CASE: COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES, INC. VS. CITY OF MANILA, LIBERTY M.

TOLEDO CITY TREASURER AND JOSEPH SANTIAGO CHIEF, LICENSING DIVISION GR NO. 156252 JUNE 2 , 2!!6 FACTS: On 25 February 2000, the City Mayor of Manila approved Tax Ordinance No. 7 !!, other"i#e $no"n a# %&evi#ed &evenue Code of the City of Manila% "hich increa#ed the tax rate# applicable to certain e#tabli#h'ent# operatin( "ithin the City of Manila, includin( that of Coca Cola. Coca Cola then filed a petition before the )epart'ent of *u#tice +)O*,, a(ain#t the City of Manila and it# -an((unian( .anlun(#od, invo$in( -ection /!70 of the 1ocal 2overn'ent Code of / / and at the #a'e ti'e 3ue#tionin( the con#titutionality of -ection 2/ of Tax Ordinance No. 7 !!. -ection 2/ of the Old &evenue Code #tate# that all re(i#tered bu#ine##e# in the City of Manila that are already payin( the afore'entioned tax #hall be exe'pted fro' pay'ent thereof. Thi# "a# deleted in the ordinance. 4n effect, it no" i'po#ed additional bu#ine## tax on Coca Cola "hich i# already #ub5ect to other bu#ine## tax. 4t i# contended that the deletion i# a palpable and 'anife#t violation of the 12C / /. -ub#e3uently, )O* i##ued a &e#olution declarin( Tax Ordinance No. 7 !! null and void and "ithout le(al effect due to failure to co'ply "ith 'andatory publication re3uire'ent# a# provided for in the 1ocal 2overn'ent Code of / / "hich provide#6
"S#$%&'( 1)). P*+,&$-%&'( '. T-/ O01&(-($#2 -(1 R#3#(*# M#-2*0#2. 7ithin ten +/0, day# after their approval, certified true copie# of all provincial, city and 'unicipal tax ordinance# or revenue 'ea#ure# #hall be publi#hed in full for three +8, con#ecutive day# in a ne"#paper of local circulation9 .rovided, ho"ever, that in province#, citie#, and 'unicipalitie# "here there are no ne"#paper# or local circulation# the #a'e 'ay be po#ted in at lea#t t"o +2, con#picuou# and publicly acce##ible place#.%

)ocu'entary evidence #ub'itted by Coca Cola indubitably #ho"# that 2*+4#$% %-/ '01&(-($# 5-2 6*+,&27#1 '(,8 '($#, &.#., '( %7# M-8 22, 2!!! &22*# '. %7# P7&,&66&(# P'2%. Clearly, therefore, City of Manila failed to #ati#fy the re3uire'ent that #aid ordinance #hall be publi#hed for three +8, con#ecutive day# a# re3uired by la". 4n affir'in( the nullification of the ordinance a# per re3ue#t of another taxpayer, -in(er -e"in( Machin(, the :12F ;xecutive )irector i##ued an 4ndor#e'ent on 20 Nove'ber 2000 orderin( the City Trea#urer of Manila to %cea#e and de#i#t% fro' enforcin( Tax Ordinance No. 7 !!. <o"ever, de#pite the &e#olution of the )O* and the directive of the :12F, they #till continued to a##e## Coca Cola bu#ine## tax for the year 200/. Thu#, Coca Cola filed a Co'plaint "ith the &TC of Manila prayin( that the City be en5oined fro' i'ple'entin( the tax ordinance. )urin( the pendency of the #aid ca#e, the City Mayor of Manila approved an a'end'ent of the #a'e tax ordinance "hich "a# a(ain challen(ed by Coca Cola before the )O* on the (round# that +/, #aid tax ordinance a'end# a tax ordinance previou#ly declared null and void and "ithout le(al effect by the )O*9 and +2, #aid tax ordinance "a# li$e"i#e not publi#hed upon it# approval. The a'endatory ordinance "a# li$e"i#e declared null and void by the )O*, it bein( a 'ere a'endatory ordinance of Ordinance No. 7 !!. The o'nibu# 'otion of petitioner# for recon#ideration of the re#olution of =pril 28, 2008 "hich denied the 'otion for an exten#ion of ti'e to file a petition i# );N4;) for lac$ of 'erit. Mean"hile, on the ba#i# of the enact'ent of Tax Ordinance No. !0//, the City of Manila filed a Motion for &econ#ideration "ith the &TC of Manila "hich the court a 3uo 90-(%#1 #tatin( that con#iderin( that Ordinance No. 7 !! +='ended &evenue Code of the City of Manila, 7-2 -,0#-18 +##( -:#(1#1 by Ordinance No. !0// entitled %=n Ordinance ='endin( Certain -ection# of Ordinance No. 7 !!% approved by the City Mayor of Manila on February 22, 200/, the ca#e 'u#t be )4-M4--;). ISSUE: 7ON Tax Ordinance No. 7 !! i# null and void and of no le(al effect due to the City># failure to #ati#fy the re3uire'ent of publication for three con#ecutive day#, re(ardle## of the a'ended ordinance i##ued. RULING: 4t i# undi#puted fro' the fact# of the ca#e that Tax Ordinance No. 7 !! ha# already been declared by the )O* -ecretary, in it# Order, a# null and void and "ithout le(al effect due to re#pondent#? failure to #ati#fy the re3uire'ent that #aid ordinance be publi#hed for three con#ecutive day# a# re3uired by la". Neither i# there 3uibblin( on the fact that the #aid Order of the )O* "a# never appealed by the City of Manila, thu#, it had attained finality after the lap#e of the period to appeal. Further'ore, the &TC of Manila, :ranch 2/, in it# )eci#ion, reiterated the findin(# of the )O* -ecretary that re#pondent# failed to follo" the procedure in the enact'ent of tax 'ea#ure# a# 'andated by -ection /!! of the 1ocal

