BERDIN VS.

MASCARINAS
G.R. No. 135928
July 6, 2007
Article III, Section 7 Information and Access to Official Records
FACTS:
Petitioners Berdin, Alegarbes, and de Vera are the President, Vice-President, and Adviser,
respectively, of the Tubigon Market Vendors Association (Association) in Bohol. Respondent
Mascarinas on the other hand is the Municipal Mayor of Tubigon, Bohol.
The Sangguniang Bayan of Tubigon enacted Tax Ordinance No. 88-11-36 increasing the
tax and fees of the municipality. Berdin requested a copy of the tax ordinance from the
Municipal Treasurer. The request was followed by a protest before the Mayor and the
Treasurer. The Association also requested the suspension of the implementation of the ordinance
pending final determination of its legality by the appropriate authorities. The petitioners elevated
their request for review and suspension of the ordinance to the Provincial Treasurer. Acting on
their request, the Provincial Treasurer requested the Municipal Treasurer to send a copy of the
tax ordinance to the Department of Finance (DOF) for review and approval.
The Municipal Treasurer then sent final demand letters to Berdin and de Vera for
payment of outstanding rental fees and municipal business taxes under the new ordinance with
the warning that if they do not pay, their stores will be closed and padlocked. The petitioners said
that the Municipal Treasurer should wait for the official resolution of their protest before taking
action on the final demand letters. Thereafter, petitioners filed a Complaint with RTC of Bohol
against the Mayor and the Municipal Treasurer to enjoin respondents from enforcing Tax
Ordinance No. 88-11-36. In the event that it is found invalid, petitioners request for
reimbursement of excess taxes.
Tax Ordinance 88-11-36 underwent an amendment which became Tax Ordinance 89-1049 and was approved by the Provincial Treasurer. Furthermore, Municipal Ordinance Revenue
No. 90-01-54 amended suspended provisions of Tax Ordinance 88-11-36 to make it conform
with the rates under the Local Tax Code.
Given the amendment, the Provincial Treasurer wrote petitioners informing the latter of
his findings that Tax Ordinance Nos. 88-11-36 and 89-10-49 were both in order. Petitioners
requested the Provincial Treasurer to transmit all records to the Department of Finance for
purposes of appealing the ruling and reviewing of the questioned ordinances by a higher
authority. However, said department refused to rule on the matter since the Provincial Treasurer
is vested the power to review and suspend tax ordinances.
4 years after filing the case before RTC Bohol, said court upheld the validity of the tax
ordinance.
Petitioners presented 3 arguments with regard to the validity and enforceability of Tax
Ordinance No. 88-11-36, one of which is that the ordinance does not exist by virtue of
respondents officials delay in furnishing them with a copy of the questioned ordinance.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the ordinance is valid and enforceable given the argument of the
petitioner.
HELD/RULING:

Prepared by: Effie Fielle Montes Ignacio, I-C

Petitioners misgivings on the existence of Tax Ordinance No. 88-11-36 are baseless. The
reason for the delay was adequately explained and was even attributed to petitioners failure to
pay for the cost of reproduction of the ordinance.
The right of the people to information on matters of public concern is recognized under
Section 7 Article III of the Constitution. However, such right is not absolute and is subject to
limitations as may be provided by law. Thus, while access to official records may not be
prohibited, it certainly may be regulated. The regulation may come either from statutory law
and from the inherent power of an officer to control his office and the records under his custody
and to exercise some discretion as to the manner in which persons desiring to inspect, examine,
or copy the record may exercise their rights.
The Municipal Treasurer in the case at bar exercised this discretion by requiring
petitioners to pay for the cost of reproduction of the tax ordinance. Such a requirement is
reasonable under the circumstances considering that the ordinance is quite voluminous consisting
of more than a hundred pages.

Prepared by: Effie Fielle Montes Ignacio, I-C