The Supreme Court clarified the extent to which local government units can increase tax rates, ruling that Manila City Ordinance No. 8331 was partially invalid. The ordinance, which imposed a percentage tax on retailers’ gross sales, exceeded the 10% limit on tax adjustments mandated by the Local Government Code (LGC). This decision protects businesses from excessive tax hikes while affirming the local government’s power to generate revenue within legal bounds.

Manila’s Tax Ordinance: When Does Local Power Exceed Legal Limits?

This case revolves around Manila City Ordinance No. 8331, which sought to increase local business tax rates for retailers. Several retail business operators challenged the ordinance, arguing that it violated the Constitution and exceeded the limitations set by the LGC. At the heart of the dispute was Section 104 of the ordinance, which imposed a percentage tax on gross sales of retailers, ranging from 1% to 3%. The operators argued that the increased tax rates far surpassed the 10% limit on tax increases stipulated in Section 191 of the LGC.

The legal framework governing this issue is primarily found in the LGC, which grants local government units the power to impose local business taxes. However, this power is not absolute; it is subject to specific limitations to protect taxpayers from arbitrary or excessive tax burdens. Section 191 of the LGC is particularly relevant, as it provides that local government units may adjust tax rates no more than once every five years, and any such adjustment cannot exceed 10% of the existing rates. This provision aims to balance the local government’s need for revenue with the taxpayers’ need for predictability and stability in tax obligations.

The Secretary of Justice initially declared Section 104 of Ordinance No. 8331 void, citing its violation of Section 191 of the LGC. The City of Manila then filed a Petition for Review Ad Cautelam with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which was later dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. However, the Supreme Court ultimately reversed the CA’s decision, holding that the RTC lacked jurisdiction and declaring a portion of the ordinance invalid.

In its analysis, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the procedures and limitations outlined in Section 187 of the LGC when challenging tax ordinances. The court underscored that revenue measures are vital to local government operations, and any questions regarding their validity must be resolved promptly. Failure to comply with the prescribed timelines could jeopardize the challenge to the ordinance. The Court explained the mandatory nature of these periods, highlighting that compliance is a prerequisite for seeking judicial relief.

SEC. 187. Procedure for Approval and Effectivity of Tax Ordinances and Revenue Measures; Mandatory Public Hearings. – [A]ny question on the constitutionality or legality of tax ordinances or revenue measures may be raised on appeal within thirty (30) days from the effectivity thereof to the Secretary of Justice who shall render a decision within sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of the appeal: [T]hat within thirty (30) days after receipt of the decision or the lapse of the sixty-day period without the Secretary of Justice acting upon the appeal, the aggrieved party may file appropriate proceedings with a court of competent jurisdiction.

Building on this principle, the Court then addressed the appropriate judicial remedy for challenging the Secretary of Justice’s resolution. While the City of Manila filed a Petition for Review Ad Cautelam, the Supreme Court clarified that the proper action was a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. This remedy is available when a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion. The Court emphasized that its power to issue certiorari extends to correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by any branch or instrumentality of the government, even if they do not exercise judicial functions.

[T]he remedies of certiorari and prohibition are necessarily broader in scope and reach, and the writ of certiorari or prohibition may be issued to correct errors of jurisdiction committed not only by a tribunal, corporation, board or officer exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions but also to set right, undo and restrain any act of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by any branch or instrumentality of the Government, even if the latter does not exercise judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions.

This approach contrasts with other cases where appeals from quasi-judicial agencies are typically filed with the Court of Appeals (CA) under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. However, the Court clarified that in this instance, the Secretary of Justice’s decision involved an exercise of quasi-judicial power, making it a proper subject of a petition for review under Rule 43. While the RTC lacked jurisdiction, the CA erred in remanding the case; it should have taken cognizance of the petition itself.

Turning to the substantive issue of the ordinance’s validity, the Supreme Court applied Section 191 of the LGC, which governs the authority of local government units to adjust tax rates. The Court established that two conditions must be met: first, there must be a tax ordinance already imposing a tax in accordance with the LGC; second, there must be a subsequent ordinance adjusting the tax rate fixed by the first ordinance. Here, the Court found that the City of Manila had already imposed a tax on retailers through Ordinance No. 7807 in 1993. Therefore, any subsequent increase would have to comply with the 10% limitation prescribed by Section 191 of the LGC.

The ordinance was initially implemented, and any succeeding ordinance would have to comply with Section 191 of the LGC. With the rates set by Section 143 of the LGC, upon tax on gross sales, the maximum adjusted tax rate that can be imposed would be as follows:

Consequently, the Court declared that Ordinance No. 8331 was partially invalid, specifically concerning the portion imposing more than the allowed adjustment for gross receipts or sales amounting to Php 50,000.00 up to Php 400,000.00. While recognizing the 20-year interval between Ordinance No. 7807 and Ordinance No. 8331, the Court clarified that this did not justify the accumulation and one-time imposition of allowable increases. The option to increase tax rates under the LGC arises every five years, but the decision to exercise this option rests with the local government unit. In cases when the LGU decides to make such adjustments, the basis for the increase would be the prevailing tax rate.

Lastly, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of forum shopping, which the petitioner had accused the respondent of committing. Forum shopping occurs when a party repeatedly avails themselves of multiple judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, based on the same transactions and issues. In this case, the City of Manila had filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the Secretary of Justice and simultaneously filed a Petition for Review ad cautelam with the RTC. However, the Court found that the City of Manila was not guilty of forum shopping, as a motion for reconsideration before the Secretary of Justice is not a required or available remedy under Section 187 of the LGC.

FAQs

This ruling clarifies the balance between local government authority to generate revenue and the need to protect taxpayers from excessive tax increases. It serves as a reminder that while local governments have the power to tax, they must exercise that power within the bounds of the law, particularly the limitations set forth in the Local Government Code.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: De Lima v. City of Manila, G.R. No. 222886, October 17, 2018