SANTOS VS.

MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE
FACTS:
Pursuant to Sec 1 of the Commonwealth Act 655, Municipal Council of Caloocan, Rizal
passed and approved Ordinance No. 24, Sec 2 and was also approved by the Provincial
Board of Rizal in its Resolution No. 824 series of 1946. It is basically about collection of
different kinds fees related to meat vending business (slaughter fees, internal organ fees,
meat inspection fees and corral fees).
Ines Santos together with the other meat vendors n the public market followed and paid the
fees but also filed a case to challenge the legality of the said ordinance. The plaintiffs first
write a letter to the DILG Sec regarding the matter. He endorsed it to the Provincial Board of
Rizal (with the help of the Provincial Fiscal) and in return replied that Ordinance No. 24 is
illegal and passed Resolution No 1463 revoking the said ordinance. The plaintiffs filed an
action in the Court of First Instance of Rizal to declare the ordinance null and void and to
order the Municipal Treasuer to refund the fees collected.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Ordinance No. 24, Sec 2 is valid?
HELD:
Court of First Instance Ordinance No. 24 is void.
The motion for reconsideration of the appellants was rejected.
Supreme Court Affirmed that it is void BUT in particular Sec 2.
(As a general rule in oridinance: "certain sections or parts of sections of an ordinance may
be held invalid without affecting the validity of what remains, if the parts are not so
interblended and dependent that the vice of one necessarily vitiates the others. It is only
necessary that the good and bad parts be so distinct and independent that the invalid parts
may be eliminated and what remains contains all the essentials of a complete ordinance.")
Additionally, the amounts collected for the internal organ fees, meat inspection fees and
corral fees (which are technically ultra vires or outside the legal power of the statute the
ordinance was based which is Commonwealth Act 655 which only prescribes reasonable
slaughter fees and not other fees as mentioned above as they are deemed already included
to the in the term slaughter house fees.
Another contention was with the refund of the taxes as appellants cited section 306 of the
Tax code which states that the appeallees can only claim refunds on the within a 2 year
timeframe but was denied by the court as the Tax code refers to national internal revenue tax
and not local municipal license fees (which was illegally collected).
--*Ordinance No. 24 Sec 2 - refers to the fees to be collected by the Municipality to any persons,
association or corporation who slaugthers animals in slaughterhouses.
*Commonwealth Act No 655: SECTION 1. Chartered cities, municipalities, and municipal districts
are empowered to establish or authorize the establishment of slaughterhouses, to provide for
their veterinary or sanitary inspection, to inspect and regulate the use of the same and to charge
reasonable slaughter fees