Bagatsing vs Ramirez

Facts:

On June 12, 1974, the Municipal Board of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 7522, "AN ORDINANCE REGULATING
THE OPERATION OF PUBLIC MARKETS AND PRESCRIBING FEES FOR THE RENTALS OF STALLS AND
PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION THEREOF AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES." The petitioner City Mayor,
Ramon D. Bagatsing, approved the ordinance on June 15, 1974.

On February 17, 1975, respondent Federation of Manila Market Vendors, Inc. commenced Civil Case before the Court
of First Instance of Manila presided over by respondent Judge, seeking the declaration of nullity of Ordinance No.
7522 for the reason of the ff:

1. the publication requirement under the Revised Charter of the City of Manila has not been complied with;

2. the Market Committee was not given any participation in the enactment of the ordinance, as envisioned by
Republic Act 6039;

3. Section 3 (e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act has been violated; and

4. the ordinance would violate Presidential Decree No. 7 of September 30, 1972 prescribing the collection of
fees and charges on livestock and animal products.

After due hearing on the merits, respondent Judge rendered its decision on August 29, 1975, declaring the nullity of
Ordinance No. 7522 of the City of Manila on the primary ground of non-compliance with the requirement of
publication under the Revised City Charter.

a) was not published at all in two daily newspapers of general circulation in the City of Manila before its enactment
b) neither was it published in the same manner after approval, although it was posted in the legislative hall and
in all city public markets and city public libraries

Petitioners moved for reconsideration of the adverse decision, stressing that

(a) only a post-publication is required by the Local Tax Code; and

(b) private respondent failed to exhaust all administrative remedies before instituting an action in court. Petition was
later denied. Thus, petition for review on certiorari.

Issue/s: What law shall govern the publication of a tax ordinance enacted by the Municipal Board of Manila, the Revised
City Charter (R.A. 409, as amended) or the Local Tax Code (P.D. No. 231)?

Held:

Section 17 of the Revised Charter provides: June 18, 1949

Each proposed ordinance shall be published in two daily newspapers of general circulation in the city, and shall not be
discussed or enacted by the Board until after the third day following such publication. * * * Each approved ordinance *
* * shall be published in two daily newspapers of general circulation in the city, within ten days after its approval; and
shall take effect and be in force on and after the twentieth day following its publication, if no date is fixed in the ordinance.

Section 43 of the Local Tax Code directs: June 1, 1973

Within ten days after their approval, certified true copies of all provincial, city, municipal and barrio ordinances levying
or imposing taxes, fees or other charges shall be published for three consecutive days in a newspaper or publication
widely circulated within the jurisdiction of the local government, or posted in the local legislative hall or premises and in
two other conspicuous places within the territorial jurisdiction of the local government. In either case, copies of all
provincial, city, municipal and barrio ordinances shall be furnished the treasurers of the respective component and
mother units of a local government for dissemination.

While the Revised Charter of the City of Manila requires publication before the enactment of the ordinance and after
the approval thereof in two daily newspapers of general circulation in the city, the Local Tax Code only prescribes for
publication after the approval.

Blackstone defines general law as a universal rule affecting the entire community and special law as one relating to
particular persons or things of a class. And the rule commonly said is that a prior special law is not ordinarily repealed
by a subsequent general law. The fact that one is special and the other general creates a presumption that the special
is to be considered as remaining an exception of the general, one as a general law of the land, the other as the law of
a particular case.