCBPI then filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court. The Petition: CCBPI assailed the RTC's Orders dated May 8, 2002, and December 5, 2002, which dismissed its petition for injunction, arguing that the RTC erred in dismissing the case despite Tax Ordinance No. 7988 and its amendatory ordinance, Tax Ordinance No. 8011, both being declared null and void.
Issue(s)
Whether the instant Petition raises questions of fact, proscribed under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Whether Nelson Empalmado was duly authorized to file the Petition on behalf of CCBPI. Whether Tax Ordinance No. 7988 is null and void and of no legal effect. Whether the RTC erred in dismissing CCBPI's case based on the enactment of Tax Ordinance No. 8011, which amended Tax Ordinance No. 7988.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the Orders of the RTC of Manila, Branch 21, dated May 8, 2002, and December 5, 2002. The Court ruled that the RTC erred in dismissing CCBPI's case.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of questions of fact: The Court held that the petition does not raise questions of fact, as there is no dispute as to the truth or falsity of alleged facts. Instead, the issue is whether the conclusion drawn from undisputed facts is correct, which is a question of law. The Court noted that it was the respondents who raised questions of fact by alleging that the RTC failed to consider evidence of proper publication. On the authority of Nelson Empalmado: The Court found that Nelson Empalmado was properly authorized to file the petition. Although not directly named in the Secretary's Certificate, he was granted authority through a Special Power of Attorney executed by Ramon V. Lapez, Jr., who was himself authorized by the Secretary's Certificate to designate individuals for prosecuting claims. This complied with the requirements of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure regarding verification and certification. On the nullity of Tax Ordinance No. 7988: The Court reiterated that Tax Ordinance No. 7988 was declared null and void by the DOJ Secretary on August 17, 2000, for failing to comply with the mandatory publication requirement under Section 188 of the Local Government Code of 1991. This ruling attained finality as the City of Manila did not appeal. The RTC of Manila, Branch 21, also found in its November 28, 2001 decision that the ordinance was published only once, in contravention of the law. Therefore, Tax Ordinance No. 7988 is unequivocally null and void. On the dismissal of CCBPI's case due to Tax Ordinance No. 8011: The Court found no legal basis for the RTC's dismissal of CCBPI's case. The RTC dismissed the case on the ground that Tax Ordinance No. 8011 amended Tax Ordinance No. 7988. However, Tax Ordinance No. 8011 was itself declared null and void by the DOJ Secretary on July 5, 2001, and this ruling also attained finality. The DOJ explicitly stated that an amendatory ordinance to a void ordinance is also void, and the passage of the assailed ordinance did not cure the defects of the original void ordinance. The Court further emphasized, citing People v. Lim, that if a law or ordinance sought to be amended is invalid, it does not legally exist, and there is no occasion or need to amend it. Therefore, the dismissal of CCBPI's case based on the existence of Tax Ordinance No. 8011 was erroneous.
Main Doctrine
A tax ordinance that fails to comply with the mandatory publication requirement under Section 188 of the Local Government Code of 1991 is null and void and without legal effect. Furthermore, an ordinance that merely amends a void ordinance is also considered void.