Defenses to a Pasay City Ordinance Violation Filed in Absence Philippine legal perspective
This article is for information only and does not constitute legal advice. For personalised assistance, consult a lawyer licensed in the Philippines.
1. Setting the Stage—What “Filed in Absence” Means
In Pasay (and most other cities), an ordinance-violation case can proceed even if the alleged violator is not physically present when:
- The citation is issued – e.g. a parked-car ticket left on the windshield.
- The formal complaint is filed – a City Legal Office, traffic enforcer or barangay officer lodges a complaint with the Prosecution Office or the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) without first serving a notice.
- A summary-adjudication hearing is held – under Pasay’s Ordinance-Violation-Receipt (OVR) system the Traffic Adjudication Board (TAB) may declare the violator “in default” and impose a fine if no one appears on the scheduled date.
When any of these occur, the respondent’s first line of defence is to insist on due process—timely notice and a real opportunity to be heard—before any penalty can stick.
2. Legal Foundations You Can Invoke
| Source | Key Sections | Why It Matters |
|---|---|---|
| 1987 Constitution | Art. III §1 (due process), §14(1) (right to be informed of accusation) | Lays down the fundamental right to notice and hearing. |
| Local Government Code (LGC), R.A. 7160 | §§447(a)(1)(vi), 455(b)(1)(i), 515 | Gives cities the power to enact and enforce ordinances but subjects their exercise to “law and equity.” |
| Revised Penal Code (RPC) | Art. 3, 11–12 (justifying & exempting circumstances), Art. 89–93 (prescription) | Some defences in ordinance cases mirror those in the RPC. |
| Act No. 3326 | §§1–2 | General statute on prescription of offenses punishable by special laws and ordinances. |
| Katarungang Pambarangay Law (LGC, Book III Title I Ch. 7) | §§399–422 | Determines when barangay conciliation is or is not a jurisdictional prerequisite. |
| Rules on Summary Procedure (Revised, 2020) | Rule 3 §6 | Governs MeTC handling of ordinance cases; allows dismissal for non-appearance or defective complaint. |
| Pasay City OVR System (various ordinances, e.g., Ord. No. 550, s. 2015) | §10 (TAB procedure), §14 (default) | Sets city-specific notice rules—use these to attack irregular service. |
3. Core Categories of Defences
A. Procedural / Jurisdictional Defences
| Defence | When It Applies | What to Argue |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of Notice | Citation left but never received; summons sent to wrong address; hearing reset without notice. | “Due process is void if the person is condemned unheard—Ang Tibay v. CIR (G.R. No. 46496, Feb 27 1940).” Move to set aside default, recall warrant, or quash the TAB order. |
| Defective Complaint / Information | Complaint lacks the ordinance number, date, place of violation, or verification; wrong penal clause cited. | Move to quash under Rule 117 §3, citing constitutional right “to be informed.” |
| No Personal Jurisdiction | Summons never served, or served by someone without authority. | Cite Domdom v. Third-Ramos (MtC) line of cases: courts acquire jurisdiction over the person only upon valid service or voluntary appearance. |
| Ultra Vires / Void Ordinance | Ordinance exceeds §447 police power (e.g., taxes already covered by national law, or infringes free speech). | File a motion to dismiss or separate suit for declaratory relief (Rule 63). |
| Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies (for the city) | City rushed to court without first going through TAB or barangay. | Argue prematurity; city must follow its own process before courts may act. |
B. Substantive Defences
| Defence | Illustration | Legal Hook |
|---|---|---|
| Mistaken Identity / Alibi | Vehicle cloned; you were in Cebu. | Ordinary factual defence—burden on prosecution. |
| Justifying Circumstance | Emergency parking to save a life (analogous to RPC Art. 11(4) “state of necessity”). | Even if not expressly in ordinance, constitutional fairness allows invocation. |
| Exempting Circumstance | Minor below ordinance’s penal age, or mentally incapacitated. | Parallel to RPC Art. 12, or specific exemption clause in ordinance. |
| Selective Enforcement / Equal Protection | Enforcers ticketed only ride-hailing cars, not taxis, for the same stop. | Violation of Art. III §1 (equal protection). |
| Overbreadth / Vagueness | Ordinance bans “any annoying noise” without objective standard. | Estrada v. Sandiganbayan vagueness doctrine. |
| Prescription | Under Act 3326, a violation penalised by fine ≤ ₱200 prescribes in two months; if the ordinance sets ₱5 000, it prescribes in one year (unless re-arrested). | Raise as affirmative defence; file motion to dismiss if time lapsed. |
