TodayisTuesday,July19,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
SECONDDIVISION
G.R.No.135928July6,2007
TEODOROBERDIN,VICENTEALEGARBES,andABELARDODEVERA,inTheirPersonalCapacitiesandas
RepresentativesoftheTUBIGONMARKETVENDORSASSOCIATION,Petitioners,
vs.
HON.EUFRACIOA.MASCARIAS,MunicipalMayorCRESENCIANAL.BALATAYO,MunicipalTreasurer
SAMUELPURISIMA,INPStationCommanderTHEMUNICIPALCOUNCILand/orMUNICIPALITYOF
TUBIGON,PROVINCEOFBOHOL,Respondents.
DECISION
TINGA,J.:
Thisisapetition1filedunderRule45seekingtoreviewandsetasidethe26May1998Decision2oftheCourtof
AppealsinCAG.R.SPNo.39045andtoannulandsetasidethe24April1995Decision3oftheRegionalTrial
Court(RTC),Branch4,Bohol,inCivilCaseNo.4577.
Petitioners Teodoro Berdin, Vicente Alegarbes, and Abelardo de Vera (petitioners), are the President, Vice
President,andAdviser,respectively,oftheTubigonMarketVendorsAssociation(Association),anassociationof
vendors doing business in Tubigon, Bohol. Respondents Eufracio A. Mascarias, Narcisa L. Balatayo, and Lt.
AbnerCatalla,ontheotherhand,were,atthetimeCivilCaseNo.4577wasfiled,theMunicipalMayor,Treasurer,
andtheINPStationCommander,respectively,ofTubigon,Bohol.
On14December1988,theSangguniangBayanofTubigonenactedTaxOrdinanceNo.8811364increasingthe
taxesandfeesofthemunicipality,totakeeffecton1January1989.
PetitionerBerdin,asPresidentoftheAssociation,wrotetorespondentMunicipalTreasurerrequestingacopyof
TaxOrdinanceNo.881136.5TherequestwasfollowedbythefilingofaprotestbeforerespondentsMunicipal
Mayor and Municipal Treasurer.6 The Association also requested the suspension of the implementation of the
ordinancependingfinaldeterminationofitslegalitybyappropriateauthorities.Thereafter,on27February1989,
petitioners elevated their request for a review and suspension of the ordinance to the Provincial Treasurer of
Bohol.7
Actingonpetitionersrequest,EufronioM.Pizarras,ProvincialTreasurer,referredtheletterofpetitionerBerdinto
theMunicipalTreasureron15March1989,andrequestedthelatterofficialtoforwardacopyofTaxOrdinance
No. 881136 to the Department of Finance (DOF), through the Provincial Treasurer, for review and approval
pursuanttoSec.8ofExecutiveOrder(E.O.)No.249dated25July1987.8
Meanwhile,on29March1989,respondentMayorsubmittedacorrectedcopyofTaxOrdinanceNo.881136to
Atty.MelchorP.Monreal,AssistantRegionalDirector,DOFRegionalOfficeNo.7,CebuCity.9
Final Demand Letters were sent to petitioners de Vera and Berdin on 2 June 1989 for payment of outstanding
rental fees and municipal business taxes due under the new tax ordinance, with a warning that their
stores/establishmentswillbeclosedandpadlocked.10PetitionerswrotetheMunicipalTreasureron13June1989
and requested said official to await the resolution of their protest before taking action on the Final Demand
Letters.11PetitionersalsosentalettertotheDOFon21August1989askingforthesuspensionoftheordinance
pendingresolutionoftheirprotestinviewofthethreatofclosureoftheirstores/establishments.12
Thereafter, on 4 September 1989, petitioners filed a Complaint13 with the RTC of Bohol against respondents
Mayor, Treasurer, and INP Station Commander of Tubigon, Bohol, as well as the Municipal Council and/or
Municipality of Tubigon, to enjoin respondents from enforcing Tax Ordinance No. 881136, to declare the

