GR 49097; (March, 1944) (Digest)
G.R. No. 49097; March 31, 1944
G. VDA. DE ANGELES, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. THE CITY OF DAVAO, ET AL., defendants-appellees.
FACTS
On December 29, 1934, the Municipality of Davao enacted Ordinance No. 381, prescribing a slaughter fee of P2 per head of cow or carabao. At that time, Act No. 4142 (approved November 24, 1934) was in effect, limiting slaughter fees to not more than two centavos per kilo of dressed meat. On March 1, 1937, after Davao became a city under Commonwealth Act No. 51, the City’s municipal board passed Resolution No. 2, re-enacting all subsisting ordinances of the former municipality, provided they were not inconsistent with the city charter or the Constitution. By this time, Act No. 4142 had been amended by Commonwealth Act No. 155 (effective November 9, 1936), which authorized chartered cities and municipalities to charge “reasonable slaughter fees.” The plaintiffs paid slaughter fees under protest and sued to recover amounts collected under Ordinance No. 381 both before and after its re-enactment, arguing the ordinance was void for contravening Act No. 4142 and was not validated by Commonwealth Act No. 155. The trial court ordered refunds for fees collected before March 1, 1937 (as they exceeded Act No. 4142’s limit) but upheld fees collected thereafter, ruling the re-enactment under Commonwealth Act No. 155 made them legal. Plaintiffs appealed.
ISSUE
Whether Ordinance No. 381 of the former Municipality of Davao, initially invalid for violating Act No. 4142, was validated by its re-enactment through Resolution No. 2 after the enactment of Commonwealth Act No. 155.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. Ordinance No. 381 was not entirely illegal but was invalid only insofar as it contravened Act No. 4142’s fee limit. It remained a “subsisting ordinance” of the former municipality, never having been annulled by a competent court. When the City of Davao’s municipal board re-enacted it through Resolution No. 2 on March 1, 1937, Commonwealth Act No. 155 was already in force, replacing Act No. 4142’s specific limit with authority to charge “reasonable slaughter fees.” The re-enactment effectively gave the ordinance new life under the amended law, curing its prior defect. Thus, a municipal ordinance invalid due to contravening a legislative act may be re-enacted and validated after that act is amended to permit the ordinance’s provisions.