FACTS
The Sangguniang Bayan of Makati enacted Municipal, Ordinance No. 92-072 which provided for the schedule of real estate, business and franchise taxes in the Municipality of Makati.
Jardine Davies Insurance Brokers, Inc., a duly-organized corporation, was assessed and billed by Makati an amount for taxes, fees and charges pursuant to the ordinance in question. Jardine did not protest the assessment and, in fact, paid the said amounts without any protest.
Jardine then wrote the municipal treasurer of Makati requesting that the City of Makati compute its business tax liabilities in accordance with the Metro Manila Revenue Code and not under the ordinance – such ordinance having been declared by the DOJ as null and void. The RTC, however, upheld the validity of the ordinance.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the City of Makati.
A 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.