ordinance a nullity and, in the event said ordinance is found to be invalid, to order respondents to reimburse
excesstaxespaidbypetitioners.ThecasewasdocketedasCivilCaseNo.4577.14
Tax Ordinance No. 881136 was amended by Tax Ordinance No. 89104915 dated 17 October 1989, by
specifyingthatthecivilremediesavailableincludethe"padlockingoftheestablishmentand/orseizureofproperty
and revocation of the permit or license and/or eviction from public property and/or by legal action."16 The
Provincial Treasurer approved Tax Ordinance No. 891049 on 8 January 1990 and held that it was within the
powerofthemunicipalitytoenacttheordinancepursuanttoSecs.60to63,Art.3ofPresidentialDecree(P.D.)
No.231,asamended,ortheLocalTaxCode.17
Even before the Provincial Treasurer approved of Tax Ordinance No. 891049, petitioners had earlier referred
TaxOrdinanceNo.891049totheProvincialProsecutorforreview.TheProvincialProsecutorissuedOpinionNo.
90118dated3January1990andfoundTaxOrdinanceNo.891049validexceptinsofarasitprovidedforthe
padlocking of establishments as among the civil remedies available against a delinquent taxpayer. Said official
wrote the Sangguniang Bayan and suggested an amendment to Tax Ordinance No. 891049 by deleting
"padlockingoftheestablishment"asamongthecivilremedies.19
Meanwhile, on 27 December 1989, the Provincial Treasurer suspended some provisions of Tax Ordinance No.
881136forfailuretoconformtotheratesprescribedbytheLocalTaxCode.20 Thus, the SangguniangBayan
enactedMunicipalRevenueOrdinanceNo.90015421on5January1990toamendthesuspendedprovisionsof
TaxOrdinanceNo.881136.TheProvincialTreasurerfoundMunicipalRevenueOrdinanceNo.900154tobein
conformity with the rates authorized under the Local Tax Code and accordingly lifted the suspension of the
provisions of Tax Ordinance No. 881136 that were previously suspended and declared that the same, as
amendedbyMunicipalRevenueOrdinanceNo.900154,mayalreadybegivenforceandeffect.22
Thereafter,on24January1990,theProvincialTreasurerwrotepetitionersinformingthelatterofhisfindingsthat
Tax Ordinance Nos. 881136 and 891049 were both in order and in accord with Art. 3 of P.D. No. 231 and
furtherexplainingthatunderSec.49ofP.D.No.231,apublichearingisrequiredonlywhen"thelocalboardor
councilmayexercisethepowertoimposeataxorfeeonataxbaseorsubjectsimilartothoseauthorizedin[the
LocalTaxCode]butwhichmaynothavebeenspecificallyenumeratedherein,"afactnotpresentinthecaseof
thequestionedordinances.23
Petitioners wrote the Provincial Treasurer on 31 January 1990 informing the latter that the Provincial Fiscal
alreadymadeacontraryrulingonTaxOrdinanceNo.891049andthatsincethemunicipalitydidnotappealthe
saidruling,thesamebecamefinal.PetitionersfurtherrequestedtheProvincialTreasurertotransmitallrecordsto
the DOF for purposes of appealing the ruling of the Provincial Treasurer and for a review of the questioned
ordinancesbyahigherauthority.24
PetitionerselevatedthefindingoftheProvincialTreasurertotheSecretaryofFinanceon31January1990.They
alsorequestedthesuspensionoftheimplementationofTaxOrdinanceNo.881136pendingitsreviewbysaid
office.25On30March1990,GregorioA.Barretto,DirectorIII,BureauofLocalGovernmentFinanceoftheDOF,
referredtheappealtotheProvincialTreasurerforcommentand/orrecommendation.26TheProvincialTreasurer
informedtheDOFthathisofficereviewedandapprovedtheordinanceaftertherateshavebeenfoundtobejust
andreasonableandthat,forthoseratesinitiallyfoundbyhimtohaveexceededthemaximumauthorizedbylaw,
anamendatoryordinancewasenactedtomeettheobjection.27
Thereafter,theDeputyDirectorandOfficerinChargeoftheBureauofLocalGovernmentFinance,byauthorityof
the Secretary of Finance, informed the Provincial Treasurer that their department cannot review Ordinance No.
881136asrequestedbypetitioners.28TheProvincialTreasurertransmittedacopyofthislettertopetitioners.29
Fouryearslater,on24April1995,theRTCrenderedaDecision30inCivilCaseNo.4577,thedispositiveportion
ofwhichstates:
WHEREFORE,judgmentisherebyrenderedasfollows:
1 declaring Municipal Revenue Ordinance No. 881136, series of 1988, enacted by the Sangguniang
BayanofTubigon,Boholasvalidandthereforethesamecanbeenforced
2declaringMunicipalOrdinanceNo.891049datedOctober11,1989valid,exceptinsofarasitprovides
forthe"padlockingoftheestablishment"asthecivilremediesavailableagainstadelinquenttaxpayer
3denyingtheprayerformandamusandreimbursement
4 dissolving the injunctive order dated May 11, 1990 directing the defendants to desist from enforcing

