ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
September-1939 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 46562 September 13, 1939 - BARDWIL BROS. v. PHIL. LABOR UNION

    068 Phil 436

  • G.R. No. 46673 September 13, 1939 - ANDRES P. GOSECO v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    068 Phil 444

  • G.R. No. 45596 September 18, 1939 - MARCOS LIPANA v. DOMlNGO LAO Y OTROS

    068 Phil 451

  • G.R. No. 46412 September 18, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANOJI

    068 Phil 471

  • G.R. No. 46497 September 18, 1939 - ANTONIO S. SANAGUSTIN v. CONRADO BARRIOS

    068 Phil 475

  • G.R. No. 46170 September 20, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERMIN PUNTO

    068 Phil 481

  • G.R. No. 46780 September 20, 1939 - FISCAL OF CAMARINES NORTE v. JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAMARINES NORTE

    068 Phil 483

  • G.R. No. 46108 September 22, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DATU GALANTU MEDTED

    068 Phil 485

  • G.R. No. 46109 September 22, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NICOLAS CARPIO

    068 Phil 490

  • G.R. No. 46197 September 22, 1939 - KINKWA MERIYASU CO. v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    068 Phil 501

  • G.R. No. 46302 September 22, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TORIBIO C. COSTES

    068 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. 46578 September 22, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANICETO MARQUEZ

    068 Phil 506

  • G.R. No. 46580 September 22, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO DE GUZMAN

    068 Phil 508

  • G.R. No. 46602 September 22, 1939 - YAP TAK WING & CO. v. MUNICIPAL BOARD

    068 Phil 511

  • G.R. No. 46686 September 22, 1939 - TRANQUILINO RUBIS v. PHILIPPINE CHARITY SWEEPSTAKES

    068 Phil 515

  • G.R. No. 46715 September 22, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMILIO DE JESUS

    068 Phil 517

  • G.R. No. 46068 September 23, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUSTAQUIO CAROZ

    068 Phil 521

  • G.R. No. 46650 September 23, 1939 - MARIO BENGZON v. AUDITOR GENERAL

    068 Phil 527

  • G.R. No. 46652 September 23, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CASIMIRO CONCEPCION

    068 Phil 530

  • G.R. Nos. 46802-46812 September 23, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RESURRECCION B. PEÑAS

    068 Phil 533

  • G.R. No. 46739 September 23, 1939 - PAMPANGA BUS CO., INC. v. PAMBUSCO EMPLOYEES UNION

    068 Phil 541

  • G.R. No. 46668 September 26, 1939 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. PAMPANGA SUGAR MILLS

    068 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 46729 September 25, 1939 - KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGAGAWA SA PANTRANCO v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    068 Phil 552

  • Adm. Case No. 879 September 27, 1939 - PEDRO DE GUZMAN v. TOMAS B. TADEO

    068 Phil 554

  • G.R. No. 46080 September 27, 1939 - GUILLERMO A. CU UNJIENG v. HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORP.

    068 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. 46094 September 27, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO C. QUEBRAL

    068 Phil 564

  • G.R. No. 46237 September 27, 1939 - ROSALIO MARQUEZ v. BERNARDO CASTILLO

    068 Phil 568

  • G.R. No. 46350 September 27, 1939 - TAN CHAY v. GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL.

    068 Phil 572

  • G.R. No. 46470 September 27, 1939 - JUAN CASTILLO v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    068 Phil 577

  • G.R. No. 46539 September 27, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VALENTIN DOQUEÑA

    068 Phil 580

  • G.R. Nos. 46553-46555 September 27, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEON FABILLAR

    068 Phil 584

  • G.R. No. 46615 September 27, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO AQUINO

    068 Phil 588

  • G.R. No. 46727 September 27, 1939 - PAMBUSCO EMPLOYEES’ UNION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    068 Phil 591

  • G.R. No. 46168 September 29, 1939 - INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO. OF THE PHIL. v. DELFIN MAHINAY

    068 Phil 597

  • G.R. No. 46336 September 29, 1939 - REVEREND ULRIC ARCAND v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    068 Phil 601

  • G.R. No. 46458 September 29, 1939 - ERLANGER & GALINGER v. HERMENEGILDO G. ALAGAR

    068 Phil 610

  • G.R. No. 46725 September 29, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMINO AQUINO

    068 Phil 615

  • G.R. No. 46023 September 30, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS FLORENDO

    068 Phil 619

  • G.R. No. 46252 September 30, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONOR DE MOLL

    068 Phil 626

  • G.R. No. 46298 September 30, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DATU AMBIS

    068 Phil 635

  • G.R. No. 46390 September 30, 1939 - CASIMIRO TIANGCO v. PROCESO FRANCISCO

    068 Phil 639

  • G.R. No. 46396 September 30, 1939 - ALEJANDRO DE GUZMAN v. VISAYAN RAPID TRANSIT CO.

    068 Phil 643

  • G.R. No. 46451 September 30, 1939 - PAZ CHUA v. SECRETARY OF LABOR

    068 Phil 649

  • G.R. No. 46484 September 30, 1939 - SANTIAGO SAMBRANO v. RED LINE TRANSPORTATION CO., INC.

    068 Phil 652

  • G.R. No. 46724 September 30, 1939 - CRESCENCIO REYNES v. ROSALINA BARRERA

    068 Phil 656

  • G.R. No. 46728 September 30, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO MONTENEGRO

    068 Phil 659

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 46602   September 22, 1939 - YAP TAK WING & CO. v. MUNICIPAL BOARD<br /><br />068 Phil 511

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 46602. September 22, 1939.]

    YAP TAK WING & CO., INC., ET AL., Petitioners-Appellants, v. THE MUNICIPAL BOARD, JUAN POSADAS, JR., as Mayor of the City of Manila, and VICTOR ALFONSO, as City Treasurer, Respondents-Appellees.

    Kong & Viola for Appellants.

    City Fiscal Diaz for Appellees.

    SYLLABUS


    1. CITY OF MANILA; MUNICIPAL BOARD; POWER OF TAXATION; ORDINANCES; PANCITERIAS" AND RESTAURANTS, DEFINED. — City Ordinance No. 2375 is a revenue measure enacted in pursuance of the delegated power of taxation of the City of Manila. "Restaurant" is a term commonly used to denote a place where food is served or a place where one retires to eat. Panciterias, under section 3 of Ordinance No. 2375, are defined as places where Chinese dishes are prepared and served. From the wording of subjection (m) of section 2444 of the Administrative Code, as amended by Act No. 3669, panciterias are clearly included in the general term "restaurants."

    2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID. — Where a municipal corporation is vested under its charter with the power to tax, it may change, alter, reduce, or increase rates already in existence, provided it does not contravene any provision of its charter, the Constitution or the general law. The ordinance in question reclassifies "panciterias" into classes based on the volume of business and the number of persons who may be accommodated in the establishment. There is no legal objection to this mode of classification. It is true that one group is required to pay a rate of tax different from what is exacted from those belonging to other groups, but it is clear that the ordinance is not aimed against any particular group but applies as well to all persons or group of persons included in one group, irrespective of the nationality of such persons or group of persons.


    D E C I S I O N


    LAUREL, J.:


    This is an appeal taken by the herein petitioners, Yap Tak Wing & Co., Inc., Et Al., from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila, rendered upon an agreed stipulation of facts, the dispositive part of which judgment reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "The court is of the opinion that the ordinance under consideration is valid. Having arrived at this conclusion, the court refrains, as unnecessary, from passing upon the question of procedure raised by the defendants. Suffice it to say that it would seem that injunction is a proper remedy to enjoin the collection of a tax under an illegal ordinance.

    "The petition is dismissed and the temporary injunction heretofore issued is hereby dissolved with the costs against the petitioners."cralaw virtua1aw library

    In accordance with sections 748, 749, and 750 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Manila, the petitioners paid for a period of one year (from November 15, 1935 to November 15, 1936) the required license fees for the operation of their restaurants, cafes, or public eating places or establishments in the City of Manila. On or about January 13, 1936, the City of Manila, through its board and mayor, enacted and approved City Ordinance No. 2375, amending sections 748, 749, and 750, providing for a reclassification of panciterias, restaurants, cafes, carinderias, and other public eating places within the City of Manila, and imposing increased rates of license fees or taxes. The twenty-nine petitioners refused to pay the license fees under the new law and instead filed a petition to have the ordinance nullified.

    Petitioners-appellants claim that as Ordinance No. 2375 was enacted under its police power to regulate the establishments mentioned, the City of Manila had no power to enact the same in its present form, and that the power to regulate does not include the power to impose taxes for revenue purposes. We find, however, that the challenged ordinance here was enacted pursuant to section 2444 of the Administrative Code, as amended by Act No. 3669, which in part reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "General powers and duties of the Board. — Except as provided by law, and subject to the conditions and limitations thereof, the Municipal Board shall have the following legislative powers:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    x       x       x


    "‘(m) To tax, fix the license fee and regulate the business of hotels, restaurants, refreshment places, cafes, lodging houses, and boarding houses, . . .

    The ordinance in question is a revenue measure enacted in pursuance of the delegated power of taxation of the City of Manila. "Restaurant" is a term commonly used to denote a place where food is served or a place where one retires to eat. Panciterias, under section 3 of Ordinance No. 2375, are defined as places where Chinese dishes are prepared and served. From the wording of subsection (m) of section 2444 of the Administrative Code, as amended by Act No. 3669, panciterias are clearly included in the general term "restaurants."

    It is next contended that City Ordinance No. 2375 is unreasonable, arbitrary, oppressive, and discriminatory, in that the amount of the license fees or taxes provided in the ordinance are much greater than those provided in section 748 of the Revised Ordinances, which it amended; that the amounts in the scale contained in the amendatory ordinance have been so increased as to drive the petitioners out of business; that it is in restraint of trade; and that it denies equal protection of the laws, because it is intended to operate against a group of persons residing in the Philippines engaged in that kind of business. This contention may be disposed of by recurrence to the accepted rule that where a municipal corporation is vested under its charter with the power to tax, it may change, alter, reduce, or increase rates already in existence, provided it does not contravene any provision of its charter, the Constitution or the general law. We find that the ordinance in question reclassifies "panciterias" into classes based on the volume of business and the number of persons who may be accommodated in the establishment. There is no legal objection to this mode of classification. It is true that one group is required to pay a rate of tax different from what is exacted from those belonging to other groups, but it is clear that the ordinance is not aimed against any particular group but applies as well to all persons or group of persons included in one group, irrespective of the nationality of such persons or group of persons.

    The judgment of the lower court is affirmed, with costs against the appellants. So ordered.

    Avanceña, C.J., Villa Real, Imperial, Diaz, Concepcion, and Moran, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 46602   September 22, 1939 - YAP TAK WING & CO. v. MUNICIPAL BOARD<br /><br />068 Phil 511


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED