Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

Case #1 Bagatsing VS Ramirez SC: Valid Ordinance

Facts: Reversed and Set Aside RTC Decision


Jun 12 1974: Enacted Ordinance No. 7522- Review on certiorari was filed by petitioners
Regulation for Public Market Operations and Petition is Meritorious
Fees. The RCC requires publication before the enactment
Such Ordinance is approved by the Petitioner, and after the approval in two daily newspapers of
Manila City Mayor Ramon Bagatsing. general circulation, while Local Tax Code only
Feb 17 1975: Manila Market Vendors, prescribes publication after approval of in a
respondents, filed the nullification of Ordinance newspaper or publication widely circulated within
No. 7522 for the ff. contentions: the jurisdiction of the local government or by
posting it in the local legislative hall or premises
a) Publication requirement is not complied and in two other conspicuous places within the
b) Market committee was deprived of participation territorial jurisdiction of the local government
in the enactment, according to RA 6039 Petitioners complied Local Tax Code
c) Sec 3 of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act is
violated RCC LTC
d) It violates PD 7 Sep 30 1972, collection of fees Special Act General Law
and charges on livestock and animal products. Only for Manila For all Local Gov.
Ordinance in General Ordinance in Particular
RTC: Void Ordinance June 18 1949 June 01 1973
Non-Compliance to Publication Requirement
Revised City Charter prescribes publication of
Mar 11 1975: Writ of preliminary injunction of "ordinance" in general, while Local Tax Code rules
respondents is denied due to their failure to the publication of "ordinance levying or imposing
exhaust admin. remedies outlined in the Local taxes fees or other charges" in particular
Tax Code Therefore to ordinances in general, the RCC is
Aug 29 1975: Ordinance No 7522 was declared doubtless dominant but its force loses when it
null and void for non-compliance w/ approaches the realm of particularity of LTC
requirement of publication under Revised City Exhausting Admin Remedies was violated accdg to
Charter LTC Sec 47 bc it requires opinion of the city fiscal
It was only posted at legislative hall, all city for questions about the tax ordinance but the
public markets and city public libraries but not respondents brought direct suit in the court
published in 2 daily newspaper of general It doesnt violate PD 7 as LTC permits the collection
circulation in the City of Manila. of proper fees for livestock authorized by the
Petitioners moved for reconsideration for the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources.
ff. contentions: The function of the committee is purely
recommendatory, its recommendation is without
a) Only post-publication is required in Local binding effect on the Municipal Board and Mayor
Tax Code Respondents contested that fees imposed will be
b) It failed to exhaust all admin remedies for the private use of Asia Integrated Corp. through
before instituting an action in court. a Management and Operating Contract
It didnt violated Sec 3 of Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Sep 36 1975: The motion was denied Practices Act because the increased rates of market
stall fees as levied by the ordinance will necessarily
ISSUE: WON Revised City Charter or Local Tax Code inure to the unwarranted benefit and advantage of
will govern the Publication of Tax Ordinance in the the corporation.
case at bar Ordinance No. 7522 was not made for the Corp.
but for the purpose of raising revenues for the City.
Case #2 Lagman VS City of Manila et al
Facts:

Aug 6 1964: Benedicto Lagman filed Petition for


Declatory Relief

Case #3 Manzano VS Valera


Facts:

Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with


Temporary Restraining Order bc of Criminal Libel.
Criminal Case No 5728 was alleged decided with
lack of jurisdiction by Judge Redentor Valera
Juanito Manzano, a Senior Police Officer, was
charged with malicious intent to expose Vilma
Bobila (Complainant prior), an employee of BIR, to
public ridicule.
Manzano, entered and written in PNP, Bangued
Police Station Blotter (Public Record) false,
malicious and highly defamatory statement against
Bobila.
Bobila made grave threats using threatening
remarks against SPO1 Manzano during her visit in
the Police Station.

Qouted from the PNP BPS Blotter:

"ADDANTO PANAGPATINGGAYO NGA KASTA


NGATATTAO, and at the same time she allegedly
raise (sic) her palm and made a sign across her
neck which according to said reported (sic) it was a
clear sign she wants somebody among the BPP
personnel be (sic) killed"

(sic = false)

Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Valera, supported


the arguments of the petitioners and asked the
entire records of the case be elevated to RTC from
MTC.
Motion to Dismiss the case of Libel and Motion of
Reconsideration was both denied by Judge Valera.

Case #4 Garcia VS Pascual


Facts: