General Powers and Attributes of LGU

Matalin Coconut Co. vs Municipal Council of Malabang, Lanao Del Sur, GR No.
L-28138, August 13, 1986
o

In an action for declaratory relief assailing the validity of a municipal

tax ordinance, the court, in deciding that the ordinance is void, is
authorized to require a refund oftaxes paid there under without the
necessity of converting the proceeding into an ordinary action there
having been no alleged violation yet.

A fixed tax denominatd as a police inspection fee of P0.30 per sack

of cassava starch shipped out of the municipality is VOID where it is not
for public purpose, just and uniform because the police do nothing but
count the number of cassava sacks shipped out.

Inspection fee should not be excessive and confiscatory

The power to regulate as an exercise of police power does not include

the power to impose fees for revenue purposes.

Fees for purely regulatory purposes must be no more sufficient to

cover the actual cost of inspection and examination as nearly as the

same can be estimated.

Magtajas vs Pryce Properties, Inc, GR No. 111097, July 20, 1994
o

Tests of a valid ordinance to be valid, it must conform to the following

substantive requirements
o

It must not contravene the Constitution or any statute.

It must not be unfair or oppressive.

It must not be partial or discriminatory.

It must not prohibit but regulate trade.

It must not be unreasonable.

It must be general and consistent with public policy.

MNEMONIC: CUP PUG

The rationale of the requirement that the ordinances should not

contravene a statute is obvious as municipal governments are ONLY
AGENTS of the national government and that the delegate cannot be
superior to the principal or exercise powers higher than those of the
latter.

Implied repeals it is a familiar rule that implied repeals are not lightly
presumed in the absence of a clear and unmistakable showing of such
intention.

A contravention of a law is not necessarily a contravention of the

constitution.
Tatel vs Municipality of Virac, GR No. 40243, March 11, 1992
o

Municipal corporations are agencies of the State for the promotion and
maintenance of local self-government and as such are endowed with
police power in order to effectively accomplish and carry out the
declared objects of their creation.

Role of a local agency unit and tests of a valid ordinance was discussed

here as well.
City of Cebu vs CA, GR No. 109173, July 5, 1996
o

A Local Government Unit may, through its Chief Executive and acting
pursuant to an ordinance, exercise the power of eminent domain x x x
provided, however, that the power of eminent domain may not be
exercised unless a valid and efinite offer has been previously made to
the owner and as such offer was not accepted.

RA 7160, Section 19. Eminent Domain

General Rule: Upon payment of just compensation

Provided, however a valid and definite offer has been made

previously to the owner.

Provided, further LGU may immediately take possession of the

property upon filing of the expropriation proceedings AND upon
making a deposity with the propert court of at least 15% of
the fair market value of the property to be expropriated.

Provided, finally Such amount shall be determined by the

proper court, based on the fair market value at the time of the

taking of the property.

Dacanay vs Asistio, Jr., 208 SCRA 404
o

The right of the public to use the city streets may not be bargained
away through a contract.

Executive Order may not infringe upon vested right of the public to use

city streets for the purpose they were intended to serve.

Macasiano vs. Diokno, Gr No. 97764, August 10, 1992
o

Properties of the local government which are devoted to public service

are deemed public and are under the absolute control of Congress.

Properties of public dominion devoted to public use and made available

to the public in general are outside the commerce of men and cannot
be disposed of or leased by the LGU to private persons.

Roads and streets which are available to the public in general and
ordinarily used for vehicular traffic are still considered public property

devoted to public use.

Erwin Javellana vs DILG, GR No. 102549

Court accords great respect to the decisions and/or actions of

administrative authorities. Why? Because it is presumed that they are
knowledgeable

and

expertise

in

the

enforcement

of

laws

and

regulations entrusted to their jurisdiction.

o

It is prohibited for a government official to engage in private practice of

his profession IF such practice would represent interests adverse to the

government.
Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) vs. Bel-Air Village
Association, Inc. 328 SCRA 836
o

Police power is an inherent attribute of sovereignty.

Police power is lodged primarily in Congress which may delegate the

power to the President and administrative boards as well as the
lawmaking bodies of municipal corporations or LGU.

Local government is a political subdivision of a nation or state which is

constituted by law and has substantial control of local affairs.

Police power is delegated to LGU. This delegation is known as the

general welfare clause.

LGUs exercise police power through their respective legislative bodies.

o

Sangguniang Panlalawigan -> Provincial government

Sangguniang Panlungsod -> City government

Sangguniang Bayan -> Municipal government

Sangguniang Barangay -> Barangay

Above legislative bodies has the power to enact ordinances,

approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the general welfare
of their jurisdiction and its inhabitants and in the proper exercise
of corporate powers of the same.

Nothing was found in RA 7924 which grants the MMDA police power, let
alone legislative power.

MMDA is not a political unit of government unlike with Metro Manila

Council which has the power to promulgate administrative rules and
regulations in the implementation of MMDAs functions.

MMDA is not a LGU or public corporation endowed with legislative

power. It is not even a special metropolitan political subdivision as
contemplated in Constitution, Sec 11, Art X.
o

The creation of special metropolitan political subdivision requires

the approval by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite in
political units directly affected.

The Chairman of MMDS is not even an official elected by the

people, but appointed by the President with rank and privileges of
a cabinet member.

Unlike MMC, MMDA has no power to enact ordinances for the

welfare of the community.

Lina vs Dizon Pano (GR 129093) This statute remains valid today. While
lotto is clearly a game of chance, the national government deems it wise and
proper to permit it. Hence, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Laguna, a local
government unit, cannot issue a resolution or an ordinance that would seek
to prohibit permits. Stated otherwise, what the national legislature
expressly allows by law, such as lotto, a provincial board may not
disallow by ordinance or resolution.
In our system of government, the power of local government units to
legislate and enact ordinances and resolutions is merely a delegated power
coming from Congress.
Chus, Sr. vs Benilda Estate Corporation A cause of action is defined as an
act or omission by which a party violates a right of another. 6 The test of the
sufficiency of the facts found in a petition as constituting a cause of action is

whether or not, admitting the facts alleged, the court can render a valid
judgment upon the same in accordance with the prayer thereof.7
Alvarez vs Guingona In this regard, we hold that petitioners asseverations
are untenable because Internal Revenue Allotments form part of the
income of Local Government Units.
It is true that for a municipality to be converted into a component city, it
must, among others, have an average annual income of at least Twenty
Million Pesos for the last two (2) consecutive years based on 1991 constant
prices.1 Such income must be duly certified by the Department of Finance.2
Resolution
of
the
controversy
regarding
compliance
by
the Municipality of Santiago with the aforecited income requirement hinges
on a correlative and contextual explication of the meaning of internal
revenue allotments (IRAs) vis-a-vis the notion of income of a local
government unit and the principles of local autonomy and decentralization
underlying the institutionalization and intensified empowerment of the local
government system.
A Local Government Unit is a political subdivision of the Statewhich is
constituted by law and possessed of substantial control over its own
affairs.3Remaining to be an intra sovereign subdivision of one sovereign
nation, but not intended, however, to be an imperium in imperio, 4 the local
government unit is autonomous in the sense that it is given more powers,
authority, responsibilities and resources.5 Power which used to be highly
centralized in Manila, is thereby deconcentrated, enabling especially the
peripheral local government units to develop not only at their own pace and
discretion but also with their oWn resources and assets.6
The practical side to development through a decentralized local
government system certainly concerns the matter of financial resources.
With its broadened powers and increased responsibilities, a local government
unit must now operate on a much wider scale. More extensive operations, in
turn, entail more expenses. Understandably, the vesting of duty,
responsibility and accountability in every local government unit is
accompanied with a provision for reasonably adequate resources to
discharge its powers and effectively carry out its functions. 7 Availment of
such resources is effectuated through the vesting in every local government
unit of (1) the right to create and broaden its own source of revenue; (2) the
right to be allocated a just share in national taxes, such share being in the
form of internal revenue allotments (IRAs); and (3) the right to be given its
equitable share in the proceeds of the utilization and development of the
national wealth, if any, within its territorial boundaries.8.
Cordillera Broad Coalition vs CA (GR 79956) the CAR is not a public
corporation or a territorial and political subdivision. It does not have a

separate juridical personality, unlike provinces, cities and municipalities.

Neither is it vested with the powers that are normally granted to public
corporations, e.g. the power to sue and be sued, the power to own and
dispose of property, the power to create its own sources of revenue, etc. As
stated earlier, the CAR was created primarily to coordinate the planning and
implementation of programs and services in the covered areas.
It must be clarified that the constitutional guarantee of local autonomy in the
Constitution [Art. X, sec. 2] refers to the administrative autonomy of local
government units or, cast in more technical language, the decentralization
of government authority
Batangas CATV Inc vs CA (GR 138810) Under cover of theGeneral Welfare
Clause as provided in this section, Local Government Units can perform just
about any power that will benefit their constituencies. Thus, local
government
units
can
exercise
powers
that
are: (1) expressly
granted; (2) necessarily implied from the power that is expressly
granted; (3) necessary, appropriate or incidental for its efficient and
effective governance; and (4) essential to the promotion of the general
welfare of their inhabitants. (Pimentel, The Local Government Code of 1991,
p. 46)
The grant of regulatory power to the NTC is easily understandable.
CATV system is not a mere local concern. The complexities that characterize
this new technology demand that it be regulated by a specialized agency.
This is particularly true in the area of rate-fixing. Rate fixing involves a
series of technical operations. Consequently, on the hands of the regulatory
body lies the ample discretion in the choice of such rational processes as
might be appropriate to the solution of its highly complicated and technical
problems. Considering that the CATV industry is so technical a field, we
believe that the NTC, a specialized agency, is in a better position than the
LGU, to regulate it.
Speaking for the Court in the leading case of United States vs. Abendan,
Justice Moreland said: An ordinance enacted by virtue of the general welfare
clause is valid, unless it contravenes the fundamental law of the Philippine
Islands, or an Act of the Philippine Legislature, or unless it is against public
policy, or is unreasonable, oppressive, partial, discriminating, or in
derogation of common right. In De la Cruz vs. Paraz, we laid the general
rule that ordinances passed by virtue of the implied power found in the
general welfare clause must be reasonable, consonant with the general
powers and purposes of the corporation, and not inconsistent with the
laws or policy of the State.
League of Cities of the Philippines vs COMELEC (GR 176951, 177499,
178056) we should not be restricted by technical rules of

procedure at the expense of the transcendental interest of justice and

equity. While it is true that litigation must end, even at the expense of errors
in judgment, it is nobler rather for this Court of last resort, as vanguard of
truth, to toil in order to dispel apprehensions and doubt, as the following
pronouncement of this Court instructs:
The right and power of judicial tribunals to declare whether enactments of
the legislature exceed the constitutional limitations and are invalid has
always been considered a grave responsibility, as well as a solemn duty. The
courts invariably give the most careful consideration to questions involving
the interpretation and application of the Constitution, and approach
constitutional questions with great deliberation, exercising their power in this
respect with the greatest possible caution and even reluctance; and they
should never declare a statute void, unless its invalidity is, in their judgment,
beyond reasonable doubt. To justify a court in pronouncing a legislative act
unconstitutional, or a provision of a state constitution to be in contravention
of the Constitution x x x, the case must be so clear to be free from doubt,
and the conflict of the statute with the constitution must be irreconcilable,
because it is but a decent respect to the wisdom, the integrity, and the
patriotism of the legislative body by which any law is passed to presume in
favor of its validity until the contrary is shown beyond reasonable doubt.
Therefore, in no doubtful case will the judiciary pronounce a legislative act to
be contrary to the constitution. To doubt the constitutionality of a law is to
resolve the doubt in favor of its validity.
Municipal Liability
1. Palafox vs Province of Ilocos Norte Municipality is not liable if it
performs governmental functions except if there is a law permitting
it.
2. Torio vs Fontanilla Municipality is liable if it performs inproprietary
functions (i.e. holding a town fiesta) and therefore liable to third
persons under the law of contracts or torts.
3. Province of Cebu vs IAC The doctrine of implied municipal
liability has been said to apply to all cases where money or other
property of a party is received under such circumstances that the

