Reyes vs. Drilon

 G.R. No. 118233 December 10, 1999

ANTONIO Z. REYES, ELISEO P. OCAMPO and EDITHA ARCIAGA-SANTOS, petitioners,

vs.

COURT OF APPEALS, HON. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE FRANKLIN DRILON and MAYOR JINGGOY ESTRADA (JOSE EJERCITO) OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF SAN JUAN, METRO MANILA, respondents.

FACTS:

The Sangguniang Bayan of San Juan, Metro Manila implemented several tax ordinances. Petitioners filed an appeal assailing the constitutionality of these tax ordinances alleged that they were promulgated without previous public hearings thereby constituting deprivation of property without due process of law.

Respondent Secretary of Justice dismissed the appeal for having been filed out of time, that more than thirty (30) days from the effectivity have lapsed when the appeal was filed and received by this Department.

Petitioners filed with the CA a petition for certiorari and prohibition, but respondent court affirmed the decision of the Secretary. The motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioners was denied for lack of merit.

Hence present petition for review.

ISSUES:

(1) Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the decision of the Secretary of Justice who dismissed the prohibition suit, on the ground that it was filed out of time?

(2) Whether or not lack of mandatory public hearings prior to enacting Municipal Ordinance render them void on the ground of deprivation of property without due process?

RULING:

(1) No. CA did not erred in affirming the decision of the Secretary of Justice. As provided under Sec. 187 of R.A. 7160 the law requires that the dissatisfied taxpayer who questions the validity or legality of a tax ordinance must file his appeal to the Secretary of Justice, within 30 days from effectivity thereof. In case the Secretary decides the appeals, a period also of 30 days is allowed for an aggrieved party to go to court. But if the Secretary does not act thereon, after the lapse of 60 days, a party could already proceed to seek relief in court. These three separate periods are clearly given for compliance as a prerequisite before seeking redress in a competent court. Courts construct these provisions of statutes as mandatory.

In the instant case, failure of petitioners to appeal to the Secretary of Justice within 30 days as required by Sec. 187 of R.A. 7160 is fatal to their cause.

(2) Yes. Petitioners are right in contending that public hearings are required to be conducted prior to the enactment of an ordinance imposing real property taxes. R.A. No. 7160, Sec. 186, provides that an ordinance levying taxes, fees, or charges "shall not be enacted without any prior public hearing conducted for the purpose."

However, in the case at bar petitioners failed to present any evidence to show that no public hearings were conducted prior not the enactment of the ordinances in question. On the other hand, the Municipality of Mandaluyong claims the public hearings were indeed conducted before the subject ordinances were adopted, although it likewise failed to submit any evidence to establish this allegation. However, in accordance with the presumption of validity in favor of an ordinance, their constitutionality or legality should be upheld in the absence of evidences showing that procedure prescribed by law was not observed in their enactment.