G.R. No.

L-41631 December 17, 1976

HON. RAMON D. BAGATSING, as Mayor of the City of Manila; ROMAN G.
GARGANTIEL, as Secretary to the Mayor; THE MARKET ADMINISTRATOR; and THE
MUNICIPAL BOARD OF MANILA, petitioners,
vs.
HON. PEDRO A. RAMIREZ, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Court of First
Instance of Manila, Branch XXX and the FEDERATION OF MANILA MARKET
VENDORS, INC., respondents.
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 96787 before the CFI of Manila presided over by respondent Judge, seeking the
declaration of nullity of Ordinance No. 7522 for the reason that (a) the publication
requirement under the Revised Charter of the City of Manila has not been complied with; (b)
the Market Committee was not given any participation in the enactment of the ordinance, as
envisioned by Republic Act 6039; (c) Section 3 (e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
has been violated; and (d) 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.
Petitioners moved for reconsideration of the adverse decision, stressing that (a) only a postpublication is required by the Local Tax Code; and (b) private respondent failed to exhaust all
administrative remedies before instituting an action in court.
ISSUE:
What law governs the publication of a tax ordinance enacted by the Municipal Board of
Manila, the Revised City Charter (R.A. 409, as amended) which requires publication of the
ordinance before its enactment and after its approval, or the Local Tax Code (P.D. No. 231),
which only demands publication after approval?
HELD:
There is no question that the Revised Charter of the City of Manila is a special act since it
relates only to the City of Manila, whereas the Local Tax Code is a general law because it
applies universally to all local governments. 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. However,
the rule readily yields to a situation where the special statute refers to a subject in general,
which the general statute treats in particular. The exactly is the circumstance obtaining in

the case at bar. Section 17 of the Revised Charter of the City of Manila speaks of "ordinance"
in general, i.e., irrespective of the nature and scope thereof, whereas, Section 43 of the
Local Tax Code relates to "ordinances levying or imposing taxes, fees or other charges" in
particular. In regard, therefore, to ordinances in general, the Revised Charter of the City of
Manila is doubtless dominant, but, that dominant force loses its continuity when it
approaches the realm of "ordinances levying or imposing taxes, fees or other charges" in
particular. There, the Local Tax Code controls. Here, as always, a general provision must give
way to a particular provision. Special provision governs. This is especially true where the law
containing the particular provision was enacted later than the one containing the general
provision. The City Charter of Manila was promulgated on June 18, 1949 as against the Local
Tax Code which was decreed on June 1, 1973. The law-making power cannot be said to have
intended the establishment of conflicting and hostile systems upon the same subject, or to
leave in force provisions of a prior law by which the new will of the legislating power may be
thwarted and overthrown. Such a result would render legislation a useless and idle
ceremony, and subject the law to the reproach of uncertainty and unintelligibility.
It is maintained by private respondent that the subject ordinance is not a "tax ordinance,"
because the imposition of rentals, permit fees, tolls and other fees is not strictly a taxing
power but a revenue-raising function, so that the procedure for publication under the Local
Tax Code finds no application. The pretense bears its own marks of fallacy. Precisely, the
raising of revenues is the principal object of taxation. Under Section 5, Article XI of the New
Constitution, "Each local government unit shall have the power to create its own sources of
revenue and to levy taxes, subject to such provisions as may be provided by law." And one
of those sources of revenue is what the Local Tax Code points to in particular: "Local
governments may collect fees or rentals for the occupancy or use of public markets and
premises * * *." They can provide for and regulate market stands, stalls and privileges, and,
also, the sale, lease or occupancy thereof. They can license, or permit the use of, lease, sell
or otherwise dispose of stands, stalls or marketing privileges.
ACCORDINGLY, the decision of the court below is hereby reversed and set aside. Ordinance
No. 7522 of the City of Manila, dated June 15, 1975, is hereby held to have been validly
enacted. No. costs.