EN BANC

January 10, 2017

G.R. No. 202781

CRISANTO M. AALA, ROBERT N. BALAT, DATU BELARDO M. BUNGAD, CESAR B.

CUNTAPAY, LAURA S. DOMINGO, GLORIA M. GAZMEN-TAN, and JOCELYN P. SALUDARES-
CADAYONA, Petitioners,
vs.
HON. REY T. UY, in his capacity as the City Mayor of Tagum City, Davao del Norte, MR.
ALFREDO H. SILAWAN, in his capacity as City Assessor of Tagum City, HON. DE CARLO L.
UY, HON. ALLAN L. RELLON, HON. MARIA LINA F. BAURA, HON. NICANDRO T.
SUAYBAGUIO, JR., HON. ROBERT L. SO, HON. JOEDEL T. CAASI, HON. OSCAR M.
BERMUDEZ, HON. ALAN D. ZULUETA, HON. GETERITO T. GEMENTIZA, HON. TRISTAN
ROYCE R. AALA, HON. FRANCISCO C. REMITAR, in their capacity as City Councilors of
Tagum City, Davao del Norte, HON. ALFREDO R. PAGDILAO, in his capacity as ABC
representative, and HON. MARIE CAMILLE C. MANANSALA, in her capacity as SKF
representative, Respondents.

DECISION

LEONEN, J.:

Parties must comply with the doctrines on hierarchy of courts and exhaustion of administrative
remedies. Otherwise, they run the risk of bringing premature cases before this Court, which may
result to protracted litigation and overclogging of dockets.

This resolves the original action for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus filed by petitioners
1

Crisanto M. Aala, Robert N. Balat, Datu Belardo M. Bungad, Cesar B. Cuntapay, Laura S. Domingo,
Gloria M. Gazmen-Tan, and Jocelyn P.Saludares-Cadayona. They question the validity of City
2

Ordinance No. 558, s-2012 of the City of Tagum, Davao del Norte, which the Sangguniang
Panlungsod of Tagum City enacted on March 19, 2012. 3

On July 12, 2011, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Tagum City's Committee on Finance conducted a
public hearing for the approval of a proposed ordinance. The proposed ordinance sought to adopt a
new schedule of market values and assessment levels of real properties in Tagum City .4

On November 3, 2011, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Tagum City passed City Ordinance No. 516,
s-2011, entitled An Ordinance Approving the New Schedule of Market Values, its Classification, and
Assessment Level of Real Properties in the City of Tagum. The ordinance was approved by Mayor
5

Rey T. Uy (Mayor Uy) on November 11,2011 and was immediately forwarded to the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan of Davao del Norte for review.6
On February 7, 2012, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Davao del Norte's Committee on Ways and
Means/Games and Amusement issued a report dated February 1, 2012 declaring City Ordinance
No. 516, s-2011 valid. It also directed the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Tagum City to revise the
7

ordinance based on the recommendations of the Provincial Assessor's Office. 8

Consequently, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Davao del Norte returned City Ordinance No. 516,
s-2011 to the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Tagum City for modification. 9

As a result of the amendments introduced to City Ordinance No. 516, s-2011, on March 19, 2012,
the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Tagum City passed City Ordinance No. 558, s-2012. The new 10

ordinance was approved by Mayor Uy on April 10, 2012. On the same day, it was transmitted for
review to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Davao del Norte. The Sangguniang Panlalawigan of
Davao del Norte received the proposed ordinance on April 12, 2012. 11

On April 30, 2012, Engineer Crisanto M. Aala (Aala) and Colonel Jorge P. Ferido (Ferido ), both
residents of Tagum City, filed before the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Davao del Norte an
Opposition/Objection to City Ordinance No. 558, s-2012. The opposition was docketed as Case
12

No. DOCS-12-000362 and was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means/Games and
Amusement. The Committee conducted a hearing to tackle the matters raised in the Opposition.
13 14

Present at the hearing were oppositors Aala and Ferido, their counsel, Alfredo H. Silawan, City
Assessor of Tagum City, and Atty. Rolando Tumanda, City Legal Officer of Tagum City. 15

In their Opposition/Objection, Aala and Ferido asserted that City Ordinance No. 558, s-2012
16

violated Sections 130(a), 198(a) and (b), 199(b), and 201 of the Local Government Code of
17 18 19 20

1991. They alleged that Sections III C 1, 2, and 3 as well as Sections III G 1(b) and 4(g) of the
21 22

proposed ordinance divided Tagum City into different zones, classified real properties per zone, and
fixed its market values depending on where they were situated without taking into account the
23

"distinct and fundamental differences . . . and elements of value" of each property.

