View full case

ANTONIO Z. REYES v. CA

FACTS:

The Sangguniang Bayan of San Juan implemented several tax ordinances including an ordinance imposing a municipal tax on business of printing and publication, an ordinance imposing a transfer tax on the sale, donation, barter, or any other mode of transferring ownership or title of real property, an ordinance imposing a social housing tax on real estate properties, an ordinance imposing new rates of business taxes, and an ordinance levying an annual "Ad Valorem" tax on real property and an additional tax for the special education fund. The petitioners filed an appeal with the Department of Justice questioning the constitutionality of these tax ordinances, alleging that they were enacted without previous public hearings, depriving them of property without due process of law. The Secretary of Justice dismissed the appeal for being filed out of time, citing that the appeal was made more than 30 days from the effectivity of the ordinances. The petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals, but the court affirmed the decision of the Secretary of Justice. The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied. Hence, the petitioners filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court, raising issues on the constitutionality of the tax ordinances and the timeliness of the appeal.

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 Nos. 87, 91, 95, 100 and 101 render them void on the ground of deprivation of property without due process?

  3. Whether or not the constitutional validity of Sec. 187 of the Local Government Code could be raised for the first time on appeal?

RULING:

  1. Yes, the Court of Appeals did not err in affirming the decision of the Secretary of Justice. The appeal was filed out of time, as the tax ordinances took effect more than thirty days before the appeal was filed.

  2. No, lack of mandatory public hearings does not render the tax ordinances void on the ground of deprivation of property without due process. The petitioners failed to show that their property rights were violated.

  3. Yes, the constitutional validity of Sec. 187 of the Local Government Code could be raised for the first time on appeal. A determination of the constitutionality of the provision is necessary for the resolution of the case.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Appeals must be filed within the prescribed period set by law.

  • Lack of mandatory public hearings does not automatically render ordinances void.

  • The constitutionality of a provision of law can be questioned at any time if it is necessary for the resolution of the case.