Bagatsing vs. Ramirez

Where a general law contains particular provisions on a specific subject matter that a special law treats only in general terms, the particular provisions of the general law prevail over the general provisions of the special law; consequently, the Local Tax Code's specific publication rules for tax ordinances govern over the Revised City Charter's general publication requirements for all ordinances.

The dispute arose from conflicting statutory mandates regarding the publication of local tax ordinances. The City of Manila operated under its Revised Charter (R.A. No. 409), while the Marcos-era Local Tax Code (P.D. No. 231) had introduced standardized procedures for all local governments. The case tested which statutory framework controlled when a chartered city enacted revenue measures.

• June 12, 1974: Municipal Board of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 7522 regulating public markets and prescribing stall rental fees
• June 15, 1974: Mayor Ramon D. Bagatsing approved the ordinance
• February 17, 1975: Respondent Federation filed Civil Case 96787 before the CFI of Manila (Branch XXX) seeking declaration of nullity
• March 11, 1975: CFI denied preliminary injunction for failure to exhaust administrative remedies
• August 29, 1975: CFI declared Ordinance No. 7522 null and void for non-compliance with R.A. No. 409 publication requirements
• September 26, 1975: CFI denied motion for reconsideration
• Petitioners filed petition for review on certiorari with the SC

• Ordinance No. 7522 regulated operation of public markets and prescribed fees for stall rentals, approved by the Mayor on June 15, 1974
• The ordinance was posted in the legislative hall and all city public markets and libraries after approval, but was not published in two daily newspapers of general circulation before enactment or after approval
• Respondent Federation alleged: (a) violation of R.A. No. 409 publication requirements; (b) exclusion of the Market Committee under R.A. No. 6039; (c) violation of the Anti-Graft Law; and (d) violation of P.D. No. 7 on livestock fees
• The City had contracted with Asiatic Integrated Corporation for management and collection of the fees
• The CFI ruled that strict compliance with the Charter's pre- and post-enactment publication in newspapers was mandatory, and its absence rendered the ordinance void

• The Local Tax Code (P.D. No. 231), not the Revised City Charter, governs publication of tax ordinances; the Code requires only post-approval publication, which was complied with via posting
• While the Charter is a special law territorially, it is general as to subject matter (ordinances in general), whereas the Code is particular as to subject matter (tax/fee ordinances); the particular provision must prevail
• Respondent failed to exhaust administrative remedies under Section 47 of the Local Tax Code (referral to City Fiscal, appeal to Secretary of Justice)
• The ordinance constitutes a valid exercise of taxing power under the Local Tax Code and does not violate P.D. No. 7

• Section 17 of the Revised City Charter mandates publication in two daily newspapers before enactment and after approval; non-compliance is fatal
• The ordinance is not a "tax ordinance" but a revenue-raising measure imposing rentals and fees, thus outside the Local Tax Code's scope
• R.A. No. 6039 requires Market Committee participation in formulating market policies; its exclusion renders the ordinance invalid
• The ordinance violates Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act because collections benefit Asiatic Integrated Corporation under a management contract
• The ordinance violates P.D. No. 7 regarding fees on livestock and animal products

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether respondent violated the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies by filing suit directly in court without first obtaining the opinion of the City Fiscal and Secretary of Justice under Section 47 of the Local Tax Code
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the publication requirements under the Revised City Charter (R.A. No. 409) or the Local Tax Code (P.D. No. 231) govern Ordinance No. 7522
  • Whether Ordinance No. 7522 constitutes a "tax ordinance" subject to the Local Tax Code
  • Whether the non-participation of the Market Committee under R.A. No. 6039 invalidates the ordinance
  • Whether the ordinance violates P.D. No. 7 regarding fees on livestock
  • Whether the ordinance violates Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act due to the management contract with Asiatic Integrated Corporation

• Procedural: The SC held that exhaustion of administrative remedies is not an absolute rule and admits exceptions. Where the issue is purely a question of law (determining which of two statutes applies), and where administrative remedies would not provide a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, the rule does not apply.
• Substantive:
  • The Local Tax Code (P.D. No. 231) governs the publication of Ordinance No. 7522. While the Revised City Charter is a special law territorially (applying only to Manila), it speaks of "ordinances" in general. The Local Tax Code, though general territorially, specifically addresses "ordinances levying or imposing taxes, fees or other charges." The particular provisions of the general law prevail over the general provisions of the special law.
  • The ordinance is a valid tax ordinance. The imposition of fees and rentals for public market stalls constitutes the exercise of taxing power to raise revenue; the principal object of taxation is revenue-raising.
  • The ordinance was validly enacted. The Local Tax Code requires only post-approval publication, either in a newspaper for three consecutive days or by posting in the legislative hall and two other conspicuous places, which petitioners complied with.
  • The non-participation of the Market Committee does not invalidate the ordinance. Under R.A. No. 6039, the Committee's function is purely recommendatory and not binding on the Municipal Board. The delegated power cannot be further delegated (potestas delegata non delegare potest).
  • The ordinance does not violate P.D. No. 7. The decree expressly allows collection of delivery, stockyard, and slaughter fees authorized by the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Local Tax Code expressly authorizes local governments to collect fees for slaughter of animals and use of corrals.
  • The ordinance does not violate the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The right to tax depends on the ultimate use and purpose of the funds, not the nature of the collecting agent. Since the purpose is public (raising city revenue), the use of Asiatic Integrated Corporation as an intermediate collecting agency does not destroy the public purpose. An ordinance intra vires cannot be invalidated merely because of consequences arising from its enforcement.

• Generalia specialibus non derogant (General provisions yield to particular provisions) — A general provision must give way to a particular provision. While the Revised City Charter is a special law territorially and the Local Tax Code is a general law, the Charter treats "ordinances" in general while the Code treats "tax ordinances" in particular. Thus, the Code's specific publication requirements prevail.
• Implied repeal of special laws — There is no rule prohibiting the repeal, even by implication, of a special act by a general one. A charter provision may be impliedly modified or superseded by a later statute, especially where the later statute treats the specific subject matter in detail and was enacted later (P.D. No. 231 in 1973 vs. R.A. No. 409 in 1949).
• Exhaustion of administrative remedies — Not an absolute rule; admits exceptions where: (1) the question is purely legal; (2) the administrative remedy does not provide a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy; or (3) application would cause great and irreparable damage.
• Potestas delegata non delegare potest (What has been delegated cannot be delegated) — The Market Committee cannot be delegated legislative power to adopt regulatory measures; its function under R.A. No. 6039 is merely recommendatory and advisory.
• Public purpose in taxation — The validity of a tax depends upon the ultimate use, purpose, and object for which the fund is raised, not on the nature or character of the person or corporation whose intermediate agency is used for collection. A tax for a public purpose does not become invalid because a private corporation acts as the collecting agent.

• "A prior special law is not ordinarily repealed by a subsequent general law... However, the rule readily yields to a situation where the special statute refers to a subject in general, which the general statute treats in particular."
• "Here, as always, a general provision must give way to a particular provision. Special provision governs."
• "A chartered city is not an independent sovereignty. The state remains supreme in all matters not purely local."
• "Exhaustion of administrative remedies before resort to judicial bodies is not an absolute rule. It admits of exceptions. Where the question litigated upon is purely a legal one, the rule does not apply."
• "The right to tax depends upon the ultimate use, purpose and object for which the fund is raised. It is not dependent on the nature or character of the person or corporation whose intermediate agency is to be used in applying it."

• City of Manila v. Teotico (G.R. No. L-23052, January 29, 1968) — Controlling precedent establishing that a general law (Civil Code) may prevail over a special law (City Charter) where the former treats a specific subject (liability for defective streets) in particular while the latter treats it in general (liability for negligence).
• Butuan Sawmill, Inc. vs. City of Butuan (L-21516, April 29, 1966) — Cited for the principle that a prior special law is not ordinarily repealed by a subsequent general law.
• Lichauco & Co. v. Apostol (44 Phil. 145 [1922]) — Cited for the rule that general provisions yield to particular provisions.
• Tapales v. President and Board of Regents of the U.P. (L-17523, March 30, 1963) — Cited for the exception to exhaustion of administrative remedies where the question is purely legal.

• Section 17 of R.A. No. 409 (Revised City Charter of Manila) — Requires publication of proposed ordinances in two daily newspapers before enactment, and publication of approved ordinances within ten days after approval; takes effect 20 days after publication.
• Section 43 of P.D. No. 231 (Local Tax Code) — Requires publication within ten days after approval of tax ordinances either in a newspaper for three consecutive days or by posting in the legislative hall and two other conspicuous places.
• Section 47 of P.D. No. 231 (Local Tax Code) — Requires referral of questions regarding legality of tax ordinances to the City Fiscal, with appeal to the Secretary of Justice, before judicial action.
• Section 5, Article XI of the 1973 Constitution — Grants local government units power to create sources of revenue and levy taxes.
• Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) — Prohibits giving unwarranted benefits to private parties through official functions.
• P.D. No. 7 (September 30, 1972) — Prescribes collection of fees on livestock and animal products.
• R.A. No. 6039 — Amendment to the City Charter providing for Market Committee participation in formulating market policies.

• Fernando, J. — Concurred but qualified the majority's statement that an ordinance intra vires is not open to question "because of consequences that may arise from its enforcement," suggesting this proposition may be too absolute or require qualification.

• Teehankee, J. — Reserved his vote (no written opinion provided in the report).