general law, independent of express contract implies an obligation

upon the municipality to do justice with respect to the same.
4. Osmena vs COA (GR 98355) Quantum Meruit is based on justice
and equity, to compensate a property or benefit received if restitution
is equitable and if such action involves no violation, frustration or
opposition to public policy.
5. Osmena vs COA (GR 110045) That the City of Cebu complied with the
relevant formalities contemplated by law can hardly be doubted.
The compromise agreement was submitted to its legislative council,
the Sangguniang Panlungsod, which approved it conformably with its
established rules and procedure, particularly the stipulation for the
payment of P30,000.00 to the de la Cerna family. Neither may it be
disputed that since, as a municipal corporation, Cebu City has the
power to sue and be sued,
compromise suits,

18

17

it has the authority to settle or

as well as the obligation to pay just and valid

claims against it.

6. Ramos vs CA (GR 99425) Private attorneys cannot represent a
province or municipality in lawsuits. Law allows a private counsel to
be hired by a municipality only when the municipality is an adverse
party in a case involving the provincial government or another
municipality or city within the province. Only accountable public
officers may act for and in behalf of public entities and that public
funds should not be expanded to hire private lawyers.
Qualifications & Election of Elective Local Officials

1. Borja Jr. vs COMELEC (GR 133495) In both the Constitution and the
Local Government Code, the three-term limitation refers to the term
of office for which the local official was elected. It made no reference
to succession to an office to which he was not elected. In the case
before the Commission, respondent Capco was not elected to the
position of Mayor in the January 18, 1988 local elections. He succeeded
to such office by operation of law and served for the unexpired term of
his predecessor. Consequently, such succession into office is not
counted as one (1) term for purposes of the computation of the threeterm limitation under the Constitution and the Local Government Code.
The term limit for elective local officials must be taken to refer to
the right to be elected as well as the right to serve in the same
elective position. Consequently, it is not enough that an individual
has served three consecutive terms in an elective local office, he must
also have been elected to the same position for the same number of
times before the disqualification can apply.
2. Romualdez vs RTC (GR 104960) In election cases, the Court
treats domicile and residence as synonymous terms, thus: (t)he
term residence as used in the election law is synonymous with
domicile, which imports not only an intention to reside in a fixed
place but also personal presence in that place, coupled with conduct
indicative of such intention.
3. Rodriguez vs COMELEC (GR 120099) Art. 73. Disqualifications. The
following persons shall be disqualified from running for any elective
local position; (e)Fugitives from justice in criminal or non-political

cases here or abroad. Fugitive from justice refers to a person who has
been convicted by final judgment. (Emphasis supplied).
4. Frivaldo vs COMELEC (257 SCRA 727) the Local Government Code
speaks of Qualifications of

ELECTIVE

OFFICIALS, not

of

candidates. In case of doubt in the interpretation or application of

laws, it is to be presumed that the law-making body intended right and
justice to prevail.
Vacancies and Succession
1. Farinas vs Barba (GR 116763) Where there is no political party to
make a nomination, the Sanggunian, where the vacancy occurs, must
be

considered

the appropriate

recommendation,

by

analogy

authority
to

for

vacancies

making

created

in

the
the

Sangguniang Barangay whose members are by law prohibited from

having any party affiliation.
2. Victoria

vs

COMELEC

(GR

109005)

The ranking

in

the

Sanggunian shall be determined on the basis of the proportion of the

votes obtained by each winning candidate of the total number of
registered voters who actually voted. In such a case, the Court has no
recourse but to merely apply the law. The courts may not speculate as
to the probable intent of the legislature apart from the words
3. Gamboa Jr. vs Aguirre (GR 134213) Being the Acting Governor,
the Vice-Governor cannot continue to simultaneously exercise
the duties of the latter office, since the nature of the duties of the
provincial Governor
them.

