G.R. No.

L-41631 December 17, 1976

HON. RAMON D. BAGATSING, as Maor o! "#e $%" o! Ma&%'a( ROMAN G.
GARGANTI)L, as Secre"ar "o "#e Maor( TH) MAR*)T ADMINISTRATOR( a&+ TH)
M,NI$I-AL BOARD O. MANILA, petitioners,
vs.
HON. -)DRO A. RAMIR)/, %& #%s ca0ac%" as -res%+%&1 23+1e o! "#e $o3r" o! .%rs"
I&s"a&ce o! Ma&%'a, Bra&c# 444 a&+ "#e .)D)RATION O. MANILA MAR*)T
5)NDORS, IN$., respondents.
Santiago F. Alidio and Restituto R. Villanueva for petitioners.
Antonio H. Abad, Jr. for private respondent.
Federico A. Blay for petitioner for intervention.

MARTIN, J.:
The chief question to be decided in this case is what law shall govern the publication of a
tax ordinance enacted by the Municipal Board of Manila, the Revised City Charter (R..
!"#, as a$ended%, which requires publication of the ordinance before its enact$ent and
after its approval, or the &ocal Tax Code ('.(. )o. *+,%, which only de$ands publication
after approval.
-n .une ,*, ,#/!, the Municipal Board of Manila enacted -rdinance )o. /0**, 1)
-R(2))C3 R345&T2)4 T63 -'3RT2-) -7 '5B&2C MR83T9 )(
'R39CR2B2)4 7339 7-R T63 R3)T&9 -7 9T&&9 )( 'R-:2(2)4 '3)&T239
7-R :2-&T2-) T63R3-7 )( 7-R -T63R '5R'-939.1 The petitioner City Mayor,
Ra$on (. Bagatsing, approved the ordinance on .une ,0, ,#/!.
-n 7ebruary ,/, ,#/0, respondent 7ederation of Manila Mar;et :endors, 2nc. co$$enced
Civil Case #</=/ before the Court of 7irst 2nstance of Manila presided over by respondent
.udge, see;ing the declaration of nullity of -rdinance )o. /0** for the reason that (a% the
publication require$ent under the Revised Charter of the City of Manila has not been
co$plied with> (b% the Mar;et Co$$ittee was not given any participation in the enact$ent of
the ordinance, as envisioned by Republic ct <"+#> (c% 9ection + (e% of the nti?4raft and
Corrupt 'ractices ct has been violated> and (d% the ordinance would violate 'residential
(ecree )o. / of 9epte$ber +", ,#/* prescribing the collection of fees and charges on
livestoc; and ani$al products.
Resolving the acco$panying prayer for the issuance of a writ of preli$inary in@unction,
respondent .udge issued an order on March ,,, ,#/0, denying the plea for failure of the
respondent 7ederation of Manila Mar;et :endors, 2nc. to exhaust the ad$inistrative
re$edies outlined in the &ocal Tax Code.
fter due hearing on the $erits, respondent .udge rendered its decision on ugust *#,
,#/0, declaring the nullity of -rdinance )o. /0** of the City of Manila on the pri$ary
ground of non?co$pliance with the require$ent of publication under the Revised City
Charter. Respondent .udge ruledA
There is, therefore, no question that the ordinance in question was not
published at all in two daily newspapers of general circulation in the City of
Manila before its enact$ent. )either was it published in the sa$e $anner
after approval, although it was posted in the legislative hall and in all city
public $ar;ets and city public libraries. There being no co$pliance with the
$andatory require$ent of publication before and after approval, the
ordinance in question is invalid and, therefore, null and void.
'etitioners $oved for reconsideration of the adverse decision, stressing that (a% only a post?
publication is required by the &ocal Tax Code> and (b% private respondent failed to exhaust
all ad$inistrative re$edies before instituting an action in court.
-n 9epte$ber *<, ,#/0, respondent .udge denied the $otion.
7orthwith, petitioners brought the $atter to 5s through the present petition for review on
certiorari.
Be find the petition i$pressed with $erits.