| Double Jeopardy / Prior Settlement | You already paid the barangay compromise or TAB fine. | Second prosecution barred (Const. Art. III §21). |
| Invalid Deputisation | Barangay tanod issued traffic ticket without mayor’s deputation order. | Lack of legal authority voids the citation. |
C. Remedial & Equitable Defences
| Scenario | Remedy | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Default order by TAB | § TAB Rules: file Motion to Set Aside Default within 15 days > attach proof of absence for valid reason (hospital, force majeure). | |
| Fine escalated to jail time | File Petition for Commutation to the Mayor under LGC §455(b)(1)(x). | May cite indigency and proportionality (Eighth Amendment analogue). |
| Imminent warrant of arrest (MeTC) | File Motion to Recall Warrant + Motion to Quash Information simultaneously. | Show absence of notice and attach affidavit of merit. |
| TAB/Mayor denied reconsideration | Appeal to the Sangguniang Panlungsod (Council) within 30 days under LGC §513. | Decision of Council may be reviewed by the DILG Secretary (administrative) or by certiorari (judicial). |
| Ongoing prosecution despite void ordinance | File Rule 65 Petition for Certiorari or Prohibition with the Regional Trial Court. | Attack grave abuse of discretion; 60-day reglementary period. |
4. The Role of Barangay Conciliation
Violations that are purely public offenses (smoking ban, traffic, curfew) are not subject to mandatory barangay mediation. But if the ordinance also creates a private right (e.g., noise-nuisance causing damage to a neighbour), Katarungang Pambarangay may kick in. If required and skipped, that omission is jurisdictional—ground to dismiss or suspend proceedings (Spouses Abugan v. People, G.R. No. 167807, Jan 25 2012).
5. Burden of Proof & Standard of Evidence
Prosecution bears the burden. For infractions triable by MeTC the case is criminal in nature, so proof must be beyond reasonable doubt. For purely administrative TAB hearings, the standard is substantial evidence (Ang Tibay doctrine). Still, if the case can lead to imprisonment (non-payment of fine converted to subsidiary imprisonment), many commentators argue the higher standard ought to apply.
6. Illustrative Timeline of How a Defence Might Play Out
- Day 0 – OVR slipped on windshield for anti-parking Ordinance No. 550.
- Day 10 – Car owner learns of citation; deadline to pay/contest already lapsed.
- Day 15 – TAB issues a Notice of Default and Fine Assessment ₱1 500.
- Day 18 – Owner files Motion to Set Aside citing lack of actual notice (lives in Quezon City; plate traced late).
- Day 30 – TAB grants motion; sets hearing date.
- Hearing – Owner shows CCTV that another driver parked vehicle. TAB dismisses case.
Take-away: Act quickly; procedural defences are time-sensitive.
7. Practical Tips for Respondents
- Keep proof of whereabouts – toll receipts, plane tickets, CCTV, GPS logs.
- Preserve the ticket/envelope – envelope marks show improper service.
- Check the ordinance text – verify penalty clause, deputation letters.
- Meet deadlines – even the strongest defence can be lost by inaction.
- Consider amicable settlement – sometimes paying the minimum fine (without admission) is cost-effective if no moral/legal principle is at stake.
- Lawyer up if jail is possible – subsidiary imprisonment can follow non-payment for fines > ₱1 000 (Act No. 1735 analogy).
8. Selected Jurisprudence to Cite
| Case | G.R. No. | Relevance |
|---|---|---|
| Ang Tibay v. CIR | 46496, 27 Feb 1940 | Due process in admin proceedings. |
| People v. Dacayo | L-4336, 30 Jan 1953 | Validity of municipal ordinance; burden of proof. |
| Spouses Abugan v. People | 167807, 25 Jan 2012 | Barangay conciliation as a condition precedent. |
| Estrada v. Sandiganbayan | 148560, 4 Apr 2001 | Void-for-vagueness/overbreadth. |
| Villanueva v. Cudia | 172268, 18 Apr 2006 | Prescription of special-law offenses (applied Act 3326). |
| Belgica v. Ochoa | 208566, 19 Nov 2013 | Equal-protection tool—selective enforcement. |
9. Checklist Before You Go to Court
- Is the ordinance valid?
- Was notice proper and timely?
- Is the complaint sufficient in form and substance?
- Has prescription run?
- Are there justifying, exempting, or mitigating facts?
- Were administrative remedies exhausted?
- Do you have documentary proof and eyewitnesses?
A “yes” to any of 1–6 strengthens a dismissal or acquittal motion. Combine substantive and procedural arguments whenever possible.
10. Conclusion
Even if a Pasay City ordinance violation is filed in your absence, you are not without recourse. Philippine law’s layered safeguards—constitutional, statutory, jurisprudential, and procedural—give multiple avenues to contest the charge, from simple motions before the TAB to a full-blown Rule 65 petition. Success hinges on prompt action, mastery of timelines, and strategic deployment of the defences outlined above.
Updated as of 16 June 2025 (Asia/Manila).