24

Aala and Ferido asserted that the proposed ordinance classified and valued those properties located
in a predominantly commercial area as commercial, regardless of the purpose to which they were
devoted. According to them, this was erroneous because real property should be classified,
25

valued, and assessed not according to its location but on the basis of actual use. Moreover, they
26

pointed out that the proposed ordinance imposed exorbitant real estate taxes, which the residents of
Tagum City could not afford to pay. 27

After the hearing, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Davao del Norte's Committee on Ways and
Means/Games and Amusement issued Committee Report No. 5 dated May 4, 2012, which returned
City Ordinance No. 558, s-2012 to the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Tagum City. The Sangguniang 28

Panlalawigan of Davao del Norte also directed the Sangguniang Panlungsod ofTagum City to give
attention and due course to the oppositors' concerns. 29

On May 22, 2012, the Sangguniang Panlungsod ofTagum City issued Resolution No. 808, s-2012
dated May 14, 2012, requesting the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Davao del Norte to reconsider its
position on City Ordinance No. 558, s-2012. 30

On June 18, 2012, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Davao del Norte issued Resolution No.
428 declaring as invalid Sections III C 1, 2, and 3, Sections III D (1) and (2), and Sections G l(b)
31

and 4(g) of City Ordinance No. 558, s-2012. 32

However, on July 9, 2012, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Tagum City passed Resolution No. 874,
s-2012 declaring City Ordinance No. 558, s-2012 as valid. The Sangguniang Panlungsod of Tagum
33

City cited as its basis Section 56(d) of the Local. Government Code of 1991 and Department of
34

Interior and Local Government Opinion No. 151 dated November 25, 2010. It argued that the 35

Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Davao del Norte failed to take action on City Ordinance No. 558, s-
2012 within 30 days from its receipt on April 12, 2012. Hence, under Section 56(d) of the Local
36

Government Code of 1991, City Ordinance No. 558, s-2012 enjoys the presumption of validity. 37

On July 13, 2012, City Ordinance No. 558, s-2012 was published in the July 13-19, 2012 issue of
Trends and Time, a newspaper of general circulation in Tagum City.
38 39

Alarmed by the impending implementation of City Ordinance No. 558, s-2012, petitioners filed before
this Court an original action for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus on August 13, 2012. The 40

Petition included a prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary
injunction. 41

In their Petition, petitioners seek to nullify the ordinance on the ground that respondents enacted it
with grave abuse of discretion. Petitioners invoke this Court's original jurisdiction under Article VIII,
42

Section 5(1) of the Constitution in view of the need to immediately resolve the issues they have
43

raised.44

Petitioners allege that there is an urgent need to restrain the implementation of City Ordinance No.
558, s-2012. Otherwise, the City Government of Tagum would proceed with "the collection of
45

exorbitant real property taxes to the great damage and prejudice of . . . petitioners and the
thousands of taxpayers inhabiting Tagum City[.]" 46

On October 16, 2012, respondent Geterito T. Gementiza (Gementiza) filed a Motion praying that he 47

be dropped as a respondent in the case. According to respondent Gementiza, he had opposed the
passage of City Ordinance No. 558, s-2012 during the deliberations of the Sangguniang Panlungsod
of Tagum City. In the Resolution dated October 23, 2012, this Court required the parties to file a
48 49

comment on respondent Gementiza's Motion.

On October 31, 2012, respondents filed a Comment on the Petition. In the Resolution dated
50 51

December 4, 2012, this Court noted the Comment and required petitioners to file a reply to the
Comment.

Meanwhile, on February 20, 2013, respondents filed a Manifestation 52

stating that the implementation of City Ordinance No. 558, s-2012 had been

deferred due to the wide extent of damage caused by Typhoon Pablo in Tagum City. 53

On February 25, 2013, petitioners and respondents filed their respective Comments on respondent 54

Gementiza's Motion. Petitioners argued that the passage of the questioned ordinance was a collegial
act of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Tagum City, of which respondent Gementiza was a member.
Hence, respondent Gementiza should still be impleaded in the case regardless of whether or not he
opposed the passage of the ordinance. 55

On March 6, 2013, petitioners filed a Reply to the Comment dated October 18, 2012.
56
1âwphi1
In the Resolution dated March 19, 2013, this Court gave due course to the Petition, treated
57

respondents' Comment as an answer, and required the parties to submit their memoranda. On July
10, 2013, petitioners filed their Memorandum dated June 20, 2013. On September 6, 2013,
58

respondents filed their Memorandum dated August 2, 2013. 59

Petitioners allege that Tagum City is predominantly agricultural. Although it boasts of expansive
60

highways "lined with tall palm trees" and a state-of-the-art city hall, Tagum City still has an
outstanding debt of ₱450 million. The income level of its 240,000 inhabitants remains constant, and
61

due to unreasonable business taxes, most businesses have either scaled down or closed. 62

Set against this factual backdrop, petitioners assail the validity of City Ordinance No. 558, s-
2012. They claim that the ordinance imposes exorbitant real estate taxes because of the
1âwphi1

Sangguniang Panlungsod's erroneous classification and valuation of real properties. 63

Petitioners are concerned residents of Tagum City who would be directly affected by the
implementation of the questioned ordinance. Well-aware of the doctrines on the hierarchy of courts
64

and exhaustion of administrative remedies, they beg this Court's indulgence to allow immediate and
direct resort to it. According to petitioners, this case is exempt from the application of the doctrine
65

on hierarchy of courts. They anchor their claim on the ground that the redress they desire cannot be
obtained in the appropriate courts. Furthermore, petitioners assert that the issue they have raised
66

is purely legal and that the case involves paramount public interest, which warrants the relaxation of
the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies. 67

Petitioners believe that compliance with Section 187 of the Local Government Code of 1991 would
harm the taxpayers of Tagum City. They argue that the cited provision hardly constitutes an
68

efficacious remedy that can provide the redress they urgently seek. According to petitioners, there
69

is nothing that would prevent the City Government of Tagum from collecting exorbitant real property
taxes since the Secretary of Justice does not have the power to suspend the implementation of the
questioned ordinance. Moreover, the 60-day period given to the Secretary of Justice within which to
70

render a decision would merely constitute delay and give the City Government of Tagum enough
time to assess and collect exorbitant real property taxes. 71

Petitioners also believe that upon receipt of an assessment, they would be precluded from
questioning the excessiveness of the real property tax imposed by way of protest. Under the Local 72

Government Code of 1991, the amount of real property tax assessed must first be paid before a
protest may be entertained. However, petitioners contend that the taxpayers of Tagum City would
73

not be able to comply with this rule due to lack of money. Petitioners justify immediate resort to this
74

Court due to this impasse. 75

In their Comment, respondents attack the propriety of the remedy of which petitioners have availed
76

themselves. Respondents point out that the extraordinary remedy of certiorari is only directed
against judicial and quasi-judicial acts. According to respondents, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of
77

Tagum City exercised a legislative function in enacting the questioned ordinance and is, thus,
beyond the scope of a petition for certiorari. Moreover, there is a plain, speedy, and adequate
78

remedy available to petitioners under the law. Citing Section 187 of the Local Government Code of
79

1991, respondents argue that petitioners should have exhausted administrative remedies by filing an
appeal before the Secretary of Justice. 80

Respondents further argue that in directly filing their Petition before this Court, petitioners violated
the doctrine on hierarchy of courts. They stress that the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and the
81

Regional Trial Courts have concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, and
mandamus. 82
Respondents also allege that the Petition raises factual issues, which warrants the dismissal of the
Petition. 83

Going into the substantive aspect of the case, petitioners contend that the ordinance created only
two (2) categories of real properties. Petitioners point out that Sections III C and D, which pertain to
the classification of commercial and industrial lands, list all the streets and barrios in Tagum
City. Because of this, petitioners argue that the ordinance effectively categorized all lands in
84

Tagum City either into commercial or industrial lands, regardless of the purpose to which they were
devoted and the extent of their development. 85

Petitioners further contend that since all lands in Tagum City had been classified as commercial or
industrial, all buildings and improvements would likewise be classified as commercial or industrial.
Otherwise, an absurd situation would arise where the building and the land on which it stands would
have a different classification. 86

In other words, petitioners claim that the ordinance created a blanket classification of real properties
without regard to the principle of actual use. To the mind of petitioners, this blanket classification
"does not conform to the reality that Tagum City is not that far advanced and commercially
developed like Ayala Avenue [in] Makati City where [almost all] of the properties fronting the entire
breadth of Ayala Avenue are . . . used for commercial purposes." 87

In classifying real properties based on location, petitioners argue that the ordinance contravenes
Section 217 of the Local Government Code of 1991, which provides that "[ r] eal property shall be
classified, valued and assessed on the basis of its actual use regardless of where located, whoever
owns it, and whoever uses it." Petitioners highlight the necessity in properly classifying real
88

properties based on actual use because the classification of real property determines the
assessment level that would be applied in computing the real property tax due. 89

Petitioners add that because all real properties in Tagum City were classified into commercial or
industrial properties, their valuation would then correspond to that of commercial or industrial
properties as the case may be. In effect, the ordinance provided a uniform market value for all real
90

properties without regard to the principle of actual use. According to petitioners, this is erroneous.
91

They further add that the schedule of fair market values was arbitrarily prepared by those who do not
know the basic principles of property valuation. 92

By way of example, petitioners point out that the market values of residential lands, which were
reclassified under the ordinance as commercial, increased from ₱600.00 per square meter to
₱5,000.00 per square meter, or by 833% in a span of only three (3) years. According to petitioners,
93

this violates Section 191 of the Local Government Code of 1991. 94

Petitioners allege that the ordinance equated the market values of unused and undeveloped lands to
that of fully developed lands. Hence, the ordinance discriminates against poor land owners who do
95

not have the means to pay the increased amount of real property taxes. Petitioners claim that what
96

the Sangguniang Panlungsod had actually determined were the zonal values of real properties in
Tagum City and not the market values. 97

Petitioners contend that respondents committed grave abuse of discretion in fixing the new schedule
of market values by usurping or arrogating unto itself the City Assessor's authority to fix the schedule
of market values. Being "personally acquainted with the nature, condition, and value of the said real
98

properties" in a given locality, the City Assessor is in the best position to fix the schedule of market
values. However, petitioners believe that the schedule of market values was prepared by the
99

Sangguniang Panlungsod of Tagum City, and not by the City Assessor. They also believe that the
100
City Assessor abdicated his duty and unlawfully neglected to perform what was mandated under
Section 212 of the Local Government Code of 1991. 101

Petitioners conclude that what the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Tagum City had undertaken was a
general revision of real property assessments and property classification under Section 212 of the
Local Government Code of 1991. They argue that "the general revision of [real property]
102

assessments and property classification cannot be made simultaneously with the ordinance adopting
[a new] schedule of fair market values." 103

Petitioners raise the sole substantive issue of whether respondents committed grave abuse of
discretion in preparing, enacting, and approving City Ordinance No. 558, s-2012, which imposes
exorbitant real property taxes in violation of the equal protection clause, due process clause, and the
rule on uniformity in taxation.104

On the other hand, respondents argue that petitioners misconstrued the ordinance. They claim
105

that a careful reading of the provisions would reveal that there were four (4) categories by which real
properties were to be classified, valued, and assessed, namely: agricultural, residential, commercial,
and industrial. Although the ordinance lists specific roads and areas in Tagum City classified as
106

commercial and industrial, this does not mean that all properties located in commercial and industrial
areas would automatically be classified as such. 107