,. The nexus of the present controversy is the apparent conflict between the Revised
Charter of the City of Manila and the &ocal Tax Code on the $anner of publishing a tax
ordinance enacted by the Municipal Board of Manila. 7or, while 9ection ,/ of the Revised
Charter providesA
Eac proposed ordinance shall be published in two daily newspapers of
general circulation in the city, and shall not be discussed or enacted by the
Board until after the third day following such publication. C C C Eac approved
ordinance C C C shall be published in two daily newspapers of general
circulation in the city, within ten days after its approval> and shall ta;e effect
and be in force on and after the twentieth day following its publication, if no
date is fixed in the ordinance.
9ection !+ of the &ocal Tax Code directsA
Bithin ten days after teir approval, certified true copies of all provincial, city,
$unicipal and barrioordinances levying or i!posing taxes, fees or oter
carges shall be published for three consecutive days in a newspaper or
publication widely circulated within the @urisdiction of the local govern$ent, or
posted in the local legislative hall or pre$ises and in two other conspicuous
places within the territorial @urisdiction of the local govern$ent. 2n either case,
copies of all provincial, city, $unicipal and barrio ordinances shall be
furnished the treasurers of the respective co$ponent and $other units of a
local govern$ent for disse$ination.
2n other words, while the Revised Charter of the City of Manila requires
publication before the enact$ent of the ordinance and after the approval thereof in two daily
newspapers of general circulation in the city, the &ocal Tax Code only prescribes for
publication after the approval of 1ordinances levying or i!posing taxes, fees or oter
carges1 either in a newspaper or publication widely circulated within the @urisdiction of the
local govern$ent or by posting the ordinance in the local legislative hall or pre$ises and in
two other conspicuous places within the territorial @urisdiction of the local govern$ent.
'etitionersD co$pliance with the &ocal Tax Code rather than with the Revised Charter of the
City spawned this litigation.
There is no question that the Revised Charter of the City of Manila is a special act since it
relates only to the City of Manila, whereas the &ocal Tax Code is a general law because it
applies universally to all local govern$ents. Blac;stone defines general law as a universal
rule affecting the entire co$$unity and special law as one relating to particular persons or
things of a class.
1
nd the rule co$$only said is that a prior special law is not ordinarily
repealed by a subsequent general law. The fact that one is special and the other general
creates a presu$ption that the special is to be considered as re$aining an exception of the
general, one as a general law of the land, the other as the law of a particular
case.
6
6owever, the rule readily yields to a situation where the special statute refers to a
sub@ect in general, which the general statute treats in particular. The exactly is the
circu$stance obtaining in the case at bar. 9ection ,/ of the Revised Charter of the City of
Manila spea;s of 1ordinance1 in general, i.e., irrespective of the nature and scope
thereof, "ereas, 9ection !+ of the &ocal Tax Code relates to 1ordinances levying or
i$posing taxes, fees or other charges1 in particular. 2n regard, therefore, to ordinances in
general, the Revised Charter of the City of Manila is doubtless do$inant, but, that do$inant
force loses its continuity when it approaches the real$ of 1ordinances levying or i$posing
taxes, fees or other charges1 in particular. There, the &ocal Tax Code controls. 6ere, as
always, a general provision $ust give way to a particular provision.
3
9pecial provision
governs.
4
This is especially true where the law containing the particular provision was
enacted later than the one containing the general provision. The City Charter of Manila was
pro$ulgated on .une ,=, ,#!# as against the &ocal Tax Code which was decreed on .une
,, ,#/+. The law?$a;ing power cannot be said to have intended the establish$ent of
conflicting and hostile syste$s upon the sa$e sub@ect, or to leave in force provisions of a
prior law by which the new will of the legislating power $ay be thwarted and overthrown.
9uch a result would render legislation a useless and 2dle cere$ony, and sub@ect the law to
the reproach of uncertainty and unintelligibility.
