Ferrer v. City Mayor Herbert Bautista
Ferrer v. Bautista, G.R. No. 210551, June 30, 2015
- Procedural (Remedial Law)
- Political Law
- Taxation Law
- Rule 65
- certiorari
- prohibition
- declaratory relief
- local taxation
- socialized housing tax
- garbage fee
- LGC
- R.A. No. 7279
- R.A. No. 9003
- equal protection
- publication and posting requirements
- transcendental importance
- locus standi
- litis pendentia
- administrative remedies
I. Facts of the Case
Quezon City Council enacted Ordinance No. SP-2095 (Socialized Housing Tax) imposing a special assessment on land values and providing a tax credit for compliant taxpayers, while the City Council later enacted Ordinance No. SP-2235 imposing an annual garbage fee and directing proceeds to an earmarked special account. Petitioner Jose J. Ferrer, a registered co-owner who paid realty tax that allegedly included the garbage fee, challenged the ordinances as unconstitutional and illegal and sought injunctive relief.
October 17, 2011
The Quezon City Council enacted Ordinance No. SP-2095, S-2011 imposing a Socialized Housing Tax (special assessment) of 0.5% on the assessed value of land in excess of Php100,000.00, to accrue to socialized housing programs for five years, and providing conditions for a tax credit after continued payment.
December 16, 2013
The Quezon City Council enacted Ordinance No. SP-2235, S-2013 imposing an annual garbage fee on residential properties and directing that proceeds be deposited in an earmarked special account under the general fund for garbage collections.
December 26, 2013
Ordinance No. SP-2235, S-2013 took effect ten days after approval by the City Mayor.
January 7, 2014
Petitioner paid realty tax for his property, which he alleged already included the garbage fee in the amount of Php100.00.
January 17, 2014
Petitioner filed in the Supreme Court a petition styled as one for certiorari under Rule 65 seeking to declare Ordinance Nos. SP-2095 and SP-2235 unconstitutional and illegal, with prayer for a temporary restraining order.
February 5, 2014
The Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining enforcement of Ordinance Nos. SP-2095 and SP-2235 and required respondents to comment.
February 17, 2014
Respondents filed their Comment with an urgent motion to dissolve the temporary restraining order.
March 3, 2014
Petitioner filed a Reply.
June 30, 2015
The Supreme Court ruled that the City Council’s enactment of the ordinances was legislative in nature and treated the petition for certiorari/declaratory relief as one for prohibition/mandamus due to the transcendental importance of the issues, upheld Ordinance No. SP-2095, but declared Ordinance No. SP-2235, S-2013 unconstitutional and illegal and ordered refund of amounts collected, while lifting the TRO as to SP-2095 and permanently enjoining enforcement of SP-2235.
II. Issues
Whether or not the City Mayor, City Treasurer, and City Assessor of Quezon City are properly subject to a petition for certiorari/prohibition under Rule 65 considering the nature of their functions relative to Ordinance Nos. SP-2095 and SP-2235.
Whether the enactment of Ordinance Nos. SP-2095 and SP-2235 by the Quezon City Council is an exercise of legislative power rather than judicial or quasi-judicial power for purposes of the propriety of Rule 65 certiorari.
Whether a petition for declaratory relief, although styled as a petition for certiorari, may be treated as a petition for prohibition or mandamus in view of transcendental importance and far-reaching implications.
Whether petitioner has locus standi to assail the constitutionality and legality of Ordinance Nos. SP-2095 and SP-2235 as a registered co-owner who paid realty tax that already included the SHT and garbage fee.
Whether or not the petition should be dismissed on the ground of litis pendentia due to a pending civil case in the Quezon City Regional Trial Court involving Ordinance No. SP-2095.
Whether or not petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies under Section 187 of the Local Government Code before resorting to court to challenge the assailed tax ordinances.
Whether or not Ordinance Nos. SP-2095 and SP-2235 are unconstitutional or illegal for violating limitations under the Local Government Code and for other alleged constitutional/statutory defects.
III. Ruling
Whether or not the City Mayor, City Treasurer, and City Assessor of Quezon City are properly subject to a petition for certiorari/prohibition under Rule 65 considering the nature of their functions relative to Ordinance Nos. SP-2095 and SP-2235.
The City officials named as respondents were not shown to have acted in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity, but they could still be impleaded in a prohibition/mandamus-type challenge to prevent enforcement of the questioned ordinances.
How the Court reasoned
- The Court recognized that the named officials (Mayor, Treasurer, Assessor) were not exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions in the enactment of the challenged ordinances.
- Relief sought in the petition was directed at preventing enforcement of legislative acts, which is properly addressed by prohibition rather than certiorari.
- Although respondents were not acting judicially or quasi-judicially, they were still relevant because their official acts relate to enforcement and implementation of the ordinances.
“We agree that respondents neither acted in any judicial or quasi-judicial capacity nor arrogated unto themselves any judicial or quasi-judicial prerogatives.”
Rule applied
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
Whether the enactment of Ordinance Nos. SP-2095 and SP-2235 by the Quezon City Council is an exercise of legislative power rather than judicial or quasi-judicial power for purposes of the propriety of Rule 65 certiorari.
The Supreme Court held that Ordinance Nos. SP-2095 and SP-2235 were enacted by the Quezon City Council in the exercise of legislative power, not judicial or quasi-judicial power.
How the Court reasoned
- The Court found that the acts of enacting the ordinances were legislative functions of the Sangguniang Panlungsod (City Council).
- For Rule 65 certiorari purposes, the function must be judicial or quasi-judicial; enactment of ordinances is not such an exercise.
- Thus, the nature of the assailed acts supported viewing the case as one for prohibition/mandamus rather than certiorari.
