TY vs.

TRAMPE

FACTS: Petitioner Alejandro B. Ty and MVR Picture Tube, Inc., both registered owners
of lands and buildings in the then Municipality of Pasig, assailed the legality of the
increase of real estate taxes imposed by and being collected in Pasig from the year
1994. Petitioners argue that the schedule of market values and the assessments
prepared solely by municipal assessor in accordance with LGC were null and void. They
further argued that the said Code did not expressly repealed nor impliedly repealed
P.D. 921, which still required, in the preparation of said schedule, joint action by all the
city and municipal assessors in the Metropolitan Manila area. On the other hand,
respondents contend that the tax assessments prepared solely by respondent
assessor were valid and legal because the LGC impliedly repealed PD 921.

ISSUE: Were the increased real estate taxes imposed by and being collected in Pasig,
valid and legal?

DECISION: NO. The schedule of values prepared solely by the respondent municipal
assessor is illegal and void because P.D. 921 is still the prevailing law. It is clear that the
two laws are NOT co-extensive and mutually inclusive in their scope and purpose.

While R.A. 7160 covers almost all governmental functions delegated to local
government units all over the country, P.D. 921 embraces only the Metropolitan Manila
area and is limited to the administration of financial services therein, especially the
assessment and collection of real estate taxes.

Sec. 9 of P.D. 921 requires that the schedule of values of real properties in the Metro-
politan Manila area shall be prepared jointly by the city assessors in the districts
created therein; while Sec. 212 of R.A. 7160 states that the schedule shall be prepared
"by the provincial, city and municipal assessors of the municipalities within the
Metropolitan Manila Area for the different classes of real property situated in their
respective local government units for enactment by ordinance of the Sanggunian
concerned.

It is obvious that harmony in these provisions is not only possible, but in fact desirable,
necessary and consistent with the legislative intent and policy.

Hence, the questioned Schedule of Market Values for properties in Pasig City prepared
by respondent Assessor as well as the corresponding tax assessments based thereon
was declared null and void
DRILON vs. LIM

FACTS: Then Secretary of Justice Franklin Drilon, declared Ordinance No. 7794,
otherwise known as the Manila Revenue Code, null and void for non-compliance with
the prescribed procedure under Section 187, LGC in the enactment of tax ordinances.
In his resolution, Secretary Drilon declared that there were no written notices of public
hearings on the proposed Code nor were copies of the proposed ordinance published in
three successive issues of a newspaper of general circulation. No minutes were
submitted to show that the obligatory public hearings had been held. Neither were
copies of the measure as approved posted in prominent places in the city. Finally, the
Manila Revenue Code was not translated into Pilipino or Tagalog and disseminated
among the people for their information and guidance. The RTC of Manila, however,
ruled in their favor of the City of Manila by concluding that the procedural
requirements had been observed and Section 187 of the Local Government Code is
unconstitutional because it vests in the Secretary of Justice the power of control over
local governments in violation of the policy of local autonomy mandated in the
Constitution.

ISSUE:

1. Was the act of the Secretary in reviewing the said tax ordinance an act of control?

2. Were the procedural requirements in the enactment of the Manila Revenue Code
properly observed?

DECISION:

1. NO. The act of the Secretary in reviewing the said tax ordinance was not an act of
control but of mere supervision. When the Secretary alters or modifies or sets aside a
tax ordinance, he is not allowed to substitute his own judgment for the judgment of the
LGU that enacted the measure. In the case at bar, Secretary Drilon did set aside the
Manila Revenue Code, but he did not replace it with his own version of what the Code
should be. He did not pronounce the ordinance unwise or unreasonable as a basis for
its annulment. He did not say that in his judgment it was a bad law. What he found
only was that it was illegal. All he did in reviewing the said measure was to determine if
the petitioners were following the prescribed procedure for the enactment of tax
ordinances. The Court sees it as an act not of control but of mere supervision.

2. YES. The procedural requirements have indeed been observed. As shown in the
exhibits, notices of the public hearings were sent to interested parties. The minutes of
the hearings were also found. Exhibits also show that the proposed ordinances were
published in newspapers of general circulation on certain dates. While there was no
posting of the ordinance, this omission does not affect its validity, considering that its
publication in three successive issues of a newspaper of general circulation will satisfy
due process. While it the ordinance was never translated nor disseminated, this
requirement merely applies to the approval of local development plans and public
investment programs of the local government unit, and not to tax ordinances.
COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS vs. CITY OF MANILA

FACTS: Petitioner Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc., a corporation engaged in the

business of manufacturing and selling beverages in Manila, assailed Section 21 of Tax
Ordinance No. 7988, otherwise known as "Revised Revenue Code of the City of Manila"
insofar as it imposes additional business tax on businesses, including herein petitioner,
that are already subject to business tax. The DOJ Secretary declared said ordinance
null and void for failure to satisfy the 3-day publication requirement as required by law.
But despite this, respondent continued to assess petitioner business tax for the year
2001 based on the tax rates prescribed under the annulled tax ordinance. Thus,
petitioner filed a complaint before the RTC of Manila to which the latter court ordered
respondents to cease and desist in implementing the said tax ordinance. During the
pendency of the case, the City Mayor of Manila approved Tax Ordinance No. 8011
amending Ordinance No. 7988. Petitioner again questioned the legality of the said tax
ordinance before the DOJ on the ground that said tax ordinance is void ab initio
because it amends a tax ordinance previously declared null and void and without legal
effect by the DOJ. Moreover, said tax ordinance was likewise not published upon its
approval pursuant to law.

ISSUE: Can a tax ordinance previously declared null and void for non-compliance of
the publication requirement be remedied by an amendatory ordinance?

DECISION: NO. If an order or law sought to be amended is invalid, then it does not
legally exist, there should be no occasion or need to amend it. It is evident that Tax
Ordinance No. 7988 is null and void as said ordinance was published only for one day
in contravention of the unmistakable directive of the law.
PHILIPPINE MATCH COMPANY VS. CITY OF CEBU

FACTS: Philippine Match Co., Ltd., is engaged in the manufacture of matches. It ships
cases or cartons of matches from Manila to its branch office in Cebu City for storage,
sale and distribution within the territories and districts under its Cebu branch or the
whole Visayas-Mindanao region. The company assailed the legality of the Tax
Ordinance No. 279 of Cebu City insofar as it imposes sales tax on sales of matches
consummated outside of the city but which are taken from the company's stock stored
in Cebu City. The company then sought the refund of the sales tax paid for the out-of-
town deliveries of matches, but the city treasurer denied the request holding that under
section 9 of the ordinance, out-of-town deliveries of matches stored in the city, are
subject to the sales tax imposed by the ordinance. The company then sought for the
nullity of the measure but the lower court sustained its validity by holding that the said
sales were consummated in Cebu City because delivery to the carrier in the city is
deemed to be a delivery to the customers outside of the city.

ISSUE: May the City of Cebu impose tax on sales of matches which were perfected and
paid for in Cebu City but delivered to customers outside of the city?

DECISION: YES. The city can validly tax the sales of matches to customers outside of
the city as long as the orders were booked and paid for in the company's branch office
in the city. Those matches can be regarded as sold in the city, as contemplated in the
ordinance, because the matches were delivered to the carrier in Cebu City. Generally,
delivery to the carrier is delivery to the buyer. A different interpretation would defeat
the tax ordinance in question or encourage tax evasion through the simple expedient of
arranging for the delivery of the matches at the outskirts of the city although the
purchases were effected and paid for in the company's branch office in the city.
PLDT vs. CITY OF DAVAO