CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

CAN EXERCISE JUDICIAL REVIEW - Rhoda

ALL COURTS

ONGSUCO vs MALONES
EVELYN ONGSUCO and ANTONIA SALAYA, Petitioners, vs. HON. MARIANO M. MALONES, both in his private and official capacity as
Mayor of the Municipality of Maasin, Iloilo, Respondent.
G.R. No. 182065
October 27, 2009

THE CASE Petitioners contend that they are bona fide occupants of the stalls at the municipal public
market and that Municipal Ordinance 98-01 is invalid.
FACTS
Petitioners are stall holders at Maasin Public Market (newly renovated)
Petitioners were informed of a meeting scheduled on August 11, 1998 through a letter dated
August 6, 1998
Revenue measures discussed in meeting, including increase in stall rentals and imposition of
goodwill fees
Municipal Ordinance No. 98-01 subsequently approved, which included the above-mentioned
revenue measures
Respondent sent letter to petitioners, informing them that since they occupied stalls without
any lease contract, stalls were considered vacant and open for other applicants
Petitioners filed a Petition for Prohibition / Mandamus against the respondent. They maintain
that they are bona fide occupants of the stall and that MO 98-01 is not valid because of the
absence of a public hearing. Since notice for the meeting was only given 5 days earlier, the
meeting could not be considered as a public hearing. As per Local Government Code: The initial
public hearing shall be held not earlier than ten (10) days from the sending out of the notice.
Respondents argue that MO is valid since it will be used to raise income to pay for the
renovations. Also, the ordinance involves the operation of an economic enterprise of the local
government unit; therefore, no public hearing is required.
RTC RULING Dismissed. Mandamus / Prohibition is not applicable since petitioners have no clear legal
right to use the stalls without paying the goodwill fees. Also, case is dismissed due to non-exhaustion of
administrative remedies. The legality of MO should have been questioned before the Secretary of Justice,
as per Section 187 of Local Government Code.
CA RULING (As per petitioners appeal, they explained that they did question MO 98-01 before the
Department of Justice; however, this was not acted upon because of their failure to attach a copy of the
ordinance.)
Dismissed. Goodwill fee is a form of revenue measure, which the municipality had the power to impose.
Also, petitioners failed to exhaust administrative remedies. CA did not give weight to petitioners claim
that they questioned MO 98-01 before the DOJ because of the absence of proof.
ISSUE 1. Whether or not petitioners have exhausted administrative remedies; or if the exhaustion of
administrative remedies is applicable in this case; NO
2. Whether or not MO 98-01 is valid NO
SC RULING
The Court determines that there is no need for petitioners to exhaust administrative remedies before
resorting to the courts. It is true that the general rule is that before a party is allowed to seek the
intervention of the court, he or she should have availed himself or herself of all the means of
administrative processes afforded him or her. However, there are several exceptions to this rule. Article VIII
of the Constitution, expressly establishes the appellate jurisdiction of this Court, and impliedly
recognizes the original jurisdiction of lower courts over cases involving the constitutionality or
validity of an ordinance. In this case, the parties are not disputing any factual matter on which they still
need to present evidence. The sole issue petitioners raised before the RTC was whether Municipal
Ordinance No. 98-01 was valid and enforceable despite the absence, prior to its enactment, of a public
hearing held in accordance with Article 276 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Local
Government Code. This is undoubtedly a pure question of law, within the competence and jurisdiction
of the RTC to resolve.
With regards to the validity of MO 98-01, the Court finds the argument of the respondent specious. As per
Local Government code: For the valid enactment of ordinances imposing charges, certain legal requisites
must be met. "Provided, That the taxes, fees or charges shall not be unjust, excessive, oppressive,
confiscatory or contrary to declared national policy: Provided, further, That the ordinance levying such
taxes, fees or charges shall not be enacted without any prior public hearing conducted for the

purpose". In addition, the initial public hearing shall be held not earlier than ten (10) days from
the sending out of the notice. Based on the facts of this case, the meeting was conducted only 5 days
after the notice. Since no public hearing had been duly conducted prior to the enactment of Municipal
Ordinance No. 98-01, said ordinance is void and cannot be given any effect.
Petition is granted. MO 98-01 is declared void and ineffective.