19

call

for a

full-time

occupant to

discharge

Such is not only consistent with but also appears to be the

clear rationale of the new Code wherein the policy of performing dual
functions in both offices has already been abandoned. To repeat, the
creation of a temporary vacancy in the office of the Governor creates a
corresponding temporary vacancy in the office of the Vice-Governor
whenever the latter acts as Governor by virtue of such temporary
vacancy.
Local Legislation
1. Magtajas vs Pryce Properties Inc (GR 111097) The rationale of the
requirement

that

the ordinances

should

not

contravene

statute is obvious. Municipal governments are only agents of the

national government. Local councils exercise only delegated legislative
powers conferred on them by Congress as the national lawmaking
body. The delegate cannot be superior to the principal or exercise
powers higher than those of the latter. It is a heresy to suggest that
the local government units can undo the acts of Congress, from which
they have derived their power in the first place, and negate by mere
ordinance the mandate of the statute.
2. Moday vs CA (GR 107916) The limitations on the power of
eminent domain are that the use must be public, compensation must
be

made

observed.

22

and

due

process

of

law

must

be

The Supreme Court, taking cognizance of such issues as

the adequacy of compensation, necessity of the taking and the public

use character or the purpose of the taking,

23

has ruled that the

necessity of exercising eminent domain must be genuine and of a

public character.

24

Government may not capriciously choose what

private property should be taken.

3. SJS vs Atienza, Jr. (GR 156052) Ordinance No. 8027 was enacted right
after the Philippines, along with the rest of the world, witnessed the
horror of the September 11, 2001 attack on the Twin Towers of the
World

Trade

Center

in

New

York

City.

The objective

of

the

ordinance is to protect the residents of Manila from the catastrophic

devastation that will surely occur in case of a terrorist attack on the
Pandacan Terminals. No reason exists why such a protective measure
should be delayed.
Disciplinary Actions
1. Salalima et al vs Guingona (GR 11589-92) We agree with the
petitioners

that

Governor

Salalima

could

no

longer

be

held

administratively liable in O.P. Case No. 5450 in connection with the

negotiated contract entered into on 6 March 1992 with RYU
Construction for additional rehabilitation work at the Tabaco Public
Market. Nor could the petitioners be held administratively liable in O.P.
Case No. 5469 for the execution in November 1989 of the retainer
contract with Atty. Jesus Cornago and the Cortes and Reyna Law Firm.
This

is

so

because public

officials

cannot

be

subject

to

disciplinary action for administrative misconduct committed

during a prior term. The underlying theory is that each term is
separate from other terms, and that the reelection to office operates
as a condonation of the officers previous misconduct to the extent of
cutting off the right to remove him therefor. Such a rule is not only

founded on the theory that an officials reelection expresses the

sovereign will of the electorate to forgive or condone any act or
omission constituting a ground for administrative discipline which was
committed during his previous term. We may add that sound public
policy dictates it. To rule otherwise would open the floodgates to
exacerbating endless partisan contests between the reelected official
and his political enemies, who may not stop to hound the former
during his new term with administrative cases for acts, alleged to have
been committed during his previous term. His second term may thus
be devoted to defending himself in the said cases to the detriment of
public

service. This doctrine

of

forgiveness

or

condonation cannot, however, apply to criminal acts which the

reelected official may have committed during his previous term.
2. The City of Angeles, Hon. Antonio Abad Santos vs CA (GR 97882) But
the end never justifies the means, and however laudable the purpose
of the construction in question, this Court cannot and will not
countenance an outright and continuing violation of the laws of the
land, especially when committed by public officials.I
In theory, the cost of such demolition, and the reimbursement of the public
funds expended in the construction thereof, should be borne by the officials
of the City Angeles who ordered and directed such construction. This Court
has time and again ruled that public officials are not immune from damages
in their personal capacities arising from acts done in bad faith. Otherwise
stated, a public official may be liable in his personal capacity for whatever
damage he may have caused by his act done with malice and in bad faith or
beyond the scope of his authority or jurisdiction. 20 Indisputably, said public
officials acted beyond the scope of their authority and jurisdiction and with
evident bad faith. However, as noted by the trial court 21, the petitioners
mayor and members of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Angeles City were
sued only in their official capacities, hence, they could not be held personally