MunicipalOrdinanceNo.881136
5 granting Final Injunction restraining defendants from padlocking the business establishments of the
plaintiffs,thusmakingpermanenttheinjunctiveorderofMay11,1990tothateffectand
6dismissingdefendantscounterclaimforinsufficiencyofevidence.
Costsagainsttheplaintiffs.
SOORDERED.31
Petitioners filed a Notice of Appeal with the RTC,32 which gave due course to the appeal and ordered the
transmittalofthecaserecordstotheCourtofAppeals(CA).33
On 26 May 1998, the Fifth Division of the CA rendered a Decision34 affirming in toto the decision of the RTC.
Their motion for reconsideration having been denied,35 petitioners now come to this Court via this Petition for
ReviewunderRule45oftheRulesofCourt.
The issues raised by petitioners in their Memorandum36 may be summarized as follows: (1) whether the
ordinances are valid and enforceable (2) whether publication was necessary and (3) whether there was
exhaustionofadministrativeremedies.
Thepetitionismeritoriousbutonlyinregardtotheneedforpublication.
PetitionersadoptathreelevelargumentwithregardtothevalidityandenforceabilityofTaxOrdinanceNo.8811
36.First,theyasserttheordinancedoesnotexistbyvirtueofrespondentofficialsdelayinfurnishingthemwitha
copyofthequestionedordinance.Second,ifTaxOrdinanceNo.881136didexist,itwasnotvalidlyenactedfor
failuretoholdpublichearingsandtohavethesamepublishedpursuanttoSec.43oftheLocalTaxCode.Finally,
petitioners claim, even if Tax Ordinance No. 881136 was validly enacted, the same contains objectionable
provisionswhichwouldrenderitinvalidandunenforceable.
Petitioners misgivings on the existence of Tax Ordinance No. 881136 are baseless. The reason for the delay
wasadequatelyexplainedandwasevenattributedtopetitionersfailuretopayforthecostofreproductionofthe
ordinance.
TherightofthepeopletoinformationonmattersofpublicconcernisrecognizedunderSec.7,Art.IIIofthe1987
Constitution37andissubjecttosuchlimitationsasmaybeprovidedbylaw.Thus,whileaccesstoofficialrecords
maynotbeprohibited,itcertainlymayberegulated.Theregulationmaycomeeitherfromstatutorylawandfrom
the inherent power of an officer to control his office and the records under his custody and to exercise some
discretionastothemannerinwhichpersonsdesiringtoinspect,examine,orcopytherecordmayexercisetheir
rights.38TheMunicipalTreasurerinthecaseatbarexercisedthisdiscretionbyrequiringpetitionerstopayforthe
costofreproductionofTaxOrdinanceNo.881136.Sucharequirementisreasonableunderthecircumstances
consideringthattheordinanceisquitevoluminousconsistingofmorethanahundredpages.
Petitioners then assail Tax Ordinance No. 881136 and Tax Ordinance No. 901049 for failure to hold public
hearingspursuanttoSec.50oftheLocalTaxCode.Respondents,ontheotherhand,claimthatapublichearing
was no longer necessary considering that the ordinances in question were merely revisions of an existing tax
ordinanceandnotnewenactments.
ThepertinentprovisionsoflawonthismatterareSecs.4939and5040oftheLocalTaxCode.
Aperusaloftheseprovisionswouldyieldaconclusionthatthelocalboardorcouncilhasthepowertoimposea
taxorfee(1)onataxbaseorsubjectspecificallyenumeratedintheLocalTaxCode,(2)onataxbasesimilarto
thoseauthorizedintheLocalTaxCodebutwhichmaynothavebeenspecificallyenumeratedtherein,and(3)on
ataxbaseortaxsubjectwhichisnotsimilarorcomparabletoanytaxbaseorsubjectspecificallymentionedor
otherwiseprovidedforintheLocalTaxCode.Publichearingapparentlyisnotnecessarywhenthetaxorfeeis
imposedonataxbaseorsubjectspecificallyenumeratedintheLocalTaxCode.
ThebasisfortheabovedistinctionisthatwhenataxbaseorsubjectisspecificallyenumeratedintheLocalTax
Code, the existence of the power to tax is beyond question as the same is expressly granted. Even in the
determination of the rates of the tax, a public hearing, even if ideal, is not necessary because the law itself
providesforaceilingonsuchrates.Thesamedoesnotobtaininasituationwherewhatisabouttobetaxedis
notspecificallyenumeratedintheLocalTaxCodebecauseinsuchasituation,theissuesofwhethertotaxornot
andatwhatrateataxistobeimposedarecrucial.Consequently,apublichearingisnecessaryandvital.
AscrutinyofthetaxesorfeesimposedbyTaxOrdinanceNo.881136showsthatsomeofthembelongtothe

secondandthirdcategoriesoftaxesorfeesthatmaybeimposedbyamunicipalitythatrequirepublichearing.
Petitioners are thus correct in saying that a public hearing is necessary for its enactment. With respect to Tax
OrdinanceNo.891049,however,weholdthatnopublichearingisnecessaryasitdoesnotimposeanytaxor
fee. Said ordinance is actually a restatement, with illustrations, of the provisions of the Local Tax Code on civil
remediesforthecollectionofthelocaltaxesandfeesimposedbyTaxOrdinanceNo.881136.
Although a public hearing is necessary for the enactment of Tax Ordinance No. 881136, still we uphold its
validity in view of petitioners failure to present evidence to show that no public hearing was conducted.41
Petitioners, as the party asserting a negative allegation, had the burden of proving lack of public hearing.42
Although the Sangguniang Bayan had the control of records or the better means of proof regarding the facts
allegedandrespondentpublicofficialsassumedanuncooperativestancetopetitionersrequestforcopiesofthe
Minutesoftheirdeliberation,petitionersarenotrelievedfromthisburden.43Petitionerscouldeasilyhaveresorted
tothevariousmodesofdiscoveryunderRules23to28oftheRulesofCourt.44 Furthermore, petitioners could
havecompelledtheproductionofthesedocumentsthroughasubpoenaducestecumortheycouldhaverequired
testimonyonthisissuebyofficialsincustodyofthedocumentsthroughasubpoena ad testificandum. However,
petitionersmadenosucheffort.
Petitioners next claim that the impositions contained in Tax Ordinance No. 881136 exceeded the maximum
allowedbytheLocalTaxCode.Inparticular,petitionersassertthat(1)thetaxesimposedbytheordinanceare
notbasedonthetaxpayersabilitytopay(2)thetaxesimposedareunjust,excessive,oppressive,discriminatory
and confiscatory (3) the ordinances are contrary to law, public policy and are in restraint of trade (4) the
ordinances violate the rule of a progressive system of taxation and (5) the ordinances are contrary to the
declarednationalpolicy.
Thesequestionshavealreadybeenraisedintheirprotestandresolvedbythe27December1989findingsofthe
Provincial Treasurer. In fact, said official suspended some of the provisions of Tax Ordinance No. 881136 for
failure to comply with the rates prescribed by the Local Tax Code. Furthermore, the subsequent enactment of
Municipal Revenue Ordinance No. 900154 and its approval by the Provincial Treasurer corrected this non
compliance with the Local Tax Code. The local legislative bodys modification of Tax Ordinance No. 881136
throughMunicipalRevenueOrdinanceNo.900154issanctionedbySec.4445oftheLocalTaxCode.
Moreover,asthepresumptionofregularityofofficialconductwasnotovercomebypetitioners,thefindingsofthe
ProvincialTreasurermustbeupheld.
ThereislikewisenomeritinpetitionerscontentionthattheProvincialTreasurersfindingonthefisheryrentalfees
isflawed.TheLocalTaxCodeprovidesinSec.21thereofthatmunicipalities,intheexerciseoftheirauthorityto
grant exclusive fishery rights and license individual fishing gears in municipal waters, may levy or fix rentals or
fees therefore in accordance with said section and in conjunction with other operative laws and regulations on
municipalfisheries.OnesuchoperativelawisP.D.No.70446whichprovidesforthejurisdiction
oftheBureauofFisheriesandAquaticResourcesinSec.4.47Thus,itwascorrectfortheProvincialTreasurerto
rule that the fishery rental fees in Tax Ordinance No. 881136 may be given due course provided that prior
approvalfromtheBureauofFisheriesandAquaticResourceshasbeenobtained,pursuanttotheprovisionsof
P.D.No.704,asamended.
Petitioners further fault the Municipal Treasurer for the latters failure to furnish the Provincial Treasurer with a
copyofTaxOrdinanceNo.881136afteritsapproval.Bynotfurnishingthelatterofficialwithacopyofthetax
ordinance,theMunicipalTreasurerfrustratedareviewthereof.
Inthisregard,weholdthatthesubmissionofTaxOrdinanceNo.881136totheAssistantRegionalDirector,DOF
Regional Office No. 7, Cebu City complied with the requirement of review pursuant to Secs. 49 and 50 of the
LocalTaxCode,assaidofficialisthealteregooftheSecretaryofFinance,underanexpandedapplicationofthe
doctrineofqualifiedpoliticalagency,where"thePresidentspowerofcontrolisdirectlyexercisedbyhimoverthe
membersoftheCabinetwho,inturn,andbyhisauthority,controlthe
bureausandotherofficesundertheirrespectivejurisdictionsintheexecutivedepartment."48
Wenowresolvetheissueofexhaustionofadministrativeremedies.
A perusal of the applicable provisions of the Local Tax Code would show that there are three administrative
remedies available to an aggrieved taxpayer. A tax ordinance may either be (1) reviewed or suspended by the
Provincial Treasurer49 or the Secretary of Finance,50 (2) the subject of a formal protest with the Secretary of
Finance,51or(3)questionedastoitslegalityandreferredforopiniontotheProvincialFiscal.52
Inthecaseatbar,petitionersquestionthevalidityofTaxOrdinanceNo.881136forthefollowingreasons:(1)no