Respondents stress that the principle of actual use still plays an important role in the classification
and assessment of real properties. For the proper computation of the real property tax due, real
108

properties located in commercial and industrial areas will be assessed depending on how they are
used. To illustrate, if a parcel of land located along a commercial area is used partly for
109

commercial purposes and partly for agricultural purposes, then the fair market value of the portion
used for commercial purposes will correspond to that of commercial lands, while the fair market
value of the portion used for agricultural purposes will correspond to that of agricultural lands.110

Respondents reiterate their claim that the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Davao del Norte acted
beyond the 30-day reglementary period under Section 56(d) of the Local Government Code of
1991. Citing Department of Interior and Local Government's Opinion No. 151 dated November 25,
111

2010, respondents argue that the phrase "take action" means that the Sangguniang Panlalawigan,
within 30 days from receipt of the ordinance or resolution, "should have issued their legislative action
in the form of a [r]esolution containing their disapproval in whole or in part [of] any ordinance or
resolution submitted to them for review[.]" Since the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Davao del
112

Norte received the questioned ordinance on April 12, 2012, it had until May 12, 2012 to take
action. However, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Davao del Norte only issued Resolution No.
113

428 on June 18, 2012. 114

For this Court's resolution are the following issues:

Procedural

First, whether this case falls under the exceptions to the doctrine on hierarchy of courts;

Second, whether this case falls under the exceptions to the rule on exhaustion of administrative
remedies;

Third, whether petitioners correctly availed themselves of the extraordinary remedies of certiorari,
prohibition, and mandamus; and
Lastly, whether respondent Gementiza should be dropped as a respondent in the case.

Substantive

First, whether respondents committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction in preparing, enacting, and approving City Ordinance No. 558, s-2012;

Second, whether City Ordinance No. 558, s-2012 classifies all real properties in Tagum City into
commercial or industrial properties only;

Third, whether the schedule market values conform to the principle that real properties shall be
valued on the basis of actual use;

Fourth, whether City Ordinance No. 558, s-2012 imposes exorbitant real property taxes; and

Lastly, whether City Ordinance No. 558, s-2012 is unconstitutional for violation of the equal
protection clause, due process clause, and the rule on uniformity in taxation.

We deny the Petition for serious procedural errors.

The doctrine on hierarchy of courts is a practical judicial policy designed to restrain parties from
directly resorting to this Court when relief may be obtained before the lower courts. The logic
115

behind this policy is grounded on the need to prevent "inordinate demands upon the Court's time
and attention which are better devoted to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction," as well as to
prevent the congestion of the Court's dockets. Hence, for this Court to be able to "satisfactorily
116

perform the functions assigned to it by the fundamental charter[,]" it must remain as a "court of last
resort." This can be achieved by relieving the Court of the "task of dealing with causes in the first
117

instance." 118

As expressly provided in the Constitution, this Court has original jurisdiction "over petitions
for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus." However, this Court has
119

emphasized in People v. Cuaresma that the power to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, and
120

mandamus does not exclusively pertain to this Court. Rather, it is shared with the Court of Appeals
121

and the Regional Trial Courts. Nevertheless, "this concurrence of jurisdiction" does not give parties
122

unfettered discretion as to the choice of forum. The doctrine on hierarchy of courts is determinative
of the appropriate venue where petitions for extraordinary writs should be filed. Parties cannot
123

randomly select the court or forum to which their actions will be directed.

There is another reason why this Court enjoins strict adherence to the doctrine on hierarchy of
courts. As explained in Diocese of Bacolod v. Commission on Elections, "[t]he doctrine that
124

requires respect for the hierarchy of courts was created by this court to ensure that every level of the
judiciary performs its designated roles in an effective and efficient manner." Thus:
125

