GR 156252; (June, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 156252 ; June 27, 2006
Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc., Petitioner, vs. City of Manila, Liberty M. Toledo City Treasurer and Joseph Santiago Chief, Licensing Division, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc., maintaining a sales office in Manila, challenged the legality of Tax Ordinance No. 7988 (the Revised Revenue Code of Manila) before the Department of Justice (DOJ) under Section 187 of the Local Government Code. The petitioner argued the ordinance, which deleted a proviso exempting already-registered businesses from an additional tax, was unconstitutional and beyond the city’s taxing power. The DOJ Secretary, in a Resolution dated 17 August 2000, declared the ordinance null and void for non-compliance with the mandatory publication requirement (three consecutive days in a newspaper of local circulation), as it was published only once. The City of Manila did not appeal this Resolution, allowing it to attain finality.
Subsequently, the City enacted Tax Ordinance No. 8011, purporting to amend the void Ordinance No. 7988. The City Treasurer then demanded payment from Coca-Cola under the new ordinance. Coca-Cola filed a Petition for Injunction with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to restrain the collection. The RTC dismissed the petition, reasoning that the enactment of Ordinance No. 8011 had rendered the case moot and academic since it amended the challenged ordinance.
ISSUE
Whether the RTC erred in dismissing the Petition for Injunction on the ground of mootness due to the passage of an amending ordinance.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court reversed the RTC’s dismissal. The legal logic is clear and sequential. First, the DOJ Secretary’s Resolution declaring Tax Ordinance No. 7988 null and void for defective publication had become final and executory due to the City’s failure to appeal it. A void law is deemed legally non-existent. Consequently, there was nothing for Ordinance No. 8011 to validly amend. The Court, citing People v. Lim, reiterated the principle that an invalid law cannot be amended; it must be re-enacted in accordance with law.
Therefore, the enactment of Ordinance No. 8011 did not cure the fatal defect of its predecessor nor render the case moot. The RTC’s basis for dismissal was erroneous as it presumed the existence of a valid ordinance to amend. The proper subject of the injunction remained the enforcement of a tax based on a void ordinance. The Supreme Court set aside the RTC orders and remanded the case for further proceedings on the injunction.