liable without first giving them their day in court. Prevailing

jurisprudence 22 holding that public officials are personally liable for
damages arising from illegal acts done in bad faith are premised on
said officials having been sued both in their official and personal capacities.
Recall
1. Angabung vs COMELEC (GR 126576) In the instant case, this court is
confronted with a procedure that is unabashedly repugnant to the
applicable law and no less such to the spirit underlying that law.
Private respondent who is a lawyer, knows that Section 69 (d) of the
Local Government Code plainly provides that recall is validly initiated
by a petition of 25% of the total number of registered voters.
Notwithstanding such awareness, private respondent proceeded to file
the petition for recall with only herself as the filer and initiator. She
claims in her petition that she has, together with many others in
Tumauini, Isabela, lost confidence in the leadership of petitioner. But
the petition does not bear the names of all these other citizens of
Tumauini who have reportedly also become anxious to oust petitioner
from the post of mayor. There is no doubt that private respondent is
truly earnest in her cause, and the very fact that she affixed her name
in the petition shows that she claims responsibility for the seeming
affront to petitioners continuance in office. But the same cannot be
said of all the other people whom private respondent claims to have
sentiments similar to hers. While the people are vested with the power
to recall their elected officials, the same power is accompanied by the
concomitant responsibility to see through all the consequences of the
exercise of such power, including rising above anonymity, confronting
the official sought to be recalled, his family, his friends, and his

supporters, and seeing the recall election to its ultimate end. The
procedure of allowing just one person to file the initiatory recall
petition and then setting a date for the signing of the petition, which
amounts to inviting and courting the public which may have not, in the
first place, even entertained any displeasure in the performance of the
official sought to be recalled, is not only violative of statutory law but
also tainted with an attempt to go around the law. We can not and
must

not,

under

any

and

all

circumstances,

countenance

circumvention of the explicit 25% minimum voter requirement in the

initiation of the recall process.
2. Malonzo vs COMELEC (GR 127066) The Minutes of the session of the
Preparatory Assembly indicated that there was a session held.
Attendees constitute the majority of all the members of the
Preparatory Assembly, as we shall later on establish. Rules of
procedure, simple they may be were formulated. Deliberations were
conducted on the main issue, which was that of petitioners recall. The
members were given the opportunity to articulate on their resolve
about the matter. More importantly, their sentiments were expressed
through their votes signified by their signatures and thumbmarks
affixed to the Resolution. No proof was adduced by Petitioner to
substantiate

his

claim

that

the

signatures

appearing

thereon

represented a cause other than that of adopting the resolution. The

law on recall did not prescribe an elaborate proceeding. Neither did it
demand a specific procedure. What is fundamental is compliance with
the provision that there should be a session called for the

purpose of initiating recall proceedings, attended by a majority of

all the members of the preparatory recall assembly, in a public place
and that the resolution resulting from such assembly be adopted by a
majority of all the PRA members.
Human Resources and Development
1. Javellana vs DILG (GR 102549) In the first place, complaints against
public officers and employees relating or incidental to the performance
of their duties are necessarily impressed with public interest for by
express constitutional mandate, a public office is a public trust. The
complaint for illegal dismissal filed by Javiero and Catapang against
City Engineer Divinagracia is in effect a complaint against the City
Government of Bago City, their real employer, of which petitioner
Javellana is a councilman. Hence, judgment against City Engineer
Divinagracia

would

actually

be

judgment

against

the

City

Government. By serving as counsel for the complaining employees and

assisting them to prosecute their claims against City Engineer
Divinagracia, the petitioner violated Memorandum Circular No. 74-58
(in relation to Section 7[b-2] of RA 6713)prohibiting a government
official from engaging in the private practice of his profession,
if such practice would represent interests adverse to the
government.
2. Tobias vs Hon. Benjamin Abalos (GR 114783) Anent the first issue, we
agree with the observation of the Solicitor General that the statutory
conversion of Mandaluyong into a highly urbanized city with a
population of not less than two hundred fifty thousand indubitably

ordains

compliance

with

the

one

city-one

representative proviso in the Constitution:

. . . Each city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand, or
each province, shall have at least one representative (Article VI, Section
5(3), Constitution).
Hence, it is in compliance with the aforestated constitutional mandate that
the creation of a separate congressional district for the City of Mandaluyong
is decreed under Article VIII, Section 49 of R.A. No. 7675.