Berdin v. Mascariñas
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners, officers of the Tubigon Market Vendors Association, protested Tax Ordinance No. 88-11-36, enacted by the Sangguniang Bayan of Tubigon, Bohol, which increased taxes and fees. They requested copies, filed a protest, and sought suspension of the ordinance. The ordinance was later amended by Tax Ordinance No. 89-10-49, which specified civil remedies including padlocking. Tax Ordinance No. 88-11-36 was amended by Municipal Revenue Ordinance No. 90-01-54 after some provisions were suspended by the Provincial Treasurer for non-conformity with the Local Tax Code. Procedural History: Petitioners filed a complaint with the RTC to enjoin the enforcement of Tax Ordinance No. 88-11-36, declare it null and void, and seek reimbursement. The RTC declared Tax Ordinance No. 88-11-36 valid, but Tax Ordinance No. 89-10-49 valid except for the padlocking provision. The RTC dissolved the injunctive order against enforcing Tax Ordinance No. 88-11-36 and granted a final injunction against padlocking. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision. Petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court. The Petition: Petitioners sought to review and set aside the decisions of the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court, primarily questioning the validity and enforceability of the tax ordinances, the necessity of publication, and whether administrative remedies were exhausted.
Issue(s)
Whether Tax Ordinance No. 88-11-36 and subsequent related ordinances are valid and enforceable. Whether publication was necessary for the tax ordinances. Whether petitioners exhausted the available administrative remedies.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED IN PART. The Sangguniang Bayan of Tubigon, Bohol is DIRECTED to cause the publication of Tax Ordinance No. 88-11-36, Tax Ordinance No. 89-10-49, and Municipal Revenue Ordinance No. 90-01-54. In all other respects, the decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity and enforceability of the ordinances: The Court found the petitioners' claim regarding the non-existence of Tax Ordinance No. 88-11-36 to be baseless, attributing the delay in furnishing a copy to the petitioners' failure to pay reproduction costs. Regarding the requirement for public hearings, the Court clarified that while a public hearing is necessary for ordinances imposing taxes on bases not specifically enumerated in the Local Tax Code, it is not required for revisions of existing ordinances or those imposing taxes on specifically enumerated bases. The Court held that petitioners failed to prove that no public hearing was conducted for Tax Ordinance No. 88-11-36, as the burden of proof rested on them. The Court also noted that issues regarding the rates and alleged unjustness of taxes were addressed by subsequent amendatory ordinances and the findings of the Provincial Treasurer, which are presumed regular. The Court further affirmed the Provincial Treasurer's ruling on fishery rental fees, provided prior approval from the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources was obtained. On the necessity of publication: The Court held that while non-compliance with publication requirements does not render tax ordinances null and void, publication is a condition precedent to their effectivity and enforceability. This is to inform the public of their contents, obviate abuses, and preclude protests from adversely affected individuals. The records lacked evidence of publication, leading the Court to resolve this uncertainty in favor of the petitioners, directing the publication of the ordinances. The municipality was not deprived of income, as taxes could still be collected at the old rates. On the exhaustion of administrative remedies: The Court found that petitioners failed to exhaust administrative remedies. They did not file a formal protest with the Secretary of Finance regarding Tax Ordinance No. 88-11-36, nor did they refer issues concerning its legality or validity to the Provincial Fiscal. Instead, they brought Tax Ordinance No. 89-10-49 to the Provincial Fiscal and appealed to the Secretary of Finance regarding Tax Ordinance No. 88-11-36, but these actions were deemed insufficient or improperly filed. The Court emphasized that the administrative process is intended to provide less expensive and speedier solutions, and courts will not entertain cases unless available administrative remedies have been resorted to.
Main Doctrine
While non-compliance with publication requirements for tax ordinances does not render them null and void, publication is a condition precedent to their effectivity and enforceability to inform the public and obviate abuses. Failure to exhaust administrative remedies, specifically by not filing a formal protest with the Secretary of Finance or a legal question with the Provincial Fiscal regarding the validity of a tax ordinance, bars judicial review.