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
 

   
May-1949 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-1674 May 9, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO SOMERA

    083 Phil 548

  • G.R. No. L-1765 May 9, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO TANDUG

    083 Phil 551

  • G.R. No. L-1881 May 9, 1949 - MANILA TERMINAL COMPANY v. LA CORTE DE RELACIONES INDUSTRIALES

    083 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. L-1512 May 12, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. FEDERICO

    083 Phil 569

  • G.R. No. L-1900 May 12, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO LACSON

    083 Phil 574

  • G.R. No. L-2064 May 12, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELIGIO TORRES

    083 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. L-1769 May 13, 1949 - PURITA PANAGUITON v. FLORENTINO PATUBO

    083 Phil 605

  • G.R. No. L-1833 May 13, 1949 - MEDARDO MUÑOZ v. EMILIO RILLORAZA

    083 Phil 609

  • G.R. No. L-792 May 14, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. E.C. CAÑADA

    083 Phil 612

  • G.R. No. L-1429 May 16, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO AQUINO Y ABALOS

    083 Phil 614

  • G.R. No. L-1950 May 16, 1949 - LAO SENG HIAN v. NATIVIDAD ALMEDA LOPEZ

    083 Phil 617

  • G.R. No. L-2014 May 16, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN Z. YELO

    083 Phil 618

  • G.R. No. L-1212 May 18, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. CELESTINO BASA Y OTROS

    083 Phil 622

  • G.R. No. L-1918 May 18, 1949 - PEDRO L. FLORES v. PERFECTO R. PALACIO

    083 Phil 626

  • G.R. No. L-2484 May 18, 1949 - LEE KO v. DIONISIO DE LEON

    083 Phil 628

  • G.R. No. L-2117 May 19, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. APOLONIO SOMBILON

    083 Phil 631

  • G.R. No. L-1471 May 20, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIAN ORAZA

    083 Phil 633

  • G.R. No. L-1917 May 20, 1949 - CATALINO MAGLASANG v. CIRILO C. MACEREN

    083 Phil 637

  • G.R. No. L-2245 May 20, 1949 - AMBROSIO CARBUNGCO v. RAFAEL AMPARO

    083 Phil 638

  • G.R. No. L-2831 May 20, 1949 - BERNARDO TORRES v. MAMERTO S. RIBO

    083 Phil 642

  • G.R. No. L-432 May 23, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IGNACIO CALINAWAN

    083 Phil 647

  • G.R. No. L-1795-6 May 23, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO VALDEZ

    083 Phil 650

  • G.R. No. L-1989 May 23, 1949 - JOSE REYES y RAMIREZ v. EL TRIBUNAL DE APELACION

    083 Phil 658

  • G.R. No. L-2203 May 23, 1949 - SAN MIGUEL BREWERY v. LA CORTE DE RELACIONES INDUSTRIALES

    083 Phil 663

  • G.R. No. L-2431 May 23, 1949 - CEFERINO TAVORA v. PEDRO OFIANA

    083 Phil 672

  • G.R. No. 213 May 24, 1949 - GENEROSA A. DIA v. FINANCE & MINING INVESTMENT CORP.

    083 Phil 675

  • G.R. No. L-1700 May 24, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO MINTU

    083 Phil 678

  • G.R. No. L-2004 May 24, 1949 - PABLO COTAOCO v. RAFAEL DINGLASAN

    083 Phil 681

  • G.R. No. L-2251 May 24, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. ELISA TANDAG

    083 Phil 683

  • G.R. No. L-1980 May 25, 1949 - CIPRIANO SEVILLA v. CEFERINO DE LOS SANTOS

    083 Phil 686

  • G.R. No. L-944 May 26, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FAUSTO AVILA

    083 Phil 687

  • G.R. No. L-1823 May 26, 1949 - GERONIMO DE LOS REYES v. ARTEMIO ELEPAÑO

    083 Phil 691

  • G.R. No. L-1825 May 26, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. EUGENIO BERSIDA

    083 Phil 696

  • G.R. No. L-2022 May 26, 1949 - GUIA S. J0SE DE BAYER v. ERNESTO OPPEN

    083 Phil 700

  • G.R. No. L-2161 May 26, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAMES YOUNG

    083 Phil 702

  • G.R. No. L-2323 May 26, 1949 - M. A. ZARCAL v. S. HERRERO

    083 Phil 711

  • G.R. Nos. L-675 & L-676 May 27, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NEMESIO LASTIMOSO

    083 Phil 714

  • G.R. No. L-1274 May 27, 1949 - PHIL. TRANSIT ASSN. v. TREASURER OF MANILA

    083 Phil 722

  • G.R. No. L-1394 May 27, 1949 - RAFAEL ROA YROSTORZA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    083 Phil 727

  • G.R. No. L-1861 May 27, 1949 - RIZAL SURETY AND INSURANCE CO. v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

    083 Phil 732

  • G.R. No. L-1869 May 27, 1949 - JOSE PIO BARRETTO v. N. ALMEDA LOPEZ

    083 Phil 734

  • G.R. No. L-2300 May 27, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELINO TUMAOB

    083 Phil 738

  • G.R. No. L-2382 May 27, 1949 - PABLO S. RIVERA v. FRANCISCO ARELLANO

    083 Phil 744

  • G.R. No. L-1606 May 28, 1949 - IN RE: YEE BO MANN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    083 Phil 749

  • G.R. No. L-2309 May 28, 1949 - LOPE SARREAL v. SOTERO RODAS

    083 Phil 751

  • G.R. No. L-2518 May 28, 1949 - DONATA OLIVEROS DE TAN v. ENGRACIO FABRE

    083 Phil 755

  • G.R. No. L-2539 May 28, 1949 - JOSE P. MONSALE v. PAULINO M. NICO

    083 Phil 758

  • G.R. No. L-1511 May 30, 1949 - MIGUEL OJO v. JOSE V. JAMITO

    083 Phil 764

  • G.R. No. L-1550 May 30, 1949 - IN RE: FREDERICK EDWARD GILBERT ZUELLIG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    083 Phil 768

  • G.R. No. L-1609 May 30, 1949 - REMIGIO M. PEÑA v. FRANCISCO ARELLANO

    083 Phil 773

  • G.R. No. L-1686 May 30, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. SANTOS TOLEDO

    083 Phil 777

  • G.R. No. L-1723 May 30, 1949 - LUZ MARQUEZ DE SANDOVAL v. VICENTE SANTIAGO

    083 Phil 784

  • G.R. No. L-1978 May 30, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. ANTONIO ORCULLO Y OTROS

    083 Phil 787

  • G.R. No. L-1996 May 30, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALIP JULMAIN

    083 Phil 793

  • G.R. No. L-2031 May 30, 1949 - HERMOGENES C. LIM v. RESTITUTO L. CALAGUAS

    083 Phil 796

  • G.R. No. L-2069 May 30, 1949 - LUZON BROKERAGE CO. v. LUZON LABOR UNION

    083 Phil 801

  • G.R. No. L-2083 May 30, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR MALIG

    083 Phil 804

  • G.R. No. L-2098 May 30, 1949 - PIO MARQUEZ v. ARSENIO PRODIGALIDAD

    083 Phil 813

  • G.R. No. L-2099 May 30, 1949 - JOSE ONG v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

    083 Phil 834

  • G.R. No. L-2130 May 30, 1949 - FRANCISCO SANCHEZ v. PEDRO SERRANO

    083 Phil 838

  • G.R. No. L-2132 May 30, 1949 - JUAN SAVINADA v. J. M. TUASON & CO.

    083 Phil 840

  • G.R. No. 49102 May 30, 1949 - W.C. OGAN v. BIBIANO L. MEER

    083 Phil 844

  • G.R. No. L-1104 May 31, 1949 - EASTERN THEATRICAL CO. v. VICTOR ALFONSO

    083 Phil 852

  • G.R. Nos. L-1264 & L-1265 May 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TIMOTEO SAGARIO

    083 Phil 862

  • G.R. No. L-1271 May 31, 1949 - BENIGNO DEL RIO v. CARLOS PALANCA TANGUINLAY

    083 Phil 867

  • G.R. No. L-1281 May 31, 1949 - JOSEPH E. ICARD v. CITY COUNCIL OF BAGUIO

    083 Phil 870

  • G.R. No. L-1298 May 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO SANTOS BALINGIT

    083 Phil 877

  • G.R. No. L-1299 May 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JACOB J. LOEWINSOHN

    083 Phil 882

  • G.R. No. L-1827 May 31, 1949 - ALFREDO CATOLICO v. IRINEO RANJO

    083 Phil 885

  • G.R. No. L-1927 May 31, 1949 - CRISTOBAL ROÑO v. JOSE L. GOMEZ

    083 Phil 890

  • G.R. No. L-1952 May 31, 1949 - FRANCISCO R. VlLLAROMAN v. FLORENTINO J. TECHICO

    083 Phil 901

  • G.R. No. L-2108 May 31, 1949 - PAMPANGA BUS CO. v. LUIS G. ABLAZA

    083 Phil 905

  • G.R. No. L-2252 May 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BARTOLOME BEDIA

    083 Phil 909

  • G.R. No. L-2253 May 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SERVANDO MANIEGO

    083 Phil 916

  • G.R. No. L-2283 May 31, 1949 - MARINA TAYZON and FLORDELIZA G. ANGELES v. RAMON YCASIANO

    083 Phil 921

  • G.R. No. L-2326 May 31, 1949 - FERNANDO ALEJO v. MARIANO GARCHITORENA

    083 Phil 924

  • G.R. No. L-2351 May 31, 1949 - FRANCISCO ARGOS v. DOMINADOR VELOSO

    083 Phil 929

  • G.R. No. L-2377 May 31, 1949 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. JUSTA G. VDA. DE GUIDO

    083 Phil 934

  • G.R. No. L-2450 May 31, 1949 - VERONICA RUPERTO v. CEFERINO FERNANDO

    083 Phil 943

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-1281   May 31, 1949 - JOSEPH E. ICARD v. CITY COUNCIL OF BAGUIO<br /><br />083 Phil 870

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. L-1281. May 31, 1949.]

    JOSEPH E. ICARD, Petitioner-Appellee, v. THE CITY COUNCIL OF BAGUIO and THE CITY OF BAGUIO, Respondents-Appellants.

    Jose P. Flores for Appellants.

    Francisco S. Reyes for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. TAXATION; MUNICIPAL CORPORATION; POWER TO TAX CANNOT BE INFERRED. — A municipal corporation, unlike a sovereign state, is clothed with no inherent power of taxation. The charter or statute must plainly show an intent to confer that power or the municipality cannot assume it. And the power when granted is to be construed in strictissimi juris. Any doubt or ambiguity arising out of the term used in granting that power must be resolved against the municipality. Inferences, implications, deductions — all these — have no place in the interpretation of the taxing power of a municipal corporation.

    2. ID.; ID.; CITY OF BAGUIO, POWER TO TAX; SECTION 2553 (b) OF REVISED ADMINISTRATIVE CODE. — Section 2553 (b) of the Revised Administrative Code is meant to authorize the City of Baguio to impose taxes only in those cases specifically provided by law. In other words, for authority to levy a tax on specific subjects one must look elsewhere in the statute book, For, had the provision been meant as a blanket authority to levy taxes, there would have been no need for the phrase "as provided by law." The insertion of that phrase bespeaks the legislative intent to have the city exercise the power of taxation within given limits, that is, as the law may provide.

    3. ID.; ID.; PROPERTY TAX ON MOTOR VEHICLES. — The City of Baguio may not collect a property tax on motor vehicles in the absence of a specific legal provision authorizing it to do so.


    D E C I S I O N


    REYES, J.:


    This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of the Mountain Province.

    The facts are not in dispute.

    The City of Baguio has enacted the following ordinances:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "1. No. 6-V, providing, among other things, for an amusement tax of P0.20 for every person entering a night club licensed to do business in the city;

    "2. No. 11-V, providing for a property tax on motor vehicles kept and operated in the city; and

    "3. No. 12-V, imposing a graduated license fee on every admission ticket sold by enterprises enumerated in said ordinance, among them, cinematographs."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Petitioner, a resident of the City of Baguio, is holder of a municipal license for the operation of a night club called "El Club Monaco." As owner and operator of said night club, he has to pay to the National Government an amusement tax on its total gross receipts under section 260 of the Internal Revenue Code, and to the City of Baguio the annual license fee provided for in said Ordinance No. 6-V. But in addition to said amusement tax and license fee, he has also been required to pay the amusement tax imposed in that same ordinance, which, on the basis of P0.20 per person entering the night club, amounted to the total sum of P254.80 for the first quarter of 1946. This sum he paid under protest.

    As owner of a six-passenger automobile for private use, a Chevrolet Ford or Sedan kept and operated in the City of Baguio, petitioner has already paid the sum of P37 as registration fee for 1946 under the Revised Motor Vehicle Law. But pursuant to Ordinance No. 11-V of said city, he would also have to pay, in addition, an annual property tax of P15 on the same automobile.

    There is no showing that petitioner has any business subject to the payment of the graduated license fee on admission tickets imposed by Ordinance No. 12-V of the City of Baguio.

    Contending that the ordinances above mentioned are unjust and ultra vires, petitioner brought the present action for declaratory relief to have the said ordinances declared void and also for the refund of the sum of P254.80 which he has paid to the city under protest.

    In an able and well-considered decision, the lower court, presided over by Judge Conrado Sanchez, denied the petition for declaratory relief in reference to Ordinance No. 12-V on the ground that petitioner had not been shown to be the owner or operator of any of the enterprises therein enumerated, but declared null and void Ordinance No. 11-V and also that portion of Ordinance No. 6-V which provides for an amusement tax of P0.20 on every person entering a night club, without pronouncement as to the legality or illegality of the remainder of the said ordinance. And, in consequence, the City of Baguio was ordered to refund to petitioner the sum of P254.80 paid as amusement tax under Ordinance No. 6-V, without special pronouncement as to costs.

    Appealing from the above decision, the City Attorney of Baguio, as counsel for the respondents, presents the case here on the following assignment of errors:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "1. The lower court erred in declaring null and void Ordinance No. 11-V;

    "2. The lower court erred in declaring null and void that portion of Ordinance No. 6-V, providing for an amusement tax of P0.20 per person entering a night club; and

    "3. The lower court erred in ordering the respondent-appellant, the City of Baguio, to refund to the petitioner-appellee the sum of P254.80 paid as amusement tax under Ordinance No. 6-V."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The whole case boils down to this question: Is the City of Baguio empowered to levy a property tax on motor vehicles and an amusement tax on night clubs?

    It is settled that a municipal corporation, unlike a sovereign state, is clothed with no inherent power of taxation. The charter or statute must plainly show an intent to confer that power or the municipality cannot assume it. And the power when granted is to be construed in strictissimi juris. Any doubt or ambiguity arising out of the term used in granting that power must be resolved against the municipality. Inferences, implications, deductions — all these — have no place in the interpretation of the taxing power of a municipal corporation (Cu Unjieng v. Patstone, 42 Phil., pp. 818, 830; Pacific Commercial Co. v. Romualdez, 49 Phil., pp. 917, 924; Batangas Transportation Co. v. Provincial Treasurer of Batangas, 52 Phil., pp. 190, 196; Baldwin v. City Council, 53 Ala., p. 437; State v. Smith, 31 Iowa, p. 493; 38 Am. Jur., pp. 68, 72-73)

    With the above principles in mind, let us now inquire into the authority of the City of Baguio to levy taxes. That part of the charter of this city which deals with the subject of taxation is found in section 2553 (b) of the Revised Administrative Code, which empowers its city council —

    "To provide for the levy and collection of taxes and other city revenues, as provided by law, and apply the same to the payment of municipal expenses in accordance with appropriations."cralaw virtua1aw library

    As the lower court has correctly interpreted it, this provision simply means that the City of Baguio may impose taxes only in those cases specifically provided by law. In other words, for authority to levy a tax on specific subjects one must look elsewhere in the statute book. For, had the provision been meant as a blanket authority to levy taxes, there would have been no need for the phrase "as provided by law." The insertion of that phrase bespeaks the legislative intent to have the city exercise the power of taxation within given limits, that is, as the law may provide.

    There is of course no question as to the authority of the City of Baguio to collect a license fee on dance halls and night clubs, such authority being specifically given by section 260 of the Internal Revenue Code. As a matter of fact petitioner has been paying such license fee without objection or protest. But what is objected to is the tax of P0.20 for every person entering those amusement places, as provided for in Ordinance No. 6-V, and this tax is apart and distinct from the license fee, for the ordinance itself says that it shall be in addition to the latter. This tax is not authorized by any Act of the Legislature. It is, therefore, beyond the power of the City of Baguio to levy.

    Our attention has been invited to the fact that the charter of the City of Manila contains specific provisions naming the subjects on which the said city may levy taxes, and the argument is made that the absence of such specific provisions from the Charter of the City of Baguio is indicative of the legislative intent to grant the latter city the general power of taxation. The argument is clearly untenable. The Manila Charter also contains a provision (section 2444 [a] of the Revised Administrative Code) empowering that city "to provide for the levy and collection of taxes for general and special purposes in accordance with law." This is the counterpart of the provision in the Baguio Charter (section 2553 [b] of the Revised Administrative Code) already quoted above. Though differently worded, the two provisions mean exactly the same thing. If those provisions were meant to grant an over-all authority to levy taxes, surely there would have been no need for those specific provisions in the Manila Charter which authorize the imposition of taxes in certain given cases. Those specific provisions are proof that the said city is to exercise the power of taxation granted it by section 2444 (a) of the Revised Administrative Code "in accordance with law" or, in the wording of the Baguio Charter, "as provided by law." In other words, there must be specific legislative authority for the tax. Applying these considerations to the City of Baguio, the logical conclusion is that, where a given tax is not expressly authorized by law, that city may not impose it despite the provision of section 2553 (b) of the Revised Administrative Code. This accords with the principle already stated that the power of a municipal corporation to tax, in order to exist, must be granted expressly, never impliedly or inferentially.

    To the plea that the power of taxation is essential to the continued existence of a city government, the answer is that the City of Baguio is amply provided for by its Charter. It is authorized to levy and collect license fees on a long list of occupations (section 2553 [c] Rev. Adm. Code); to levy and collect taxes on real estates within its borders (section 2569, id.); to have a share in the internal revenue collections (section 357, Nat. Int. Rev. Code); and to receive a subsidy from the National Government (section 2553, id.) . In addition, the city derives income from the sale of public lands within its limits and flow the operation of its water system and electric plant. The city is thus provided with ample means with which to carry on the functions of government.

    Having come to the conclusion that the City of Baguio may not levy taxes as it pleases but only as the Legislature may specifically provide, we have looked in the charter of that city for a specific provision empowering it to levy an amusement tax on night clubs and have found none. On the other hand, as the lower court points out, that power is expressly granted to the City of Manila by section 2444 (m) of the Revised Administrative Code. When it is recollected that, as already explained, both cities may, under a general provision of their charters, levy taxes only as the law authorizes, the absence of a similar express grant in the case of the city of Baguio is proof that the power to levy this particular tax has been intentionally withheld from it.

    Coming now to Ordinance No. 11-V, a reading of its terms strikes us that what is therein designated as a property tax on motor vehicles kept in the City of Baguio has all the earmarks of a municipal license fee, a thing expressly forbidden by section 70 (b) of the Revised Motor Vehicle Law. But assuming that it is a property tax (since the point is not raised), we find that, like in the case of the amusement tax on cabarets and dance halls, there is no legal provision authorizing its levy by the City of Baguio. It is true that the section of the Revised Motor Vehicle Law just cited contains a proviso to the effect that nothing in that statute shall be construed to exempt any motor vehicle from the payment of any lawful and equitable insular, local or municipal property tax imposed thereon. But here again the question arises as to whether this proviso is in itself an authorization for any municipal authority to provide for the imposition of a tax. The wording of the proviso obviously refers to a tax lawfully imposed so that, in accord with the views we have expressed above, the City of Baguio may not collect the tax in the absence of a specific legal provision authorizing it to do so. It may be remarked in this connection that the charter of the City of Manila does contain such a provision (section 2444 [n]), Rev. Adm. Code), which is added proof that the proviso under consideration does not of itself authorize the imposition of the tax.

    In view of the foregoing, it is our conclusion that Ordinance No. 6-V, in so far as it provides for an amusement tax of P0.20 for each person entering a night club, and Ordinance No. 11-V, which provides for a property tax on motor vehicles, should be declared illegal and void as beyond the authority of the City of Baguio to enact.

    Wherefore, in so far as the judgment below makes that declaration and orders the City of Baguio to refund to petitioner-appellee the sum of P254.80 paid as amusement tax under Ordinance No. 6-V, the same is hereby affirmed, without special pronouncement as to costs.

    Moran, C.J., Paras, Feria, Pablo, Perfecto, Bengzon, Tuason and Montemayor, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. L-1281   May 31, 1949 - JOSEPH E. ICARD v. CITY COUNCIL OF BAGUIO<br /><br />083 Phil 870


    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