G.R. No. 137621; February 6, 2002
Hagonoy Market Vendor Association, petitioner, vs. Municipality of Hagonoy, Bulacan, respondent.

FACTS

The Sangguniang Bayan of Hagonoy, Bulacan, enacted Ordinance No. 28 on October 1, 1996, increasing public market stall rentals. The ordinance, which stated it would take effect upon approval, was posted from November 4 to 25, 1996. In late November 1997, the Hagonoy Market Vendor Association’s members received copies and were informed of enforcement starting January 1998. On December 8, 1997, the Association’s President appealed to the Secretary of Justice, challenging the ordinance’s constitutionality and claiming unawareness of its posting.
The Secretary of Justice dismissed the appeal as time-barred, ruling it was filed beyond the 30-day period from the ordinance’s effectivity on October 1, 1996, as required by Section 187 of the Local Government Code. The Secretary applied the doctrine in Tañada vs. Tuvera, holding that the effectivity retroacted to the approval date after compliance with posting. The Association’s motion for reconsideration was denied. It then appealed to the Court of Appeals but failed to attach certified true copies of the Secretary’s Resolutions to its petition. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for this formal deficiency.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in strictly applying procedural rules to dismiss the appeal for failure to attach certified true copies of the assailed resolutions.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals erred in its rigid procedural application but ultimately dismissed the petition on substantive grounds. On procedure, the Court found the Association’s explanation for not attaching certified copies—attributing the failure to typhoon “Loleng,” which caused office suspensions and accessibility issues—demonstrated due diligence and constituted a compelling reason to relax procedural rules under the circumstances. Technicalities should not override substantial justice when a party has shown a valid excuse.
However, on the merits, the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of the original appeal. The Association’s appeal to the Secretary of Justice was indeed filed out of time. The ordinance was validly posted in November 1996, as certified by the Sanggunian Secretary and supported by affidavits, thereby complying with legal requirements for effectivity. The Association’s claim of lack of knowledge was unsubstantiated. Consequently, the appeal filed over a year later was correctly deemed time-barred under Section 187. Substantively, the Court also found no merit in the claims that the ordinance was unconstitutional or an illegal exaction, noting the increased rentals applied uniformly and reasonably to classified public markets.