publichearingwasconducted(2)thetaxesimposedthereinarenotbasedonthetaxpayersabilitytopay(3)the
taxesimposedareunjust,excessive,oppressive,discriminatoryandconfiscatory(4)theordinancesarecontrary
to law, public policy and are in restraint of trade (5) the ordinances violate the rule of a progressive system of
taxationand(6)theordinancesarecontrarytothedeclarednationalpolicy.
Oftheseissues,thefirst,second,fourthandfifthissuesshouldhavebeenreferredforopiniontotheProvincial
FiscalpursuanttoSec.4753oftheLocalTaxCode,becausetheyarenotamongthosementionedinSec.4454of
theLocalTaxCode.Theotherremainingissues,ontheotherhand,arepropersubjectsofaprotestwhichshould
havebeenbroughttotheSecretaryofFinance.
However,petitionersdidnotevenbringtheissuesrelativetothelegalityorvalidityofTaxOrdinanceNo.881136
totheProvincialFiscal.WhattheybroughtfortheconsiderationoftheProvincialFiscalwasTaxOrdinanceNo.
891049. Thus, in Opinion No. 901,55 the Provincial Fiscal found said ordinance valid except insofar as it
provided for the padlocking of the establishment as among the civil remedies available against a delinquent
taxpayer.TherulingoftheProvincialTreasurerdeclaringTaxOrdinanceNo.891049validandinorderisofno
momentbecause,underSec.47,theopinionoftheProvincialFiscalisappealabletotheSecretaryofJustice.
With respect to the remaining issues proper for a formal protest, petitioners did not bring the same to the
SecretaryofFinance.WhattheyfiledinsteadwasapetitionwiththeMunicipalMayorrequestingforasuspension
of the implementation of the ordinance "pending final determination of its legality by appropriate authorities."
PetitionersthereafterwenttotheProvincialTreasurerreiteratingtheirrequestforareviewandsuspensionofthe
ordinance. In fact, the first time petitioners wrote the DOF was on 13 June 1989, when they merely requested
saidofficialtorequiretheProvincialTreasurertoresolvetheirprotestexpeditiously.
Obviously,petitionersdidnotformallyprotestTaxOrdinanceNo.881136asthesamemayproperlybebrought
not before the Provincial Treasurer but before the Secretary of Finance. What the Provincial Treasurer merely
conductedwasareviewofTaxOrdinanceNo.881136underSec.44oftheLocalTaxCode,limitingitselftothe
issuesproperforareviewthereof.Thus,saidofficialinitiallysuspendedsomeoftheprovisionsofTaxOrdinance
No.881136fortheirfailuretocomplywiththeratesprescribedbytheLocalTaxCodeandeventuallydecidedin
favor of its validity after the Sangguniang Bayan modified the objectionable provisions thereof via Municipal
Revenue Ordinance No. 900154. That what was filed before the Provincial Treasurer was merely a review is
evident from the DOFs refusal to review the findings of the Provincial Treasurer, which, it said, was made
pursuanttoSec.44oftheLocalTaxCode.
Even if we were to consider petitioners appeal with the Secretary of Finance as a formal protest, despite its
unseasonableness, still, it would be unavailing since they did not offer proof on how and in what manner Tax
OrdinanceNo.881136couldbeinvalid.Infact,theDeputyDirectorandOfficerinChargeoftheBureauofLocal
GovernmentFinance,byauthorityoftheSecretaryofFinance,notedthatpetitionerscounsel"didnotstatethe
groundsofhisprotestasprovidedunderSection45oftheLocalTaxCode,asamended,inrelationtoSection44
thereof."56Verily,mereallegationthatanordinanceisinvalidonthegroundsenumeratedinSec.44oftheLocal
TaxCodewillnotworktorebutthepresumptionoftheordinancesvalidity.
Clearly, for failure to file a formal protest with the Secretary of Finance, or a legal question with the Provincial
Fiscal on Tax Ordinance No. 881136s validity, petitioners cannot be said to have exhausted administrative
remediesavailabletothem.
The underlying principle of the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies rests on the presumption that the
administrative agency, if afforded a complete chance to pass upon the matter, will decide the same correctly.57
Therearebothlegalandpracticalreasonsfortheprinciple.Theadministrativeprocessisintendedtoprovideless
expensiveandspeediersolutionstodisputes.Wheretheenablingstatuteindicatesaprocedureforadministrative
reviewandprovidesasystemofadministrativeappealorreconsideration,thecourtsforreasonsoflaw,comity,
and conveniencewill not entertain a case unless the available administrative remedies have been resorted to
and the appropriate authorities have been given an opportunity to act and correct the errors committed in the
administrativeforum.58
From the above disquisitions, it follows that the validity of the questioned tax ordinances must be upheld.
However, their enforceability is another matter that merits further deliberation considering the apparent lack of
publicationorpostingofthequestionedordinances.
Petitioners assert that pursuant to Sec. 43 of the Local Tax Code, certified true copies of the ordinance should
havebeenpublishedforthree(3)daysinanewspaperorpublicationwidelycirculatedwithinthejurisdictionofthe
localgovernment,orpostedinthelocallegislativehallorpremisesandtwootherconspicuousplaceswithinthe
territorialjurisdictionofthelocalgovernmentwithinten(10)daysafteritsapproval.
ProvincialCircularNo.2273states:

Alltaxes,feesandchargesauthorizedbytheCodetobeimposedbylocalgovernments,mayonlybecollectedby
thetreasurerconcernedifanordinanceembodyingthesamehasbeendulyenactedbythelocalboardorcouncil
andapprovedinaccordancewiththeprovisionsoftheCode.
Section43oftheCodeprovidesthatwithinten(10)daysaftertheirapproval,certifiedtruecopiesofallprovincial,
city,municipalandbarrioordinancelevyingorimposingtaxes,feesorotherchargesshallbepublishedforthree
(3) consecutive days in a newspaper or publication widely circulated within the jurisdiction of the local
government, or posted in the local legislative hall or premises and in two other conspicuous places within the
territorial jurisdiction of the local government. In either case, copies of all provincial, city, municipal and barrio
revenue ordinances shall be furnished the treasurers of the respective component and mother units of a local
governmentfordissemination.
While noncompliance with the foregoing provisions of the Code will not render the tax or revenue
ordinancesnullandvoid,stilltheremustbepublicationanddisseminationasprovidedintheCodeto
obviate abuses in the exercise of the taxing powers and preclude protests from the people adversely
affected.Suchpublicationanddisseminationoftaxordinanceswillnotonlybeinconsonancewiththe
objectives of the Code to secure fair, just and uniform local impositions but will also enhance the
efficientcollectionofvalidtaxes,feesandothercharges.[Emphasissupplied]
1 a v v p h i1

Thus,itwouldseemthatwhilelackofpublicationdoesnotrenderataxordinancenullandvoid,saidrequirement
muststillbecompliedwithinorder"toobviateabusesintheexerciseofthetaxingpowersandprecludeprotests
fromthepeopleadverselyaffected."Publicationisthusaconditionprecedenttotheeffectivityandenforceability
ofanordinancetoinformthepublicofitscontentsbeforerightsareaffectedbythesame.
Therecordsarebereftofanyindicationthatevidencewaspresentedtoprovepetitionersnegativeallegationthat
there was no publication. Neither is there a positive declaration on the part of respondents that there was
publicationorposting.EventheRTCandtheCAdecisionsaresilentonthisissue.Consequently,anuncertainty
existsonwhethertheordinanceswereindeedpublishedornot.Weresolvethisuncertaintyinfavorofpetitioners
and accordingly rule that the questioned tax ordinances must be published before the new tax rates imposed
thereinaretobecollectedfromtheaffectedtaxpayers.
Thisdoesnotmeanhoweverthatthemunicipalityisdeprivedoftheincomethatwouldhavebeencollectedunder
thesubjecttaxordinancesbecausetaxesmaystillbecollectedattheoldratespreviouslyimposed.
Whilewepartiallygrantthispetition,wenotewithdisapprovalpetitionerscommissionofforumshoppingpriorto
thefilingofthispetition.Petitionerssimultaneouslyprayedforthesamereliefofsuspensionoftheordinancein
fourdifferentfora.ItshouldberememberedthatpetitionersinitiallyfiledaprotestofTaxOrdinanceNo.881136
withtheMunicipalMayorandtheMunicipalTreasureron11January1989.Evenasthisprotestwasunresolved,
theyelevatedtheirrequestforareviewandsuspensionofthesameordinancetotheProvincialTreasureron17
February1989.Again,inviewofthethreatofclosureoftheirestablishment,petitionerssentalettertotheDOF
on21August1989prayingforthesamereliefofsuspensionoftheordinance.Again,despitethependencyofthe
variousrequests,petitionersfiledCivilCaseNo.4577,againprayingforawritofpreliminaryinjunctiontorestrain
respondents from enforcing the ordinance, a prayer which is essentially a prayer for the suspension of the
ordinance.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is GRANTED IN PART. The decision of the Court of
Appeals in CAG.R. SP No. 39045 is hereby MODIFIED in that the Sangguniang Bayan of Tubigon, Bohol is
hereby DIRECTED to cause the publication of Tax Ordinance No. 881136, Tax Ordinance No. 891049, and
Municipal Revenue Ordinance No. 900154 for three (3) days in a newspaper or publication widely circulated
within the jurisdiction of the local government, or their posting in the local legislative hall or premises and two
other conspicuous places within the territorial jurisdiction of the local government. In all other respects, the
decision of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. SP No. 39045 affirming the 26 May 1998 Decision of the Regional
TrialCourtinCivilCaseNo.4577isherebyAFFIRMED.
Costsagainstpetitioners.
SOORDERED.
DANTEO.TINGA
AssociateJustice
WECONCUR:
(OnOfficialLeave)
LEONARDOA.QUISUMBING*
AssociateJustice
Chairperson

