Vda. De Angeles v. City of Davao
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On December 29, 1934, the Municipality of Davao passed Ordinance No. 381, which prescribed a slaughter fee of P2 per head of cow or carabao. At that time, Act No. 4142, approved on November 24, 1934, allowed chartered cities and municipalities to charge slaughter fees not exceeding two centavos per kilo of dressed meat. Procedural History: This action was commenced on December 6, 1937, by the plaintiffs-appellants to recover slaughter fees paid under protest to the City of Davao. The fees were collected under Municipal Ordinance No. 381, both before and after its re-enactment by the City of Davao. The Appeal: The plaintiffs appealed the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Davao, which declared City Ordinance No. 381 valid. The trial court ruled that fees collected before March 1, 1937, in excess of two centavos per kilo, should be refunded, but fees collected from March 1, 1937, onwards were legal. The appellants contended that Ordinance No. 381 was null and void from its inception due to its conflict with Act No. 4142, and that Commonwealth Act No. 155 did not validate it.
Issue(s)
Whether Municipal Ordinance No. 381, which was initially invalid for contravening Act No. 4142, could be legally re-enacted and validated by the City of Davao under Commonwealth Act No. 155. Whether the re-enactment of Municipal Ordinance No. 381 by Resolution No. 2 of the City of Davao on March 1, 1937, cured its prior defect.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance, holding that the slaughter fees collected from and after March 1, 1937, were legal. The Court ruled that Municipal Ordinance No. 381 was legally re-enacted by Resolution No. 2 of the municipal board of the City of Davao on March 1, 1937, when Commonwealth Act No. 155 was already in effect, thereby validating the ordinance.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether Municipal Ordinance No. 381, which was initially invalid for contravening Act No. 4142, could be legally re-enacted and validated by the City of Davao under Commonwealth Act No. 155: The Court held that the ordinance was not entirely illegal but only insofar as it contravened Act No. 4142, which set a maximum fee of two centavos per kilo. On March 1, 1937, Ordinance No. 381 was a subsisting ordinance of the former Municipality of Davao. When the municipal board of the City of Davao, by Resolution No. 2, re-enacted all subsisting ordinances, Ordinance No. 381 continued in operation. Crucially, at that time, Act No. 4142 had been amended by Commonwealth Act No. 155, which allowed for "reasonable" slaughter fees. Therefore, the legality of the re-enacted ordinance should be judged under Commonwealth Act No. 155, not the original Act No. 4142. This amendment effectively cured any defect or illegality the ordinance might have had due to the limitation in Act No. 4142. On Whether the re-enactment of Municipal Ordinance No. 381 by Resolution No. 2 of the City of Davao on March 1, 1937, cured its prior defect: The Court found the trial court's opinion to be correct. The trial court did not hold that Ordinance No. 381 was revived or legalized by the passage of Commonwealth Act No. 155 alone. Instead, it held that the ordinance was legally re-enacted by Resolution No. 2 on March 1, 1937, when Commonwealth Act No. 155 was already in force. This re-enactment under the new legal framework provided by Commonwealth Act No. 155, which allowed for reasonable fees, validated the ordinance. The Court concluded that a municipal ordinance, invalid only because it contravened a legislative act, may be re-enacted and validated by a resolution approved after the act it contravened had been amended to make the ordinance lawful.
Main Doctrine
A municipal ordinance, which was initially invalid because it exceeded the slaughter fee limit prescribed by Act No. 4142, was deemed legally re-enacted and validated by Resolution No. 2 of the City of Davao on March 1, 1937. This validation occurred because, at the time of re-enactment, Commonwealth Act No. 155 had amended Act No. 4142, allowing for reasonable slaughter fees, thereby curing the previous defect in the ordinance. The Court affirmed that an ordinance's illegality due to statutory conflict can be rectified by re-enactment under a subsequently amended law that permits such an ordinance.