Trial courts do not only determine the facts from the evaluation of the evidence presented before
them. They are likewise competent to determine issues of law which may include the validity of an
ordinance, statute, or even an executive issuance in relation to the Constitution. To effectively
perform these functions, they are territorially organized into regions and then into branches. Their
writs generally reach within those territorial boundaries. Necessarily, they mostly perform the all-
important task of inferring the facts from the evidence as these are physically presented before
them. In many instances, the facts occur within their territorial jurisdiction, which properly present the
'actual case' that makes ripe a determination of the constitutionality of such action. The
consequences, of course, would be national in scope. There are, however, some cases where resort
to courts at their level would not be practical considering their decisions could still be appealed
before the higher courts, such as the Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals is primarily designed as an appellate court that reviews the determination of
facts and law made by the trial courts. It is collegiate in nature. This nature ensures more
standpoints in the review of the actions of the trial court. But the Court of Appeals also has original
jurisdiction over most special civil actions. Unlike the trial courts, its writs can have a nationwide
scope. It is competent to determine facts and, ideally, should act on constitutional issues that may
not necessarily be novel unless there are factual questions to determine.

This court, on the other hand, leads the judiciary by breaking new ground or further reiterating - in
the light of new circumstances or in the light of some confusions of bench or bar - existing
precedents. Rather than a court of first instance or as a repetition of the actions of the Court of
Appeals, this court promulgates these doctrinal devices in order that it truly performs that
role. (Citation omitted)
126

Consequently, this Court will not entertain direct resort to it when relief can be obtained in the lower
courts. This holds especially true when questions of fact are raised. Unlike this Court, trial courts
127 128

and the Court of Appeals are better equipped to resolve questions of fact. They are in the best
129

position to deal with causes in the first instance.

However, the doctrine on hierarchy of courts is not an inflexible rule. In Spouses Chua v.
130

Ang, this Court held that "[a] strict application of this rule may be excused when the reason behind
131

the rule is not present in a case[.]" This Court has recognized that a direct invocation of its original
132

jurisdiction may be warranted in exceptional cases as when there are compelling reasons clearly set
forth in the petition, or when what is raised is a pure question of law.
133 134

In a fairly recent case, we summarized other well-defined exceptions to the doctrine on hierarchy of
courts. Immediate resort to this Court may be allowed when any of the following grounds are
present: (1) when genuine issues of constitutionality are raised that must be addressed immediately;
(2) when the case involves transcendental importance; (3) when the case is novel; (4) when the
constitutional issues raised are better decided by this Court; (5) when time is of the essence; (6)
when the subject of review involves acts of a constitutional organ; (7) when there is no other plain,
speedy, adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law; (8) when the petition includes questions that
may affect public welfare, public policy, or demanded by the broader interest of justice; (9) when the
order complained of was a patent nullity; and (10) when the appeal was considered as an
inappropriate remedy. 135

None of the exceptions to the doctrine on hierarchy of courts are present in this case. Significantly,
although petitioners raise questions of law, other interrelated factual issues have emerged from the
parties' arguments, which this Court deems indispensable for the proper disposition of this case.

In Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 136

this Court explained that a question of fact exists:

when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of facts or when the query invites
calibration of the whole evidence considering mainly the credibility of the witnesses, the existence
and relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances as well as their relation to each other and to the
whole, and the probability of the situation. (Citations omitted)
137
The resolution of the first substantive issue of whether respondents committed grave abuse of
discretion in preparing, enacting, and approving City Ordinance No. 558, s-2012 requires the
presentation of evidence on the procedure undertaken by the City Government of Tagum.

The second substantive issue, which involves the alleged blanket classification of real properties, is
likewise factual in nature. There is still a dispute on whether the questioned ordinance truly limited
the classification of real properties into two (2) categories. This Court cannot resolve this issue
without further evidence from the parties, particularly from the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Tagum
City.

The third and fourth issues, which are essential for the proper disposition of this case, are questions
of fact. To determine whether the schedule of fair market values conforms to the principle of actual
use requires evidence from the person or persons who prepared it. These individuals must show the
process and method they employed in arriving at the schedule of market values.

It is worth mentioning that several of petitioners' assertions, on which their arguments are based, are
purely speculative. For instance, petitioners claim that the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Tagum City
usurped the City Assessor's authority in fixing the schedule of fair market values. Yet, they offer no
138

evidence to support their allegation. They merely rely on a comparison between the new schedule of
market values and the schedule of market va1ues in a previous ordinance. 139

With regard to the fourth issue, petitioners invite this Court to compare the new schedule of fair
market values with the old schedule of fair market values and determine whether the increase was
exorbitant. In the absence of any evidence, this Court does not have the technical expertise to make
such determination. We cannot simply rely on bare numbers.

In order to resolve these factual issues, we will be tasked to receive evidence from both parties.
However, the initial reception and appreciation of evidence are functions that this Court cannot
perform. These functions are best left to the trial courts. This Court is not a trier of facts. The
140

factual issues in this case should have been raised and ventilated in the proper forum.

II

Parties are generally precluded from immediately seeking the intervention of courts when "the law
provides for remedies against the action of an administrative board, body, or officer." The practical
141

purpose behind the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies is to provide an orderly

procedure by giving the administrative agency an "opportunity to decide the matter by itself correctly
[and] to prevent unnecessary and premature resort to the courts." 142

Under Section 187 of the Local Government Code of 1991, aggrieved taxpayers who question the
validity or legality of a tax ordinance are required to file an appeal before the Secretary of Justice
before they seek intervention from the regular courts. Section 187 of the Local Government Code of
1991 provides:

SECTION 187. Procedure for Approval and Effectivity of Tax Ordinances and Revenue Measures;
Mandatory Public Hearings. - The procedure for approval of local tax ordinances and revenue
measures shall be in accordance with the provisions of this Code: Provided, That public hearings
shall be conducted for the purpose prior to the enactment thereof: Provided, further, That any
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: Provided, however, That such
appeal shall not have the effect of suspending the effectivity of the ordinance and the accrual and
payment of the tax, fee, or charge levied therein: Provided, finally, That 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.

In Reyes v. Court of Appeals, this Court declared the mandatory nature of Section 187 of the
143

Local Government Code of 1991 :

[T]he law requires that the dissatisfied taxpayer who questions the validity or legality of a tax
ordinance must file his appeal to the Secretary of Justice, within 30 days from effectivity thereof. In
case the Secretary decides the appeal, a period also of 30 days is allowed for an aggrieved party to
go to court. But if the Secretary does not act thereon, after the lapse of 60 days, a party could
already proceed to seek relief in court. These three separate periods are clearly given for
compliance as a prerequisite before seeking redress in a competent court. Such statutory periods
are set to prevent delays as well as enhance the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial functions.
For this reason the courts construe these provisions of statutes as mandatory. (Emphasis
144

supplied, citations omitted)

The same principle was reiterated in Jardine Davies Insurance Brokers, Inc. v.
Aliposa. In Jardine, the then Sangguniang Bayan of Makati enacted Municipal Ordinance No. 92-
145

072, otherwise known as the Makati Revenue Code, which provided for the schedule of "real estate,
business, and franchise taxes . . . at rates higher than those in the Metro Manila Revenue Code."
Under this ordinance, Jardine Davies Insurance Brokers, Inc. (Jardine) was assessed taxes, fees,
and charges. Jardine believed that the ordinance was void. It filed before the Regional Trial Court a
case seeking a refund for alleged overpayment of taxes. The trial court dismissed the complaint.
Aggrieved, Jardine filed before this Court a Petition for review raising pure questions of law. Ruling
on the Petition, this Court observed that Jardine essentially questioned the validity of the tax
ordinance without filing an appeal before the Secretary of Justice, in violation of Section 187 of the
Local Government Code of 1991:

In this case, petitioner, relying on the resolution of the Secretary of Justice in The Philippine Racing
Club, Inc. v. Municipality of Makati case, posited in its complaint that the ordinance which was the
basis of respondent Makati for the collection of taxes from petitioner was null and void. However, the
Court agrees with the contention of respondents that petitioner was proscribed from filing its
complaint with the RTC of Makati for the reason that petitioner failed to appeal to the Secretary of
Justice within 30 days from the effectivity date of the ordinance as mandated by Section 187 of the
Local Government Code[.] 146

The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, like the doctrine on hierarchy of courts, is not
an iron-clad rule. It admits of several well-defined exceptions. Province of Zamboanga del Norte v.
Court of Appeals has held that the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies may be
147

dispensed in the following instances:

(1) [W]hen there is a violation of due process; (2) when the issue involved is purely a legal question;
(3) when the administrative action is patently illegal and amounts to lack or excess of jurisdiction; (4)
when there is estoppel on the part of the administrative agency concerned; (5) when there is
irreparable injury; (6) when the respondent is a department secretary whose acts, as an alter ego of
the President, bears the implied and assumed approval of the latter; (7) when to require exhaustion
of administrative remedies would be unreasonable; (8) when it would amount to a nullification of a
claim; (9) when the subject matter is a private land in land case proceedings; (10) when the rule
does not provide a plain, speedy and adequate remedy; (11) when there are circumstances
indicating the urgency of judicial intervention; and unreasonable delay would greatly prejudice the
complainant; (12) when no administrative review is provided by law; (13) where the rule of qualified
political agency applies; and (14) when the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has
been rendered moot. 148

Thus, in Alta Vista Golf and Country Club v. City of Cebu, this Court excluded the case from the
149

strict application of the principle on exhaustion of administrative remedies, particularly for non-
compliance with Section 187 of the Local Government Code of 1991, on the ground that the issue
raised in the Petition was purely legal.150

In this case, however, the issues involved are not purely legal. There are factual issues that need to
be addressed for the proper disposition of the case. In other words, this case is still not ripe for
adjudication.

To question the validity of the ordinance, petitioners should have first filed an appeal before the
Secretary of Justice. However, petitioners justify direct resort to this Court on the ground that they
are entangled in a "catch- 22 situation." They believe that filing an appeal before the Secretary of
151

Justice would merely delay the process and give the City Government of Tagum ample time to
collect real property taxes. 152

The questioned ordinance was published in July 2012. Had petitioners immediately filed an
153

appeal, the Secretary of Justice would have had enough time to render a decision. Section 187 of
the Local Government Code of 1991 gives the Secretary of Justice 60 days to act on the appeal.
Within 30 days from receipt of an unfavorable decision or upon inaction by the Secretary of Justice
within the time prescribed, aggrieved taxpayers may opt to lodge the appropriate proceeding before
the regular courts.154

The "catch-22 situation" petitioners allude to does not exist. Under Section 166 of the Local
Government Code of 1991, local taxes "shall accrue on the first (1st) day of January of each
year." When the questioned ordinance was published in July 2012, the City Government of Tagum
155

could not have immediately issued real property tax assessments. Hence, petitioners had ample
time within which to question the validity of the tax ordinance.

In cases where the validity or legality of a tax ordinance is questioned, the rule that real property
taxes must first be paid before a protest is lodged does not apply. Taxpayers must first receive an
assessment before this rule is triggered. In Jardine, this Court ruled that prior payment under
156

protest is not required >>

when the taxpayer is questioning the very authority of the assessor to impose taxes:

Hence, if a taxpayer disputes the reasonableness of an increase in a real estate tax assessment, he
is required to "first pay the tax" under protest. Otherwise, the city or municipal treasurer will not act
on his protest. In the case at bench, however, the petitioners are questioning the very authority and
power of the assessor, acting solely and independently, to impose the assessment and of the
treasurer to collect the tax. These are not questions merely of amounts of the increase in the tax but
attacks on the very validity of any increase. (Emphasis and citation omitted)
157

Given the serious procedural errors committed by petitioners, we find no genuine reason to dwell on
and resolve the other issues presented in this case. The factual issues raised by petitioners could
have been properly addressed by the lower courts had they adhered to the doctrines of hierarchy of
courts and exhaustion of administrative remedies. These rules were established for a reason. While
petitioners' enthusiasm in their advocacy may be admirable, their overzealousness has further
delayed their cause.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

MARVIC M.V.F. LEONEN

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

Chief Justice

ANTONIO T. CARPIO PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.

Associate Justice Associate Justice

TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO DIOSDADO M. PERALTA

Associate Justice Associate Justice

LUCAS P. BERSAMIN MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

Associate Justice Associate Justice

JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA BIENVENIDO L. REYES

Associate Justice Associate Justice

ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE FRANCIS H. JARDELEZA

Associate Justice Associate Justice

ALFREDO BENJAMIN S. CAGUIOA

Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case
was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the court.

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

Chief Justice