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice

CONCHITACARPIOMORALES
AssociateJustice

PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
AssociateJustice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.
ANTONIOT.CARPIO**
AssociateJustice
ActingChairperson,SecondDivision
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Acting Chairpersons Attestation, it is
herebycertifiedthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewas
assignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.
REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

Footnotes
*Onofficialleave.
**ActingChairperson.
1Rollo,pp.829.
2Id.at454461.PennedbyJusticeHectorL.HofileaandconcurredinbyJusticesJesusM.Elbiniasand

OmarU.Amin.
3Id.at428435.PennedbyPresidingJudgeAchillesL.Melicor.
4Id.at279383.Thetaxesimposedbytheordinanceareasfollows:

ChapterII.MunicipalTaxes
(A)RealPropertyTax
(B)BusinessTax,and
(C)TaxonAdvertisements
ChapterIII.PermitandRegulatoryFees
(A)MayorsPermitFeesonBusiness
(B)PermitFeesforGaffer,Referee,Bettaker,PromoterandCashier
(C)CartandSledgeRegistrationFee
(D)LargeCattleRegistrationandTransferFees
(E)Registration/PermitFeesonBicycles,Tricycles,PedicabsandMotorcabs
(F)PoundageFee
(G)RegistrationFeesonFishingBoatsandMotorboats
(H)PermitFeeonParades
(I)RegistrationFeeonCalesaorCaretela

(J)PermitFeeonFilmMakingandVideoTapeCoverage,and
(K)PermitFeeonAgriculturalMachineriesandotherHeavyEquipment
ChapterIV.OtherPermitandRegulatoryFees
(A)PermitFeeonSandandGravel
(B)BuildingPermitFees
(C)PermitFeeonStorageofFlammable,CombustibleorExplosiveSubtances
(D)PermitandInspectionFeesonMachineriesandEngines
(E)PermitFeeforExcavation
(F)PermitFeeforInspectionandVerificationofSubdivisions
(G)PermitFeefortheUseofSidewalks,Alleys,Roads,Streets,Parks,Plazas,Public
StructuresandBuildingsOtherPersonal/RealOwnedbytheState
(H)PermitFeeforHunting
(I)PermitFeesforotheractivities
ChapterV.ServiceFees
(A)SecretarysFees
(B)LocalRegistryFees
(C)Clearance,CertificationandOtherSimilarFees
(D)ServiceFeeforHealthExamination
(E)SanitaryInspectionFee
(F)ServiceChargeforGarbageCollection
ChapterVI.MunicipalCharges
(A)MarketFees
(B)FisheryRentalsorFees
(C)SlaughterandCorralFees
(D)RentalofMunicipalCemeteryLots
(E)WaterworksFees
(F)MunicipalServiceFees
(G)ParkingFees
5Id.at39.PetitionerBerdinreiteratedhisrequestinanotherletter(Id.at42).Healsorequestedacopyof

theMinutesofthedeliberationsoftheSangguniangBayanonTaxOrdinanceNo.881136.
6Id.at4041.
7Id.at43.
8 See 1st Indorsement, id. at 44. Petitioners would subsequently write: (1) the Secretary of Finance,

requestingsaidofficialtorequiretheProvincialTreasurertoresolvetheirprotestexpeditiously(Id.at210),
and(2)theProvincialTreasurer,remindinghimoftheprotestandrequestinghimforeitherasuspensionof
theordinanceoradeterminationofitsvalidity(Id.at209).
The Finance Service Chief of the Local Finance Policy Enforcement Service of the DOF would
thereafter refer petitioners letter to the Provincial Treasurer for comment within 10 days, with an

inquiry on whether Tax Ordinance No. 881136 had already been reviewed by the Provincial
Treasurer, and with instructions that if the ordinance had already been reviewed, the Provincial
Treasurerfurnishhisofficewiththeresultsofthereview(Id.at211).
Forhispart,theProvincialTreasurerwouldagainwritetheMunicipalTreasurerforthelatterofficial
totransmitacopyoftheordinancesothatthesamemaybereviewedandtocommentandanswer
theprotestoftheAssociation(Id.at212).
9 Id. at 269. It appears that a copy of the ordinance had earlier been submitted to said official on 29

December1988forreview.
10Id.at204207.
11Id.at208.
12Id.at213.
13 Id. at 3238. The complaint in Civil Case No. 4577 was amended (with leave of Court) on 2 February

1990(Id.at7581).Thefollowingallegationswereadded:
17.Thatinadditiontothegroundssetforthintheirprotest,theordinanceinquestionhave[sic]been
enactedwithoutthemandatorypublichearingwhichisaconditionprecedentunderSecs.49and50
oftheLocalTaxCodesincethesamerefertosimilartaxorfeenotspecificallyenumeratedand/or
notprovidedbylawtothefailuretocomplywithSec.5ofExecutiveOrderNo.249whichtookeffect
July1987impl[e]mentedonOct.22,1987,fortheclassificationtobethebasisforfixingthe
maximumtaxceilingsimposable
xxxx
22.xxxEffortswereexertedtoascertainwhethertheordinancewaspublishedinanewspaperof
generalcirculationorpostedasrequiredbylaw,butPlaintiffswerenotawarethereof(Id.at7879.)
The complaint was further amended on 19 October 1991 with the inclusion of Cresenciana P. La
Fuente and Samuel Purisima, incumbent Municipal Treasurer and INP Station Commander,
respectively,asdefendants.
14TheRTCissuedawritofpreliminaryinjunctionon11March1990uponpetitionersfilingofabondinthe

amountofP10,000.00.
15Rollo,p.147.
16 Tax Ordinance No. 881136 merely stated that "[t]he civil remedies available shall be by distraint of

personalpropertyandbylegalaction."
17Rollo,p.272.TheLocalTaxCode,asamendedbyP.D.No.426,becameeffectiveon30March1974

andhasbeensupersededbytheLocalGovernmentCode.
18Id.at221223.
19Id.at224.
20Id.at253.SaidofficialwrotetheSangguniangBayan.

Aftercarefulreviewthereof,pursuanttoSection44ofP.D.231,asamended,theimpositionofpermit
andregulatoryfeesarewithinthetaxingpoweroftheSangguniangBayanandtheratesarefoundto
bejustandreasonableasauthorizedunderSection36oftheLocalTaxCode.
However the effectivity of the rates imposed under Section 2B.02 (115), (16b15) of Article B
Section2C.01(ah)ofArticleCSection5A.01(17)ofArticleASection.5B.01(a1)(bc)ofArticle
B Section 5C.01 (ae),(h4) of Article C Section 6C.01 (da) of Article C and all other rates not
allowed under P.D. 231, as amended, are hereby suspended pending the enactment of an
amendatoryordinancebythatHonorableBodyinordertoconformwiththeratesprescribedunder
theLocalTaxCode.
PursuanttoSection30ofP.D.231,asamended,theratesfixedfortherentalsofstalls,boothsand
blocktiendasarealsoherebyapproveditappearingthatthesamearereasonable.

TheFisheryrentalfeesmaybe[sic]givenduecourseprovidedthatpriorapprovalfromtheBureauof
Fisheries and Aquatic Resources has been obtained, pursuant to the provisions of P.D. 704, as
amended.
Therefore,thesaidordinancemaybe[sic]givenforceandeffectnotearlierthanthedatefixedforits
effectivity,exceptthosesectionsandarticleswhicharedeclaredtobesuspended."
21Id.at387400.
22Id.at401.
23Id.at252.
24Id.at254.
25Id.at255.
26See1stIndorsement,id.at261.
27See2ndIndorsement,id.at260.
28See3rdIndorsement,id.at257258.Saidofficialwrote:

Apparently,itistheintentionofAtty.Legaspitoraiseaprotestontheimpositionsprescribedunder
the said Ordinance. However, he did not state the grounds of his protest as provided for under
Section45oftheLocalTaxCode,asamended,inrelationtoSection44thereof.
For emphasis and clarity, it is informed that tax ordinances of municipalities are reviewed by
ProvincialTreasurerspursuanttotheprovisionsofSection44oftheCode.TheProvincialTreasurer,
byvirtueofitspowertoreview,maysuspendtheordinanceinwholeorinpartonthegroundthatthe
tax or fee therein levied or imposed is unjust, excessive, oppressive, confiscatory, or not among
thosethataparticularlocalgovernmentmayimposeorwhentheordinanceiscontrarytodeclared
nationalpolicy.
Aformalprotestagainstataxordinancemaybefiledbasedonthesamegroundsforsuspendingan
ordinancepursuanttoSection45oftheCode.xxx
29See4thIndorsement,id.at256.
30Id.at428435.
31Id.at435.
32Id.at437.
33Id.at439.TheappealwasdocketedasCAG.R.SPNo.39045.
34 Id. at 454461. Penned by Justice Hector L. Hofilea, concurred in by Justices Jesus M. Elbinias and

OmarU.Amin.
35SeeResolution,id.at467.
36Id.at507529.
37Const.,Art.III,Sec.7states:"Therightofthepeopletoinformationonmattersofpublicconcernshallbe

recognized. Access to official records, and to documents, and papers pertaining to official acts,
transactions,ordecisions,aswellastogovernmentresearchdatausedasbasisforpolicydevelopment,
shallbeaffordedthecitizen,subjecttosuchlimitationsasmaybeprovidedbylaw."
38SeeJ.G.Bernas,TheConstitutionoftheRepublicofthePhilippines:ACommentary(FirstEd.,1987),p.

265,citingSubidov.Ozaeta,80Phil.383(1948).
39SEC.49.Similartaxorfeenotspecificallyenumerated. The local board or council may exercise the

powertoimposea tax or fee on a tax base or subject similar to those authorized in this Code but
whichmaynothavebeenspecificallyenumeratedherein,therateofwhichshallinnocaseexceedthat

fixedforthesimilartaxbaseorsubject.Noordinance,however,imposingsuchataxorfeeshallbe
enactedwithoutanypublichearinghavingbeenheldforthepurpose.TheSecretaryofFinanceshall
within six months from the date of receipt of copy of the ordinance review the same and the tax or fee
thereinimposedshallaccrue,shouldtheordinancebeapprovedbytheSecretaryofFinance,atsuchdate
asmaybedeterminedandfixedbyhim.(AsamendedbyP.D.No.426)[Emphasissupplied]
40 SEC. 50. Tax or fee not provided for. Where the tax base or tax subject is not similar or

comparable to any tax base or subject specifically mentioned or otherwise provided for in this
Code, the local board or council may impose a tax, fee or other imposition thereon. No ordinance,
however,imposingsuchataxorfeeshallbeenactedwithoutanypublichearinghavingbeenheld
forthepurpose.TheSecretaryofFinanceshallwithinsixmonthsfromthedateorreceiptofcopyofthe
ordinance review the same and the tax or fee therein imposed shall accrue, should the ordinance be
approvedbytheSecretaryofFinance,atsuchdateasmaybedeterminedandfixedbyhim.(Asamended
byP.D.No.426)[Emphasissupplied]
41SeeReyesv.CourtofAppeals,378Phil.232(1999),citingFiguerresv.CourtofAppeals,364Phil.683

