Practice question
A mayor and treasurer agree privately to reduce a litigated RPT deficiency to a small fraction of the amount due. They concede there is no applicable relief ordinance, no prior sanggunian contract authority and no other legal authorization. They rely only on the treasurer's collection function and hoped-for quick payment. Which assessment follows Guialani's local-tax authorization principles?
- Collection responsibility and expediency do not supply the missing authority to relinquish the public claim
- Quick payment validates every settlement
- All litigation automatically gives the treasurer unlimited compromise power
- Only the taxpayer's financial preference matters
- The absence of authorization is irrelevant if the agreement is typed
Legal references
- RA7160, Sections22(c),192,206,226,231,252–253 and276–277: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1991/ra_7160_1991.html
- Guialani v. Court of Appeals, GR221253-54 and consolidated cases, April26 2021, main decision: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2021/apr2021/gr_221253-54_2021.html
- RA12001, Sections13–18 and38: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2024/ra_12001_2024.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.