G.R. No. L-41631 December 17, 1976
HON. RAMON D. BAGATSING, as Mayor of the City of Manila; ROMAN G. GARGANTIEL, as Secretary to the Mayor; THE MARKET ADMINISTRATOR; and THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF MANILA, petitioners, vs. HON. PEDRO A. RAMIREZ, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XXX and the FEDERATION OF MANILA MARKET VENDORS, INC., respondents.

FACTS

On June 15, 1974, the City Mayor of Manila approved Ordinance No. 7522, which regulated public markets and prescribed stall rental fees. The respondent Federation of Manila Market Vendors, Inc. filed a case seeking the declaration of the ordinance’s nullity, primarily arguing non-compliance with the publication requirements under the Revised Charter of Manila ( Republic Act No. 409 ). The Revised Charter mandates publication of a proposed ordinance in two daily newspapers before enactment and again after approval.
The petitioners, city officials, argued that they complied with the Local Tax Code (Presidential Decree No. 231), which only requires publication after approval, either via newspaper or by posting in conspicuous places. The Court of First Instance, presided by respondent Judge, declared the ordinance null and void for failure to comply with the pre-enactment and post-approval publication mandates of the City Charter. The petitioners sought reconsideration, which was denied, leading to this petition for review.

ISSUE

Whether the publication of Manila’s tax ordinance is governed by the Revised City Charter of Manila or by the Local Tax Code.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision, upholding the validity of Ordinance No. 7522. The Court resolved the apparent conflict between the general law, the Local Tax Code, and the special law, the Revised Charter of Manila, by applying the principle that a subsequent general law can repeal a prior special law if the general statute treats the subject with particularity. Here, Section 17 of the City Charter speaks of “ordinance” in general, while Section 43 of the Local Tax Code specifically addresses “ordinances levying or imposing taxes, fees or other charges.”
The Local Tax Code, being a later and more specific enactment concerning tax ordinances, must prevail as the governing law. Since the ordinance in question imposes fees, it falls squarely under the Local Tax Code’s purview. The petitioners’ compliance with the post-approval publication requirement of the Local Tax Code, through posting in the legislative hall and public markets, was thus sufficient and valid. The Court also addressed and rejected the vendor’s other grounds for nullity, finding no violation of Republic Act No. 6039 (Market Committee participation), the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, or Presidential Decree No. 7, as the ordinance imposed rental fees, not direct charges on livestock.