Sinag v. Sangguniang Panlalawigan Ng Batangas
CLARIFICATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case concerns a dispute over the rightful share of real property taxes (RPT) collected from FELS Energy Living Stone, Incorporated. Barangay San Rafael (Brgy. San Rafael) claimed entitlement to PHP 41,435,765.19, asserting it was its share of the RPT. Conversely, petitioners, identified as former officials and residents of Barangay Dacanlao (Brgy. Dacanlao), argued that this RPT rightfully belonged to Brgy. Dacanlao, as Brgy. San Rafael had allegedly been abolished and merged with Brgy. Dacanlao. Procedural History: The underlying dispute began with Sangguniang Panlalawigan Ordinance No. 05, series of 1997 (Ordinance No. 5), which declared the abolition of Brgy. San Rafael and its merger with Brgy. Dacanlao. A plebiscite was held on February 28, 1998, with a majority voting to ratify the abolition. However, the validity of Ordinance No. 5 and the COMELEC resolution for the plebiscite were challenged in court. After a series of legal proceedings, including a Supreme Court decision in G.R. No. 132603 which remanded the case to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and ordered a status quo, the RTC eventually upheld the validity of Ordinance No. 5. Subsequently, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan enacted Provincial Ordinance No. 002, series of 2009 (Ordinance No. 2), repealing Ordinance No. 5. Petitioners then filed a case to nullify Ordinance No. 2, arguing it was void. The RTC dismissed this petition, and the Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed the subsequent appeal, ruling that the proper remedy was a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, not an appeal under Rule 41. The Petition: The petitioners, Sinag et al., are now before the Supreme Court via a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. They contend that the CA erred in dismissing their appeal, arguing that their case involved questions of fact, thus justifying an appeal under Rule 41. They further argue that the RTC erred in upholding Ordinance No. 2, asserting that it failed to comply with constitutional and statutory requirements for the creation of a barangay, specifically the population requirement and the conduct of a plebiscite. They also claim that Ordinance No. 2 was enacted with procedural irregularities and that Ordinance No. 5, which it sought to repeal, had been validly enacted and its validity was not overturned by subsequent proceedings.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals (CA) erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground of improper remedy (Rule 41 vs. Rule 45). Whether Provincial Ordinance No. 002, series of 2009, is valid despite the lack of a plebiscite and failure to meet the minimum population requirement.
Ruling
The Petition is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals' Decision and Resolution are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Provincial Ordinance No. 002, series of 2009, is declared VOID.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court (SC) held that the appeal via Rule 41 was the proper remedy. A question of fact exists when there is doubt as to the truth or falsehood of the alleged facts, whereas a question of law exists when the doubt concerns the application of law to a certain state of facts. Petitioners raised several factual allegations regarding irregularities in the legislative process, such as the lack of a quorum during committee hearings and the failure to calendar the ordinance properly. Citing Shimizu Philippines Contractors, Inc. v. Magsalin, the SC emphasized that even if facts are largely undisputed, an appellate court must still examine the records to determine if there was a factual basis for the trial court's dismissal. Since the CA had to evaluate the truthfulness of the alleged legislative irregularities, the mode of appeal under Rule 41 was appropriate. On Issue 2: The SC ruled that Ordinance No. 2 is void for failing to comply with the 1987 Constitution and the Local Government Code (LGC). Under Article X, Section 10 of the Constitution, no barangay may be created or divided except in accordance with LGC criteria and subject to a plebiscite. Section 386 of the LGC requires a minimum population of 2,000 inhabitants, certified by the National Statistics Office (NSO)/Philippine Statistics Agency (PSA), for the creation of a barangay. Ordinance No. 2 effectively sought to divide Barangay Dacanlao to recreate Barangay San Rafael, but it failed to provide for a mandatory plebiscite. Furthermore, evidence showed that Barangay San Rafael only had 611 inhabitants per the 2007 Census, far below the 2,000-person threshold. The SC rejected the argument that the ordinance was a mere 'repeal' of a non-implemented law, stating that Ordinance No. 5 was legally effective upon its ratification by the 1998 plebiscite, regardless of the judicial deferral of its implementation. Therefore, any attempt to restore Barangay San Rafael required a new plebiscite and compliance with population standards, which were not met.
Main Doctrine
The power of a local legislative body to repeal its own ordinances is not absolute when such repeal effects a change in the political and territorial subdivision of the State. Under Article X, Section 10 of the 1987 Constitution and the Local Government Code (LGC), any ordinance that results in the creation or division of a barangay must comply with the minimum population requirement (at least 2,000 inhabitants) as certified by the National Statistics Office (NSO)/Philippine Statistics Agency (PSA) and must be ratified by a majority of votes in a plebiscite. The validity of a law or ordinance is not dependent on its actual implementation; thus, an ordinance that has been ratified by a plebiscite is legally effective even if its execution is deferred by a court order. Consequently, any subsequent attempt to undo such abolition must be treated as a new act of creation/division subject to all legal requisites.