Cariño v. Jamoralne
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The plaintiff, Basilio Cariño, applied for a license to open a cockpit in the village of Calindagan, municipality of Dumaguete, offering to pay P450 for the license and P50 for the internal revenue tax, totaling P500, as per municipal ordinance No. 236. The defendant, Municipal Treasurer Arsenio Jamoralne, refused to accept the payment and issue the license. Procedural History: The plaintiff filed an action for mandamus to compel the issuance of the license. The Court of First Instance dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the issue of the ordinance's nullity had already been settled administratively by the Chief of the Executive Bureau. The plaintiff appealed this decision. The Petition: The plaintiff appealed, alleging that the trial court erred in holding municipal ordinance No. 236 null, in holding it lacked jurisdiction, and in holding the writ of mandamus did not lie.
Issue(s)
Whether the provincial board has the authority to declare a municipal ordinance invalid on the ground that it is contrary to the policy of the central government, when the ordinance falls within the discretionary powers of the municipal council. Whether the Court of First Instance erred in dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction, despite the administrative ruling by the Chief of the Executive Bureau.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of First Instance. It held that Municipal Ordinance No. 236 is valid and ordered the defendant municipal treasurer to accept the payment and issue the proper license. The Court also held that the lower court had jurisdiction to try the case, notwithstanding the administrative ruling.
Ratio Decidendi
On the authority of the provincial board to declare municipal ordinances invalid: The Court reiterated that under Section 2233 of the Administrative Code, a provincial board may only declare a municipal resolution or ordinance invalid if it is "beyond the powers conferred upon the council or president making the same." The Court emphasized that this power is strictly limited to legal questions concerning the scope of authority granted by law and does not extend to annulling an ordinance simply because it is perceived as contrary to the policy of the central government, provided the ordinance is within the council's discretionary powers. In this case, regulating cockpits falls under the discretionary powers granted to municipal councils by Section 2243(i) of the Administrative Code. Therefore, the provincial board's disapproval of Ordinance No. 236 on the ground of being contrary to central government policy was an act beyond its legal authority. On the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance: The Court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction. Citing Section 2236 of the Administrative Code, the Court stated that judicial tribunals retain the power to hold void any act, ordinance, or resolution of a municipal council for want of statutory authority, irrespective of any decision made by executive authorities. This means that even if the Chief of the Executive Bureau had made a ruling on the ordinance's validity, the courts are not precluded from independently determining the ordinance's legality when its validity is questioned in a case arising before them. Therefore, the Court of First Instance had the jurisdiction to hear and decide the case.
Main Doctrine
A provincial board's power to declare a municipal ordinance invalid is limited to instances where the ordinance exceeds the powers conferred upon the municipal council by law. It cannot annul an ordinance solely on the ground that it is contrary to the policy of the central government if it falls within the council's discretionary powers.