Acaac v. Azcuna
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: PETAL Foundation, Inc. (PETAL), a non-governmental organization, constructed cottages and a seminar cottage on Capayas Island without securing building permits. Respondents, the Mayor and Municipal Engineer of Lopez Jaena, Misamis Occidental, issued notices of illegal construction against PETAL. Subsequently, the Sangguniang Bayan of Lopez Jaena adopted Municipal Ordinance No. 02, Series of 2002, prohibiting entry into sanctuaries and construction of structures without authorization. The ordinance was approved by the Mayor and submitted to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan (SP) for review. PETAL received notices for voluntary demolition of its structures, citing violations of the ordinance. Petitioners filed an action for injunction, alleging prior vested rights and assailing the ordinance's validity on grounds of lack of public consultation, non-publication in a newspaper of general circulation, and lack of SP approval. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) declared the ordinance void, finding that PETAL's protest was unresolved, the ordinance was not duly approved by the SP, and it was not published or posted. The RTC ordered the removal of structures built without permits but enjoined respondents from closing Capayas Island. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC, holding that the ordinance was deemed approved by operation of law due to the SP's inaction within 30 days, that publication and posting requirements were met, and that the municipality had the authority to enact the ordinance. The CA also upheld the RTC's finding that petitioners had no proprietary rights over the island. The Petition: Petitioners sought review of the CA's decision, primarily questioning the validity and enforceability of the subject ordinance.
Issue(s)
Whether Municipal Ordinance No. 02, Series of 2002 is valid under the 'deemed approved' rule of Section 56(d) of the Local Government Code of 1991 (LGC). Whether the ordinance is void for failure to comply with the posting and publication requirements of the Local Government Code of 1991 (LGC).
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision dated September 30, 2008, and Resolution dated March 9, 2009, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 00284-MIN are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the ordinance is valid as it was deemed approved by operation of law. Under Section 56(d) of the Local Government Code of 1991 (LGC), if the Sangguniang Panlalawigan (SP) takes no action within thirty (30) days after the submission of a municipal ordinance, the same shall be presumed consistent with law and therefore valid. The Court clarified that the 'action' referred to in paragraph (d) must be read in conjunction with paragraph (c), which pertains to a declaration of invalidity by the SP. In this case, since more than 30 days had elapsed from the time the Sangguniang Bayan (SB) submitted the ordinance for review without the SP declaring it invalid, the ordinance is legally presumed valid. The fact that the ordinance was allegedly still 'pending' in a committee does not stop the 30-day clock provided by the LGC. This interpretation ensures that the legislative process of component municipalities is not indefinitely stalled by the inaction of provincial bodies. On Issue 2: The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners failed to overcome the presumption of validity regarding the ordinance's procedural requirements. While petitioners alleged a lack of publication and posting, they failed to present any evidence to support these negative allegations. In contrast, Respondent Mayor Azcuna testified that they had complied with the requirements. Applying the ruling in Figuerres v. CA, the Court emphasized that since the lack of a public hearing or publication is a negative allegation essential to the petitioners' cause of action, the burden of proof rests on the petitioners. In the absence of positive proof to the contrary, the law presumes that official duties have been regularly performed and that the procedure prescribed by law was observed. Therefore, the constitutionality and legality of the ordinance must be upheld.
Main Doctrine
A municipal ordinance, upon submission to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan for review, is presumed valid and consistent with law if no action is taken by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan within thirty (30) days from receipt thereof, as provided under Section 56(d) of the Local Government Code. The burden of proving non-compliance with procedural requirements for the enactment of an ordinance rests upon the party alleging it.