2overn'ent Code of / /, in that they failed to publi#h Tax Ordinance No. 7 !! for three con#ecutive day# in a ne"#paper of local circulation. Fro' the fore(oin(, it i# evident that Tax Ordinance No. 7 !! i# null and void a# #aid ordinance "a# publi#hed only for one day in the 22 May 2000 i##ue of the .hilippine .o#t in contravention of the un'i#ta$able directive of the 1ocal 2overn'ent Code of / /. )e#pite the nullity of Tax Ordinance No. 7 !!, &TC "ent on to di#'i## petitioner?# ca#e on the force of the enact'ent of Tax Ordinance No. !0//, a'endin( Tax Ordinance No. 7 !!. -i(nificantly, #aid a'endin( ordinance "a# li$e"i#e declared null and void by the )O* -ecretary in a &e#olution, dated 5 *uly 200/, elucidatin( that %@4An#tead of a'endin( Ordinance No. 7 !!, the C&%8 27'*,1 7-3# #(-$%#1 -('%7#0 %-/ :#-2*0# 57&$7 2%0&$%,8 $':6,&#2 5&%7 %7# 0#;*&0#:#(%2 '. ,-5, +'%7 60'$#1*0-, -(1 2*+2%-(%&3#. T7# 6-22-9# '. %7# -22-&,#1 '01&(-($# 1&1 ('% 7-3# %7# #..#$% '. $*0&(9 %7# 1#.#$%2 '. O01&(-($# N'. <)) 57&$7, -(8 5-8, 1'#2 ('% ,#9-,,8 #/&2%. % :a#ed on the fore(oin(, thi# Court 'u#t rever#e the Order of the &TC of Manila in di#'i##in( petitioner?# ca#e a# there i# no ba#i# in la" for #uch di#'i##al. The a'endin( la", havin( been declared a# null and void, in le(al conte'plation, therefore, doe# not exi#t. Further'ore, even if Tax Ordinance No. !0// "a# not declared null and void, the trial court #hould not have di#'i##ed the ca#e on the rea#on that #aid tax ordinance had already a'ended Tax Ordinance No. 7 !!. =# held by thi# Court in the ca#e of .eople v. 1i', &. -( '01#0 '0 ,-5 2'*97% %' +# -:#(1#1 &2 &(3-,&1, %7#( &% 1'#2 ('% ,#9-,,8 #/&2%, %7#0# 27'*,1 +# (' '$$-2&'( '0 (##1 %' -:#(1 &%.