G.R. No. 210551 , June 30, 2015
JOSE J. FERRER, JR., Petitioner, vs. CITY MAYOR HERBERT BAUTISTA, CITY COUNCIL OF QUEZON CITY, CITY TREASURER OF QUEZON CITY, and CITY ASSESSOR OF QUEZON CITY, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Jose J. Ferrer, Jr., a registered co-owner of a 371-square-meter residential property in Quezon City, filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with a prayer for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) seeking to declare unconstitutional and illegal two ordinances enacted by the Quezon City Council. The first is Ordinance No. SP-2095, S-2011 (the Socialized Housing Tax), which imposes a special assessment of 0.5% on the assessed value of land in excess of Php100,000.00, effective for five years, to fund socialized housing programs. It includes a tax credit provision for taxpayers who dutifully pay for five consecutive years. The second is Ordinance No. SP-2235, S-2013 (the Garbage Fee), which imposes an annual garbage fee on all domestic households, condominium units, and socialized housing projects/units based on land or floor area, to be paid simultaneously with the real property tax. Petitioner paid his realty tax on January 7, 2014, which already included a Php100.00 garbage fee. The Supreme Court issued a TRO on February 5, 2014, enjoining the enforcement of the ordinances.

ISSUE

The primary issue is the propriety of the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 and the constitutionality/legality of Ordinance Nos. SP-2095 (Socialized Housing Tax) and SP-2235 (Garbage Fee).

RULING

The Supreme Court treated the petition for certiorari as one for prohibition, exercising its original jurisdiction due to the transcendental importance of the issues. On procedural matters, the Court held that the respondents were not exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions in enacting the ordinances; they were exercising legislative functions. However, the petition was considered as one for prohibition against the respondents (particularly the City Mayor, City Treasurer, and City Assessor) who were performing ministerial functions in implementing the ordinances.
On the merits, the Court upheld the constitutionality and legality of both ordinances. Regarding the Socialized Housing Tax (Ordinance No. SP-2095), the Court ruled that it is a valid special assessment, not a tax, imposed pursuant to the Quezon City Council’s power under the Local Government Code (LGC) to levy special assessments for public purposes. The purpose—funding socialized housing—is a public purpose that benefits the community, including the landowners. The tax credit provision does not render it a forced loan or confiscatory; it is a valid incentive. The ordinance complies with substantive due process and equal protection clauses, and does not constitute double taxation.
Regarding the Garbage Fee (Ordinance No. SP-2235), the Court ruled that it is a valid service fee or user charge under the LGC, specifically under the general welfare clause and the city’s power to impose fees for services rendered. The fee is reasonable and commensurate to the cost of garbage collection services provided by the city. It is not a property tax and does not violate the Uniformity Rule of taxation. The ordinance also complies with the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act ( R.A. No. 9003 ), which mandates LGUs to fund solid waste management programs. The fee is not oppressive, confiscatory, or unjust.
The petition was dismissed for lack of merit, and the TRO was lifted.