7
The case of #ity of $anila v. %eotico
6
is opposite. 2n that case, Teotico sued the City of
Manila for da$ages arising fro$ the in@uries he suffered when he fell inside an uncovered
and unlighted catchbasin or $anhole on '. Burgos venue. The City of Manila denied
liability on the basis of the City Charter (R.. !"#% exe$pting the City of Manila fro$ any
liability for da$ages or in@ury to persons or property arising fro$ the failure of the city
officers to enforce the provisions of the charter or any other law or ordinance, or fro$
negligence of the City Mayor, Municipal Board, or other officers while enforcing or
atte$pting to enforce the provisions of the charter or of any other law or ordinance. 5pon
the other hand, rticle *,=# of the Civil Code $a;es cities liable for da$ages for the death
of, or in@ury suffered by any persons by reason of the defective condition of roads, streets,
bridges, public buildings, and other public wor;s under their control or supervision. -n
review, the Court held the Civil Code controlling. 2t is true that, insofar as its territorial
application is concerned, the Revised City Charter is a special law and the sub@ect $atter of
the two laws, the Revised City Charter establishes a general rule of liability arising fro$
negligence in general, regardless of the ob@ect thereof, whereas the Civil Code constitutes a
particular prescriptionfor liability due to defective streets in particular. 2n the sa$e $anner,
the Revised Charter of the City prescribes a rule for the publication of 1ordinance1 in
general, while the &ocal Tax Code establishes a rule for the publication of 1ordinance
levying or i$posing taxes fees or other charges in particular.
2n fact, there is no rule which prohibits the repeal even by i$plication of a special or specific
act by a general or broad one.
7
charter provision $ay be i$pliedly $odified or
superseded by a later statute, and where a statute is controlling, it $ust be read into the
charter notwithstanding any particular charter provision.
8
subsequent general law
si$ilarly applicable to all cities prevails over any conflicting charter provision, for the reason
that a charter $ust not be inconsistent with the general laws and public policy of the
state.
9
chartered city is not an independent sovereignty. The state re$ains supre$e in all
$atters not purely local. -therwise stated, a charter $ust yield to the constitution and
general laws of the state, it is to have read into it that general law which governs the
$unicipal corporation and which the corporation cannot set aside but to which it $ust yield.
Bhen a city adopts a charter, it in effect adopts as part of its charter general law of such
character.
19
*. The principle of exhaustion of ad$inistrative re$edies is strongly asserted by petitioners
as having been violated by private respondent in bringing a direct suit in court. This is
because 9ection !/ of the &ocal Tax Code provides that any question or issue raised
against the legality of any tax ordinance, or portion thereof, shall be referred for opinion to
the city fiscal in the case of tax ordinance of a city. The opinion of the city fiscal is
appealable to the 9ecretary of .ustice, whose decision shall be final and executory unless
contested before a co$petent court within thirty (+"% days. But, the petition below plainly
shows that the controversy between the parties is deeply rooted in a pure question of lawA
whether it is the Revised Charter of the City of Manila or the &ocal Tax Code that should
govern the publication of the tax ordinance. 2n other words, the dispute is sharply focused
on the applicability of the Revised City Charter or the &ocal Tax Code on the point at issue,
and not on the legality of the i$position of the tax. 3xhaustion of ad$inistrative re$edies
before resort to @udicial bodies is not an absolute rule. 2t ad$its of exceptions. Bhere the
question litigated upon is purely a legal one, the rule does not apply.
11
The principle $ay
also be disregarded when it does not provide a plain, speedy and adequate re$edy. 2t $ay
and should be relaxed when its application $ay cause great and irreparable da$age.
16
+. 2t is $aintained by private respondent that the sub@ect ordinance is not a 1tax ordinance,1
because the i$position of rentals, per$it fees, tolls and other fees is not strictly a taxing
power but a revenue?raising function, so that the procedure for publication under the &ocal
Tax Code finds no application. The pretense bears its own $ar;s of fallacy. 'recisely, the
raising of revenues is the principal ob@ect of taxation. 5nder 9ection 0, rticle E2 of the )ew
Constitution, 13ach local govern$ent unit shall have the power to create its own sources of
revenue and to levy taxes, sub@ect to such provisions as $ay be provided by law.1
13
nd
one of those sources of revenue is what the &ocal Tax Code points to in particularA 1&ocal
govern$ents $ay collect fees or rentals for the occupancy or use of public $ar;ets and
pre$ises C C C.1
14
They can provide for and regulate $ar;et stands, stalls and privileges,
and, also, the sale, lease or occupancy thereof. They can license, or per$it the use of,
lease, sell or otherwise dispose of stands, stalls or $ar;eting privileges.
17
2t is a feeble atte$pt to argue that the ordinance violates 'residential (ecree )o. /, dated
9epte$ber +", ,#/*, insofar as it affects livestoc; and ani$al products, because the said
decree prescribes the collection of other fees and charges thereon 1with the exception of
ante?$orte$ and post?$orte$ inspection fees, as well as the delivery, stoc;yard and
slaughter fees as $ay be authoriFed by the 9ecretary of griculture and )atural
Resources.1
16
Clearly, even the exception clause of the decree itself per$its the collection of
the proper fees for livestoc;. nd the &ocal Tax Code ('.(. *+,, .uly ,, ,#/+% authoriFes in
its 9ection +,A 1&ocal govern$ents $ay collect fees for the slaughter of ani$als and the use
of corrals C C C 1
!. The non?participation of the Mar;et Co$$ittee in the enact$ent of -rdinance )o. /0**
supposedly in accordance with Republic ct )o. <"+#, an a$end$ent to the City Charter of
Manila, providing that 1the $ar;et co$$ittee shall for$ulate, reco$$end and
adopt, sub&ect to te ratification of te !unicipal board, and approval of te !ayor, policies
and rules or regulation repealing or $aneding existing provisions of the $ar;et code1 does
not infect the ordinance with any ger$ of invalidity.
17
The function of the co$$ittee is purely
reco$$endatory as the underscored phrase suggests, its reco$$endation is without
binding effect on the Municipal Board and the City Mayor. 2ts prior acquiescence of an
intended or proposed city ordinance is not a condition sine qua non before the Municipal
Board could enact such ordinance. The native power of the Municipal Board to legislate
re$ains undisturbed even in the slightest degree. 2t can $ove in its own initiative and the
Mar;et Co$$ittee cannot de$ur. t $ost, the Mar;et Co$$ittee $ay serve as a legislative
aide of the Municipal Board in the enact$ent of city ordinances affecting the city $ar;ets or,
in plain words, in the gathering of the necessary data, studies and the collection of
consensus for the proposal of ordinances regarding city $ar;ets. Much less could it be said
that Republic ct <"+# intended to delegate to the Mar;et Co$$ittee the adoption of
regulatory $easures for the operation and ad$inistration of the city $ar;ets. 'otestas
delegata non delegare potest.
0. 'rivate respondent bewails that the $ar;et stall fees i$posed in the disputed ordinance
are diverted to the exclusive private use of the siatic 2ntegrated Corporation since the
collection of said fees had been let by the City of Manila to the said corporation in a
1Manage$ent and -perating Contract.1 The assu$ption is of course saddled on erroneous
pre$ise. The fees collected do not go direct to the private coffers of the corporation.
-rdinance )o. /0** was not $ade for the corporation but for the purpose of raising
revenues for the city. That is the ob@ect it serves. The entrusting of the collection of the fees
does not destroy the public purpose of the ordinance. 9o long as the purpose is public, it
does not $atter whether the agency through which the $oney is dispensed is public or
private. The right to tax depends upon the ulti$ate use, purpose and ob@ect for which the
fund is raised. 2t is not dependent on the nature or character of the person or corporation
whose inter$ediate agency is to be used in applying it. The people $ay be taxed for a
public purpose, although it be under the direction of an individual or private corporation.
18
)or can the ordinance be stric;en down as violative of 9ection +(e% of the nti?4raft and
Corrupt 'ractices ct because the increased rates of $ar;et stall fees as levied by the
ordinance will necessarily inure to the unwarranted benefit and advantage of the
corporation.
