Court Upholds Validity of Kalibo Ordinance No. 2002 – 016

Stallholders File Motion For Reconsideration

By Ambrosio R. Villorente

Hon. Eustaquio O. Terencio, presiding judge of Branch 8, Regional Trial Court, Kalibo, Aklan upheld the “validity of Municipal Ordinance No. 2002 – 016 having been enacted in accordance with RA 7160.”
The above is the decision of Judge Terencio on Special Civil Action No. 6781 for declaratory relief with special restraining order. The case was filed by the stallholders at the Kalibo Shopping Center, (plaintiff) Kalibo, Aklan, represented by Mr. Nicolas R. Rebesencio against the Sangguniang Bayan of Kalibo, the Municipal Mayor and the Municipal Treasurer of Kalibo (defendants).
The plaintiffs questioned “the reasonableness and legality of Municipal Ordinance No. 2002-016 on the ground that the ordinance was enacted contrary to the declared national policy of RA 7160” or the Local Government Code. It alleged that Ordinance No. 2002 – 016 provides for the unjust collection of taxes, fees, or charges which is contrary to the RA 7160 which provides that “taxes, fees or charges shall not be unjust, excessive, oppressive or confiscatory.”
However, in its response, the defendants alleged that Ordinance No. 2002 – 016 is not a tax measure and it was enacted in pursuit of the proprietory rights of the town of Kalibo in accordance with the provisions of RA 7160.
During the free trial that followed, both parties entered into the following stipulations and admission of facts which are:
1. That the plaintiffs and counsel were present during the public hearing conducted on January 8, 2002 at the Session Hall of the Sangguniang Bayan of Kalibo, Aklan;

2. The existence of the Contract of Lease entered into by Nicolas Rebesencio, Sr. and the Himlayang Pilipino Plans, Inc. Contract of Lease of Commercial/Office Space entered into by Nicolas Rebesencio, Sr. and Pacific Plans, Inc. and Contract of Lease of a Commercial Office Space entered into by Nicolas Rebesencio, Sr. and the Trojan Security and Allied Services, Inc. are admitted;

3. That the stallholders were the ones who constructed their respective stalls in the Kalibo Shopping Center about fifteen (15) years ago and the ones who bidded for the area where their stalls are presently located and occupied by them up to the present;

4. That Market Stall(s) Lease Contract …in Plaintiffs’ Position Paper…is likewise admitted.

The parties agreed on the following issues for resolution of the Court:

1. Whether or not Ordinance No. 2002-016 is a tax measure;

2. Whether or not the imposition of charges under Chapter III, Art 2 of said ordinance is excessive and reasonable; and

3. Whether or not there was a prior public hearing conducted for that purpose.

During the hearing of the case, the plaintiffs presented Nicolas Rebesencio, Plaridel Martirez, Rogelio Badana, Olimpia Igcasenza, Wilberto Regalado and Freddie Nalada. Their testimonies dealt on the matter how they occupied their respective stalls, its development, the amount and mode of rental payments. They testified that when the Municipal Government of Kalibo enacted Ordinance No. 2002 – 016, they brought the matter to the Secretary of Justice, Manila. There was no action made by the Office of the Secretary of Justice, so they filed this action with the Regional Trial Court, Kalibo.”
On the part of the defendants, Kalibo Sangguniang Bayan Member Gregorio Malapad, Jr. SB Secretary Diana Fegarido and Aklan Vice Governor Ronquillo C. Tolentino testified.
According to their testimonies, they told the court that SB member Gregorio Malapad Jr., chair of the Ways and Means Committee conducted the public hearing on January 8, 2002. Secretary of Sangguniang Bayan Diana Fegarido was charged to send notices to all stallholders in that hearing. According to their testimonies, the LGU Kalibo “was not invoking the power of taxation but… its proprietory right as owner to fix the rentals due as owner of the stalls located in the Kalibo Shopping Center.”
Vice Governor Ronquillo C. Tolentino, presiding officer of Aklan Sangguniang Panlalawigan affirmed that there was no public hearing made prior to the passage of the said ordinance. However, Tolentino agreed the questioned ordinance is not a tax measure but was only the increase in lease rentals.
In the light of evidence presented and the testimonies of witnesses by both parties, the court found that Ordinance No. 2002 – 016 is not a tax measure and therefore needs no public hearing. The court also concluded that the increased rental of 450 percent from P400.00 to P1,800.00 per month “is still reasonable” and therefore no provisions of RA 7160 is violated.
The court found and held that the defendants have not violated the provision of Section 186 of RA 7160. Therefore Municipal Ordinance No. 2002 – 016 of Kalibo is valid having been enacted in accordance with RA 7160.
In an interview with Mr. Nick Rebesencio, president of the Kalibo Shopping Center Stallholders Association, he told Madyaas Pen they have filed a “Motion For Reconsideration” through their legal counsel, Atty. Sergio R. Rigodon. According to their motion for reconsideration, the honorable court failed to consider the limitations provided for under Sec. 130 and Sec. 186 of the Local Government Code which provides for the fundamental principles which govern the exercise of the taxing and other revenue raising powers of LGU’s.
The motion further stated that Sec. 186 provides that the taxes, fees or charges shall not be unjust, excessive, oppressive, confiscatory or contrary to declared national policy and shall not be enacted without any prior public hearing conducted for the purpose; and that the law does not make any distinction whether the ordinance in question is a tax measure or rentals on the stalls mentioned.
Moreover, the stallholders denied that the P400.00 rental for a 20 square meter stall was fixed 30 years ago as the Contract of Lease between the Municipality of Kalibo represented by then Mayor Allen S. Quimpo and the individual stallholders at the Kalibo Shopping Center was executed on July 5, 1991. The contract expired on July 5, 2001, barely 10 months before the enactment of Municipal Ordinance No. 2002 – 016.
For those above stated reasons, the Kalibo Shopping Center Stallholders Association requests the court to reconsider its decision upholding the validity of Ordinance No. 2002 – 016 and in lieu of it, declare the said Ordinance No. 2002 – 016 as illegal, null and void. /MP mailto:madyaas_pen@yahoo.com