Details

Category: Regional Legal Opinions

Published: 16 April 2012

Hits: 965

30 January 2012

Hon. LEONORA C. WONG
Municipal Mayor
San Simon, Pampanga

Dear Mayor Wong,

This has reference to your letter seeking our opinion regarding the merit of your deeds in collecting fees from Haulers and Truckers which are actually doing business in the jurisdiction of your Municipality and not merely passing through your roads/streets.  Said suspension was brought about by the ruling of Regional Trial Court Branch 54, Macabebe, Pampanga, by declaring some portions of the Revenue Code of your municipality as invalid, in Civil Case No. 10-157 (M), particularly Sections 3U.01 and 3U02 of the 2008 Revised Revenue Code of San Simon, Pampanga.

Basic and elementary is the rule that the Judicial Branch has the sole authority to interpret laws, ordinances and resolutions and to rule whether the same is Constitutional or not.  Administrative agencies are ought to respect the decisions of the courts.  However, said Decision may still be questioned by filing a Motion for Reconsideration and/or Appeal within the reglementary period provided by the Rules of Court.  Since the Regional Trial Court already rendered a Decision unto the said issue, this level can no longer render an opinion as to the validity of the said Ordinance.  Moreso, if a Motion for Reconsideration has been filed, this level cannot render an opinion to that matter as it would be violative of the sub judice principle.

Be that as it may, you are not left without recourse.  The Local Government Code expressly provides guidance as to what taxes, fees and/or charges may be levied by the municipality, as follows:

1. Taxes, fees, and charges not otherwise levied by provinces (Sec. 142, LGC);
2. Fees and charges on business and occupation and practice of profession or calling (Sec. 147, ibid.);
3. Fees for sealing and licensing of weights and measures. (Sec. 148, Ibid.); and
4. Fishery rentals, fees and charges. (Sec. 149, Ibid.)

The municipality may also impose taxes on the following businesses as laid under Sec. 143 of the same Code:

1. On manufacturers, assemblers, repackers, processors, brewers, distillers, rectifiers, and compounders or liquors, distilled spirits, and wines or manufacturers of any article of commerce of whatever kind or nature, in accordance with the prescribed schedule;
2. On wholesalers, distributors, or dealers in any article of commerce of whatever kind or nature in accordance with the prescribes schedule; xxx
3. On any business, not otherwise specified in the preceding paragraphs, which the sanggunian concerned may deem proper to tax;  on any business subject to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, the rate shall not exceed 2% of gross sales or receipts of the preceding calendar year.

However, Sec. 150 of the same Code, which deals with the “situs of the tax”, must be observed.

Foregoing considered, your local sanggunian may still levy taxes, fees and charges which are expressly allowed by the Code.
   
Allow us to emphasize that we defer to render an opinion concerning your deed in imposing tax because the Regional Trial Court has rendered a Decision on that matter.  Let us also be clear in stating that this recommendation has nothing to do with the on-going case filed before the regular court.

Please be informed that this level requested the Legal Service of the Central Office for their comments and recommendations.  
 
We hope that we have properly addressed your concerns.

Very truly yours,


(sgd.)
FLORIDA M. DIJAN, DPA, CESO IV
Regional Director

Copy Furnished:

ATTY. JESUS B. DOQUE, IV                    PD ANGELINA S. BLANCO   
Director-Legal Service (DILG Central)        Provincial Director-DILG Pampanga


       


    

 


 
 

Details

Category: Regional Legal Opinions

Published: 16 April 2012

Hits: 1330

30 January 2012

ATTY. JESUS B. DOQUE, IV
Director- Legal Service
DILG Central Office

Dear Dir. Doque,

This level was sought for an opinion regarding the invalidity of some portions of Revised Revenue Code of San Simon, Pampanga, particularly, Sec. 3U.01 and Sec. 3U.02, as declared by Regional Trial Court, Third Judicial Region, Branch 54, Macabebe, Pampanga, in Civil Case No. 10-1572(M).

We rendered an opinion regarding said matter, hereunto attached for further comment and recommendation by your level.

Aside from the said query, said LGU seeks enlightenment on the merit of collecting fees from haulers and truckers which are actually doing business in their municipality and not merely passing thru their roads or streets. 

In our conversation, said LGU seeks guidance whether or not they may impose fees or charges to those truckers or haulers, whose main office/s are not within the jurisdiction of San Simon, but are hauling and unloading goods within their municipality.

We are hoping for your opinion for our guidance.

Our warmest regards and thanks.

Very truly yours,

(sgd.)
FLORIDA M. DIJAN, DPA, CESO IV
Regional Director


Copy Furnished:

Hon. LEONORA C. WONG               PD ANGELINA S. BLANCO
Municipal Mayor                             Provincial Director
San Simon, Pampanga                    DILG Pampanga                           

Details

Category: Regional Legal Opinions

Published: 16 April 2012

Hits: 1357

January 25, 2012

HON. MICHAEL L. GALANG
HON. ARMANDO S. MANACMUL
Sangguniang Bayan Members
Floridablanca, Pampanga

Dear Messrs. Galang and Manacmul,

This pertains to your letter seeking our legal opinion on the following issues:

1. If the Municipal Government still have the right to amend the deed of donation which was already binded(sic) by agreement of both parties.
2. If the amendments still needs(sic) legislative action, since the full authority was given to the representative of the Municipal Government in donating the Land of Floridablanca East Central School under Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 37 Series of 2005.
3. If there are legal basis for the action to be taken regarding the said issues.

We deem it proper to address your query in one discussion for they are interrelated.

Donation is an act of liberality whereby a person disposes gratuitously of a thing or right in favor of another, who accepts it.   This donation is but a contract of the donor and the donee, a gratuitous contract wherein the consideration thereof is “liberality”. 

The two (2) basic classifications of donations are Mortis Causa and Inter Vivos.  The former shall take effect during the lifetime of the donor, but the property shall not be delivered till after death of the donor’s death.  On the other hand, inter vivos donation takes effect immediately after compliance of all the legal requirements provided by the Code.  Further, donation is not obligatory.  What it requires is mere acceptance of the donee and once accepted, the donee becomes the absolute owner of the property so donated.   Said kind of donation, however, is true only in case of simple or unconditional donation.

In the present query, the one who donated the said property in favor to the “School” is the Municipality of Floridablanca, Pampanga by virtue of Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 37, series of 2005.  This, to our opinion, is a valid transfer of property from the said municipality in favor to the school, provided, no favor from the donee Is requested by the donor, lest, it would be tantamount to a violation of the Anti Graft Law or RA 3019 and/or RA 6713, or the Code of Ethical Standards of Public Officers and Employees.

For purposes of discussion, one of the legal and binding effects of donation is the transfer of ownership from the donor to the donee.  As provided by the New Civil Code, it one of the modes of acquiring ownership.   Further, one of the essential characteristics of donation is “irrevocability” except for legal causes provided by the same Code.  This simply means that donation partakes the nature of permanency, unless, there exists ground for it to be revoked.  The legal grounds for revocation of donation are stated under Art. 760 of the New Civil Code i.e., Birth, Adoption and Reappearance.
 
In your letter, you are seeking advice whether or not your august body may enact an Ordinance to amend an Ordinance enacted by the previous administration authorizing the then Mayor to enter into a Deed of Donation.  It is true that the power to enact an Ordinance carries with the power to modify, alter, revise, or even repeal it.  However, in the given situation, the donation, apparently was not only perfected but accorded the status of permanency, the same not being questioned at the lapse of more than four (4) years.   In effect, not only concerned parties are bound to observe it but also third persons who might have a claim over that property, such as colorable title to that realty.  It is clear, however, from the letter of the incumbent Mayor, that the intended beneficiary is a “caretaker”, which means, he (icban) recognizes ownership of the landlord (school).  He is residing in that property precisely due to mere tolerance by the administrator of that school.  Possession, by mere tolerance of the owner, cannot ripen into “Just Ownership” save those cases of a tenant of an agricultural land.

Another reason why said contract could no longer be amended is that the present Sangguniang Bayan Members and the Local Chief Executive would be violating the “non-impairment clause” of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.   It must be noted that rights were already vested to the donee upon acceptance of the instrument.   Such right cannot be diminished nor taken away by expedient means of enacting another ordinance or resolution for purposes of amending the Deed of Donation executed by and between the previous administration and the donee.  Amending of an ordinance or resolution may only be allowed if there are valid and legal grounds. 
     
Thus, the query whether or not the Sangguniang Bayan of Floridablanca still have the right to amend the deed of donation by passing a resolution to that effect, we opine in the negative, by reason of the above discussion.  In addition to the above-stated reasons, to allow said means would set precedence to the coming administration i.e., to set the trend of revoking an ordinance which affects vested rights   

However, we are recommending two (2) plausible suggestions in order to arrive at a win-win solution (the awarding of 500 sq m2) without recourse to toxic court litigation:  first, for the present administration to have an audience with the School’s representative and the intended beneficiary to persuade the former to execute another deed of donation; and second, if the new owner is willing, to execute a deed of sale in favor of the intended beneficiary at a minimal amount or a lease to own.  In both instances, the consideration must be the length of service rendered by the intended beneficiary to the school.  A diplomatic approach, to our mind will work; thus, an intervention by the present administration may be needed. 

This is without prejudice to any other opinion of higher authorities.

We hope that we have properly addressed your concerns.               

Very truly yours,


(sgd.)
FLORIDA M. DIJAN, DPA, CESO IV
Regional Director

Copy Furnished:

PD Angelina S. Blanco                 LGOO V Norma D. Martinez
DILG Pampanga                     DILG Floridablanca, Pampanga