“The enactment by the Quezon City Council of the assailed ordinances was done in the exercise of its legislative, not judicial or quasi-judicial, function.”
Rule applied
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
Whether a petition for declaratory relief, although styled as a petition for certiorari, may be treated as a petition for prohibition or mandamus in view of transcendental importance and far-reaching implications.
Even if the petition was styled as certiorari (and referred to declaratory relief), the Supreme Court treated it as one for prohibition/mandamus and assumed original jurisdiction due to transcendental importance.
How the Court reasoned
- The Court noted the general rule that the proper remedy depends on the nature of the act being challenged and the relief sought.
- It nonetheless recognized that where issues are of far-reaching implication or transcendental importance, the Court may entertain the petition despite procedural styling.
- The Court therefore treated the petition as appropriate for prohibition or mandamus and proceeded to resolve the substantive challenges.
“Despite these, a petition for declaratory relief may be treated as one for prohibition or mandamus, over which we exercise original jurisdiction, in cases with far-reaching implications or one which raises transcendental issues or questions that need to be resolved for the public good.”
Rule applied
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
Whether petitioner has locus standi to assail the constitutionality and legality of Ordinance Nos. SP-2095 and SP-2235 as a registered co-owner who paid realty tax that already included the SHT and garbage fee.
The Court found that petitioner had locus standi because he was a real party-in-interest who paid property tax that included the challenged assessments/charges.
How the Court reasoned
- The Court examined whether petitioner was sufficiently affected by the challenged ordinances.
- Petitioner alleged he was a registered co-owner and that he paid realty tax which already included the questioned special assessment and garbage fee.
- Given this direct monetary impact, the Court held petitioner had standing to challenge the legality/constitutionality of the ordinances.
“Tested by the foregoing, petitioner in this case clearly has legal standing to file the petition.”
Rule applied
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
Whether or not the petition should be dismissed on the ground of litis pendentia due to a pending civil case in the Quezon City Regional Trial Court involving Ordinance No. SP-2095.
The Court did not dismiss the petition on the ground of litis pendentia, finding that the requisites for dismissal were not shown on the records and the identity of causes/reliefs could not be properly determined.
How the Court reasoned
- The Court considered the alleged pendency of a related civil case in the RTC involving Ordinance No. SP-2095.
- It found that respondents failed to show facts and pleadings sufficient to establish the requisites of litis pendentia.
- The records before the Court did not permit a confident determination of the identity of the causes of action and reliefs sought.
Rule applied
Doctrine on litis pendentia
Whether or not petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies under Section 187 of the Local Government Code before resorting to court to challenge the assailed tax ordinances.
The Court proceeded to resolve the petition despite allegations of failure to exhaust administrative remedies, effectively relaxing such procedural requirement due to the transcendental nature of the issues.
How the Court reasoned
- The Court acknowledged reasons to entertain the controversy directly given its far-reaching public implications.
- It relied on the doctrine that in matters of transcendental issues, strict application of procedural hierarchy and related requirements may be relaxed.
- Accordingly, exhaustion of administrative remedies under Section 187 of the LGC did not bar judicial review in the particular circumstances of the case.
Rule applied
Section 187, Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code); Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
Whether or not Ordinance Nos. SP-2095 and SP-2235 are unconstitutional or illegal for violating limitations under the Local Government Code and for other alleged constitutional/statutory defects.
Ordinance No. SP-2095 (Socialized Housing Tax) was upheld as valid, but Ordinance No. SP-2235 (garbage fee) was declared unconstitutional and illegal; the Court ordered refund of amounts collected under SP-2235 and permanently enjoined its enforcement.
How the Court reasoned
- The Court characterized the Socialized Housing Tax under Ordinance No. SP-2095 as a tax authorized by law and within the LGU’s power under the applicable national statute.
- For the garbage fee under Ordinance No. SP-2235, the Court ruled that the ordinance’s imposition did not properly fall within the lawful basis and authority for imposing such charges under the Local Government Code and the solid waste management framework of R.A. No. 9003.
- The Court further found that SP-2235 violated constitutional/statutory requirements, including equal protection and the LGC’s equity/ability-to-pay concepts, and that it was unconstitutional and illegal.
- The petition was therefore partially granted: the TRO was lifted as to SP-2095, while enforcement of SP-2235 was permanently enjoined and amounts collected were ordered to be refunded.
Rule applied
Republic Act No. 7160; Republic Act No. 9003; Republic Act No. 7279
Doctrines
Local government units have only delegated legislative power; they legislate through valid subordinate legislation and cannot create an imperium in imperio independent of the national sovereign.
When the assailed act is legislative and not judicial or quasi-judicial, certiorari under Rule 65 is not the proper remedy; the appropriate remedy is prohibition (or mandamus, depending on the relief sought).
Even if a petition is styled as one for certiorari or declaratory relief, the Supreme Court may treat it as one for prohibition or mandamus and assume original jurisdiction in cases involving far-reaching implications or transcendental issues.
A real party-in-interest who is directly affected by the enforcement of an ordinance—such as by paying the challenged assessments/charges—has legal standing to assail the ordinance’s constitutionality and legality.
Final Disposition
WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. On the other hand, Ordinance No. SP-2235, S-2013 is hereby declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ILLEGAL, with directions to refund amounts collected and to permanently enjoin its enforcement; the TRO is lifted as to Ordinance No. SP-2095, S-2011.
Notes
The chunk extractions also contain doctrinal discussion on (a) the limits on LGU power as delegated by Congress under the Constitution and the Local Government Code, and (b) the legal distinction between taxes and regulatory/service charges, including garbage fees in relation to R.A. No. 9003’s waste management framework.