19
Be are concerned only with the issue whether the ordinance in question is
intra vires. -nce deter$ined in the affir$ative, the $easure $ay not be invalidated because
of consequences that $ay arise fro$ its enforce$ent.
69
CC-R(2)4&G, the decision of the court below is hereby reversed and set aside.
-rdinance )o. /0** of the City of Manila, dated .une ,0, ,#/0, is hereby held to have been
validly enacted. )o. costs.
9- -R(3R3(.
#astro, #.J., Barredo, $a(asiar, Antonio, $u)o* 'al!a, A+uino and #oncepcion, Jr., JJ.,
concur.
%eean(ee, J., reserves is vote.


Se0ara"e O0%&%o&s

.)RNANDO, J., concurringA
But qualifies his assent as to an ordinance intra vires not being open to question 1because
of consequences that $ay arise fro$ its enforce$ent.1


Se0ara"e O0%&%o&s
.)RNANDO, J., concurringA
But qualifies his assent as to an ordinance intra vires not being open to question 1because
of consequences that $ay arise fro$ its enforce$ent.1
.oo"&o"es
, Cooley, The &aw of Taxation, :ol. *, !th ed.
* Butuan 9aw$ill, 2nc. vs. City of Butuan, &?*,0,<, pril *#, ,#<<, ,< 9CR
/0=, citing 9tate v. 9toll, ,/ Ball. !*0.
+ &ichauco H Co. v. postol, !! 'hil. ,!0 (,#**%.
! Crawford, Construction of 9tatutes, *<0, citing 5.9. v. .ac;son, ,!+ 7ed.
/=+.
0 9ee 9eparate -pinion of .ustice .ohns in &ichauco, fn. +, citing &ewisD
9utherland 9tatutory Construction, at ,<,.
< &?*+"0*, .anuary *#, ,#<=, ** 9CR */".
/ 9ee /+ $ .ur *d 0*,.
= McIuillin, Municipal Corporation, :ol. <, +rd ed., **+.
# 9ee Bowyer v. Ca$den, ,, tl. ,+/.
," McIuillin, Municipal Corporation, :ol. <, +rd ed., **#?*+".
,, Tapales v. 'resident and Board of Regents of the 5.'., &?,/0*+, March +",
,#<+, / 9CR 00+> C.). 6odges v. Municipal Board of the City of 2loilo, &?
,=*/<, .anuary ,*, ,#</, ,# 9CR +*?++> guilar v. :alencia, &?+"+#<, .uly
+", ,#/,, !" 9CR *,!>. MendoFa v. 99C, &?*#,=#, pril ,,, ,#/*, !! 9CR
+=".
,* Cipriano v. Marcelino, &?*//#+, 7ebruary *=, ,#/*, !+ 9CR *#,> (el Mar
v. ':, &?*/*##, .une */, ,#/+, 0, 9CR +!<, citing cases.
,+ 9ee City of Bacolod v. 3nriqueF, &?*/!"=, .uly *0, ,#/0, 9econd (ivision,
per 7ernando, J., <0 9CR +=!?=0.
,! rticle 0, 9ection +", Chapter 22.
,0 McIuillin, Municipal Corporations, :ol. /, +rd ed., */0.
,< '.(. / was a$ended by '.(. !0 on )ove$ber ,", ,#/*, so as to allow
local govern$ents to charge the ordinary fee for the issuance of certificate of
ownership and one peso for the issuance of transfer certificate for livestoc;.
,/ The $ar;et co$$ittee is co$posed of the $ar;et ad$inistrator as
chair$an, and a representative of each of the city treasurer, the $unicipal
board, the Cha$ber of 7ilipino Retailers, 2nc. and the Manila Mar;et :endors
ssociation 2nc. as $e$bers.
,= Cooley, The &aw of Taxation, :ol. ,, +#!?#0.
,# 9ection + (e% causing any undue in@ury to any party, including the
govern$ent, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage
or preference in the discharge of his official ad$inistrative or @udicial functions
through $anifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable
negligence.C C C
*" Billoughby, The Constitutional &aw of the 5nited 9tates, <<= et seq.