(1999).
42Id.
43 See Reyes v. Court of Appeals, supra note 41 at 239, citing People v. Pajenado, 142 Phil. 702, 707

(1970).
44 These modes of discovery are the following: (1) Depositions Pending Action, (2) Depositions Before

ActionorPendingAppeal,(3)InterrogatoriestoParties,(4)AdmissionbyAdverseParty,(5)Productionor
InspectionofDocumentsofThings,and(5)PhysicalandMentalExaminationofPersons.
45SEC.44.Reviewandsuspensionoftaxordinance.xxxThexxxprovincialtreasurerxxxshallreview

andhavetheauthoritytosuspendtheeffectivityofanytaxordinancewithinonehundredandtwentydays
afterreceiptofacopythereof,ifinhisopinion,thetaxorfeethereinleviedorimposedisunjust,excessive,
oppressive, confiscatory, or not among those that the particular local government may impose in the
exercise of its power in accordance with this Code or when the tax ordinance is, in whole or in part,
contrary to declared national economic policy or when the ordinance is discriminatory in nature on the
conductofbusinessorcallingorinrestraintoftrade.
When the x x x provincial treasurer x x x exercises this authority, the effectivity of such ordinance
shallbesuspended,eitherinpartor,ifnecessary,intoto.Thelocallegislativebody,withinthirty
daysafterreceiptofthenoticeofsuspension,mayeithermodifythetaxordinancetomeet
the objections thereto or file an appeal with the proper court, otherwise, the tax ordinance or
thepartorpartsthereofdeclaredsuspendedshallbeconsideredasrevoked.[Emphasissupplied]
46Entitled"RevisingandConsolidatingAllLawsandDecreesAffectingFishingandFisheries."
47Thefirstparagraphofthisprovisionstatesthat:"TheBureaushallhavejurisdictionandresponsibilityin

the management, conservation, development, protection, utilization and disposition of all fishery and
aquatic resources of the country except municipal waters which shall be under the municipal or city
governmentconcerned:Provided,Thatfishpensandseaweedcultureinmunicipalcentersshallbeunder
thejurisdictionoftheBureau:Provided,further,Thatall municipal or city ordinances and resolutions
affectingfishingandfisheriesandanydispositionthereundershallbesubmittedtotheSecretary
forappropriateactionandshallhavefullforceandeffectonlyuponhisapproval.TheBureaushall
also have authority to regulate and supervise the production, capture and gathering of fish and
fishery/aquaticproducts."[Emphasissupplied]
48 See also Constantino. Jr. v. Cuisia, G.R. No. 106064, 13 October 2005, 472 SCRA 505 Carpio v.

ExecutiveSecretary,G.R.No.96409,14February1992,206SCRA290,295296DeLeonv.Carpio,G.R.
No. 85243, 12 October 1989, 178 SCRA 457 LacsonMagallanes Co., Inc. v. Pao,et al., 129 Phil. 123
(1967)Mondanov.Silvosa,97Phil.143(1955)Villenav.SecretaryofInterior,67Phil.451(1939).
49LocalTaxCode(1974),Sec.44.
50LocalTaxCode(1974),Secs.49and50.
51LocalTaxCode(1974),Sec.45.
52LocalTaxCode(1974),Sec.47.

53Sec.47.Questiononthelegalityofataxordinance.Anyquestionorissueraisedagainstthelegality

ofanytaxordinance,orportionthereof,ongroundsotherthanthosementionedinSection44ofthisCode,
shall be referred for opinion to the Provincial Fiscal, in the case of provincial, municipal and barrio tax
ordinances,ortotheCityFiscal,inthecaseoftaxordinancesofthecityandbarrioswithinthecity,whose
opinion shall be rendered within a period of thirty days after receipt by him of the query or protest. The
opinionoftheProvincialorCityFiscal,asthecasemaybe,shallbeappealabletotheSecretaryofJustice
whoshallrenderanopiniononthematterwithinsixtydaysafterreceiptoftheappeal.Thedecisionofthe
Secretary of Justice shall be final and executory unless, within thirty days upon receipt thereof, the
aggrievedpartyconteststhesameinacourtofcompetentjurisdiction.
54 The grounds enumerated by Sec. 44 are the following: 1) the tax or fee therein levied or imposed is

unjust, excessive, oppressive, confiscatory (2) the tax is not among those that the particular local
government may impose in accordance with the Local Tax Code (3) the tax ordinance is, in whole or in
part,contrarytodeclarednationaleconomicpolicyor(4)theordinanceisdiscriminatoryinnatureonthe
conductofbusinessorcallingorinrestraintoftrade.
55Rollo,pp.221223.
56See3rdIndorsement,id.at257258.
57 University of the Philippines v. Hon. Catungal, Jr., 338 Phil. 728, 747 (1997), citing De los Santos v.

Limbaga,No.L15976,31January1962,4SCRA224,226.
58 University of the Philippines v. Hon. Catungal, supra, citing R. Cortes, Philippine Administrative Law,

CasesandMaterials394(Rev.2nded.,1984).SeeHon.Caralev.Hon.Abarintos,336Phil.126(1997).
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation