Case #1 Bagatsing VS Ramirez
Facts:
Jun 12 1974: Enacted Ordinance No. 7522-
Regulation for Public Market Operations and
Fees.
Such Ordinance is approved by the Petitioner,
Manila City Mayor Ramon Bagatsing.
Feb 17 1975: Manila Market Vendors,
respondents, filed the nullification of Ordinance
No. 7522 for the ff. contentions:
a) Publication requirement is not complied
b) Market committee was deprived of participation
in the enactment, according to RA 6039
c) Sec 3 of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act is
violated
d) It violates PD 7 Sep 30 1972, collection of fees
and charges on livestock and animal products.
RTC: Void Ordinance
Non-Compliance to Publication Requirement
Mar 11 1975: Writ of preliminary injunction of
respondents is denied due to their failure to
exhaust admin. remedies outlined in the Local
Tax Code
Aug 29 1975: Ordinance No 7522 was declared
null and void for non-compliance w/
requirement of publication under Revised City
Charter
It was only posted at legislative hall, all city
public markets and city public libraries but not
published in 2 daily newspaper of general
circulation in the City of Manila.
Petitioners moved for reconsideration for the
ff. contentions:
a) Only post-publication is required in Local
Tax Code
b) It failed to exhaust all admin remedies
before instituting an action in court.
Sep 36 1975: The motion was denied
ISSUE: WON Revised City Charter or Local Tax Code
will govern the Publication of Tax Ordinance in the
case at bar
SC: Valid Ordinance
Reversed and Set Aside RTC Decision
Review on certiorari was filed by petitioners
Petition is Meritorious
The RCC requires publication before the enactment
and after the approval in two daily newspapers of
general circulation, while Local Tax Code only
prescribes publication after approval of in a
newspaper or publication widely circulated within
the jurisdiction of the local government or by
posting it in the local legislative hall or premises
and in two other conspicuous places within the
territorial jurisdiction of the local government
Petitioners complied Local Tax Code
RCC LTC
Special Act General Law
Only for Manila For all Local Gov.
Ordinance in General Ordinance in Particular
June 18 1949 June 01 1973
Revised City Charter prescribes publication of
"ordinance" in general, while Local Tax Code rules
the publication of "ordinance levying or imposing
taxes fees or other charges" in particular
Therefore to ordinances in general, the RCC is
doubtless dominant but its force loses when it
approaches the realm of particularity of LTC
Exhausting Admin Remedies was violated accdg to
LTC Sec 47 bc it requires opinion of the city fiscal
for questions about the tax ordinance but the
respondents brought direct suit in the court
It doesnt violate PD 7 as LTC permits the collection
of proper fees for livestock authorized by the
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources.
The function of the committee is purely
recommendatory, its recommendation is without
binding effect on the Municipal Board and Mayor
Respondents contested that fees imposed will be
for the private use of Asia Integrated Corp. through
a Management and Operating Contract
It didnt violated Sec 3 of Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act because the increased rates of market
stall fees as levied by the ordinance will necessarily
inure to the unwarranted benefit and advantage of
the corporation.
Ordinance No. 7522 was not made for the Corp.
but for the purpose of raising revenues for the City.
Case #2 Lagman VS City of Manila et al
Facts:

Aug 6 1964: Benedicto Lagman filed Petition for

Declatory Relief

Case #3 Manzano VS Valera

Facts:

Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with

Temporary Restraining Order bc of Criminal Libel.
Criminal Case No 5728 was alleged decided with
lack of jurisdiction by Judge Redentor Valera
Juanito Manzano, a Senior Police Officer, was
charged with malicious intent to expose Vilma
Bobila (Complainant prior), an employee of BIR, to
public ridicule.
Manzano, entered and written in PNP, Bangued
Police Station Blotter (Public Record) false,
malicious and highly defamatory statement against
Bobila.
Bobila made grave threats using threatening
remarks against SPO1 Manzano during her visit in
the Police Station.

Qouted from the PNP BPS Blotter:

"ADDANTO PANAGPATINGGAYO NGA KASTA

NGATATTAO, and at the same time she allegedly
raise (sic) her palm and made a sign across her
neck which according to said reported (sic) it was a
clear sign she wants somebody among the BPP
personnel be (sic) killed"

(sic = false)

Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Valera, supported

the arguments of the petitioners and asked the
entire records of the case be elevated to RTC from
MTC.
Motion to Dismiss the case of Libel and Motion of
Reconsideration was both denied by Judge Valera.

Case #4 Garcia VS Pascual

Facts: