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
 

   
April-1955 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-7065 April 13, 1955 - TEOFILA S. TIBON v. AUDITOR GENERAL

    096 Phil 786

  • G.R. No. L-7784 April 13, 1955 - NICOLAS ADANTE v. CANDIDO DAGPIN

    096 Phil 789

  • G.R. No. L-7904 April 14, 1955 - EDUARDO HILVANO v. FIDEL FERNANDEZ

    096 Phil 791

  • G.R. No. L-7851 April 15, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HONORABLE JOSE P. VELUZ

    096 Phil 794

  • G.R. No. L-8183 April 15, 1955 - VICTOR DE LA CRUZ v. HONORABLE AMBROSIO T. DOLLETE

    096 Phil 797

  • G.R. No. L-8316 April 15, 1955 - LUZON STEVEDORING CO. v. THE HONORABLE CESAREO DE LEON

    096 Phil 801

  • G.R. No. L-7094 April 16, 1955 - JUANITA MIRANDA v. HON. JUDGE DEMETRIO B. ENCARNACION

    096 Phil 805

  • G.R. No. L-7791 April 19, 1955 - LEE TAY & LEE CHAY v. KAISAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA KAHOY SA FILIPINAS

    096 Phil 808

  • G.R. No. L-6871 April 20, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BANDALI TAGACAOLO

    096 Phil 812

  • G.R. No. L-7301 April 20, 1955 - TIU SAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. ET AL.

    096 Phil 817

  • G.R. No. L-7318 April 20, 1955 - HELEN GENIO DE CHAVEZ v. A. L. AMMEN TRANSPORTATION CO.

    096 Phil 823

  • G.R. No. L-6508 April 25, 1955 - KOPPEL (PHIL) INC. v. EL TRIBUNAL DE RELACIONES INDUSTRIALES

    096 Phil 830

  • G.R. No. L-7076 April 28, 1955 - ROSARIO and UNTALAN v. CARANDANG ET AL.

    096 Phil 845

  • G.R. No. L-6469 April 29, 1955 - NAVARRA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL and COURT OF APPEALS

    096 Phil 851

  • G.R. No. L-6740 April 29, 1955 - DIMAYUGA v. DIMAYUGA

    096 Phil 859

  • G.R. No. L-6752 April 29, 1955 - NAZARIO TRILLANA v. FAUSTINO MANANSALA

    096 Phil 865

  • G.R. No. L-6972 April 29, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMO SATURNINO

    096 Phil 868

  • G.R. No. L-7054 April 29, 1955 - UY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    096 Phil 871

  • G.R. No. L-7541 April 29, 1955 - VISAYAN SURETY & INS. CORP. v. LACSON ET AL.

    096 Phil 878

  • G.R. No. L-7550 April 29, 1955 - DONALD A. ROCCO v. MORTON MEADS

    096 Phil 884

  • G.R. No. L-7623 April 29, 1955 - FELICIDAD CASTAÑEDA v. BRUNA PESTAÑO

    096 Phil 890

  • G.R. No. L-7692 April 29, 1955 - PEOPLE’S BANK & TRUST CO., v. HONORABLE RAMON R. SAN JOSE

    096 Phil 895

  • G.R. No. L-8107 April 29, 1955 - VISAYAN SURETY & INS. CORP. v. HON. DE AQUINO ET AL.

    096 Phil 900

  • G.R. No. L-8348 April 29, 1955 - BAGTAS v. EL TRIBUNAL DE APELACION

    096 Phil 905

  • G.R. No. L-6931 April 30, 1955 - STANDARD-VACUUM OIL COMPANY v. M. D. ANTIGUA

    096 Phil 909

  • G.R. No. L-7236 April 30, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. Po GIOK TO

    096 Phil 913

  • G.R. No. L-7296 April 30, 1955 - PLASLU v. PORTLAND CEMENT CO., ET AL.

    096 Phil 920

  • G.R. No. L-7390 April 30, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYES, ET AL.

    096 Phil 927

  • G.R. No. L-7561 April 30, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISAAC, ET AL.

    096 Phil 931

  • G.R. No. L-7680 April 30, 1955 - TAN TONG v. DEPORTATION BOARD

    096 Phil 934

  • G.R. No. L-7830 Abril 30, 1955 - MANZA v. HON. VICENTE SANTIAGO, ET AL.

    096 Phil 938

  • G.R. No. L-8017 April 30, 1955 - MANSAL v. P. P. GOCHECO LUMBER CO.

    096 Phil 941

  • G.R. No. L-8278 April 30, 1955 - SUMAIL v. HON. JUDGE OF THE CFI OF COTABATO, ET AL

    096 Phil 946

  • G.R. No. L-8332 April 30, 1955 - JESUS S. RODRIGUEZ v. FRANCISCO A. ARELLANO

    096 Phil 954

  • G.R. No. L-8909 Abril 30, 1955 - JOSE LAANAN v. EL ALCAIDE PROVINCIAL DE RIZAL

    096 Phil 959

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-6931   April 30, 1955 - STANDARD-VACUUM OIL COMPANY v. M. D. ANTIGUA<br /><br />096 Phil 909

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. L-6931. April 30, 1955.]

    STANDARD-VACUUM OIL COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M. D. ANTIGUA, as Municipal Treasurer of Opon and the MUNICIPALITY OF OPON, Defendants-Appellees.

    Ross, Selph, Carrascoso & Janda for Appellant.

    Provincial Fiscal Jose C. Borromeo and Assistant Provincial Fiscal Ananias V. Maribao for Appellees.


    SYLLABUS


    TAXATION; OCCUPATION TAX TO BE IMPOSED ON MAIN BUSINESS ONLY. — When a person or company is already taxed on its main business, it may not be further taxed for doing something or engaging in an activity or work which is merely part of, incidental to and is necessary to its main business.


    D E C I S I O N


    MONTEMAYOR, J.:


    This is an action to recover from the Municipal Treasurer of Opon, Cebu, the sum of P26,639.50 collected by said town official from the plaintiff-appellant Standard Vacuum Oil Company and paid by the latter under protest. The facts in this case are simple and not disputed. Section 1 of Commonwealth Act 472 known as the Municipality Autonomy Act reads thus:red:chanrobles.com.ph

    "SECTION 1. A municipal council or municipal district council shall have authority to impose municipal license taxes upon person engaged in any occupation or business, or exercising privileges in the municipality or municipal district, by requiring them to secure licenses at rates fixed by the municipal council, or municipal district council, and to collect fees and charges, for service rendered by the municipality or municipal district and shall otherwise have power to levy for public local purposes, and for school purposes, including teacher’s salaries, just and uniform taxes other than percentages taxes and taxes on specified articles."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Under the above reproduced legal provision, the municipal council of Opon passed Ordinance No. 9, series of 1949, imposing a graduated license tax on the business of manufacturing tin cans based on the maximum output capacity of the factory. Said ordinance was duly approved by the Department of Finance.

    The plaintiff-appellant Standard Vacuum Oil Company, a foreign corporation duly licensed to transact business in the Philippines, having its principal office in the City of Manila and with branch office in the City of Cebu, is engaged in the importation, distribution and sale of gasoline, kerosene and other fuel oils. Some of its products, especially kerosene are placed in 5-gallon tin cans and then distributed and sold throughout the Philippines. The company’s branch in Cebu operates and maintains an establishment in the Municipality of Opon known as Opon Terminal where it stores the gasoline, kerosene and other fuel oils it imports from abroad and where it manufactures 5-gallon tin cans. To give an idea of the output of its tin can factory, the evidence shows that for the years 1950 and 1951 appellant company manufactured 2,796,911 and 2,523,975 tin cans, respectively, or a total of 5,320,886. This will explain the relatively large amount of tax collected by the defendant Municipal Treasurer for two years.

    Appellant contends that the municipal ordinance is null and void because the graduated license tax imposed is said to partake of the nature of a percentage or specific tax, being an indirect percentage tax on specified articles, namely, the tin cans, and as such percentage tax is outside the powers of a municipal corporation to impose under the above-cited legal provision; and that assuming that it is not a percentage but an occupation tax, still it does not apply to the tin can factory of plaintiff-appellant because it is not a business operated for profit but is merely incidental to its main business of importing gasoline, kerosene and other fuel oils and later placing them in tin cans for distribution and sale.

    The trial court held that the manufacture of tin cans by plaintiff company to be used as containers of its gasoline, kerosene and other fuel oils is an occupation by itself from which the plaintiff derives benefit by not buying said tin cans from other persons who would otherwise manufacture them; and that were the plaintiff exempted from paying the tax on the cans manufactured and used for the distribution of its commodity while others engaged in the manufacture of tin cans are required to pay the tax, then the said tax ceases to be just and uniform. Plaintiff is now appealing from that decision of the trial court holding that the municipal ordinance was not only valid but was also applicable to the plaintiff and that consequently, the amount of the tax should not be refunded to it.

    We are satisfied that the graduated license tax imposed by the ordinance in question is an occupation tax, imposed not under the police or regulatory power of the municipality but by virtue of its taxing power for purposes of revenue, and is in accordance with the last part of section 1 of Commonwealth Act 42. It is, therefore, valid. The question now to be determined is whether it is applicable to the plaintiff corporation. To us, it is clear that if a company manufactures tin cans to be sold to the public or to companies engaged in the sale and distribution of liquids, then said manufacture would be a business or occupation subject to the tax imposed by the ordinance. However, where the manufacture of tin cans as in the present case is conducted not as an independent business, and for profit but merely as an incident to or part of its main business, then it may not be considered as an occupation or business which may be taxed separately. The plaintiff company as already stated, is engaged in the importation, distribution and sale of gasoline, kerosene and other fuel oils and it is already paying the specific tax of two centavos and seven centavos per liter of kerosene and gasoline, respectively, being sold by it. While gasoline may be sold and distributed to its dealers and to the public at gasoline stations and without the use of tin cans this may not be done with kerosene or petroleum which is being sold not only in small towns which have no kerosene stations but in distant barrios; hence the necessity of providing suitable containers such as 5-gallon tin cans. According to the findings of the trial court which we must accept here, because the appeal was made directly to this Tribunal on purely questions of law, the tin cans in question were not manufactured by the appellant company "for sale to the public, but for the purpose of distributing its products which are in liquid form."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The case of Smith, Bell & Co. v. Municipality of Zamboanga reported in 55 Phil., 466, involved a company engaged in the purchase and sale of hemp which operated a motor engine used for baling hemp for shipment. The Municipality of Zamboanga enacted an ordinance requiring payment. of a license fee of P100 a year for every motor engine used for baling hemp. The company objected to the payment of the fee saying that the use of its motor engine was an incident to its business of purchase and sale of hemp. After paying the fee under protest the company brought an action to recover the same from the municipality. This Tribunal affirming the judgment of the lower court which decided in favor of the company said that a company that has already paid taxes or impost for the operation of its main business of purchase and sale of hemp may not be further taxed for its possession and operation of a motor engine to bale hemp for the reason that the baling of hemp is connected with, incidental to and part of plaintiff’s business, particularly its sale and shipment of said commodity.

    In the case of Craig v. Ballard & Ballard Co., 196 Sc. 238, it was held that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Where a person or corporation is engaged in a distinct business and, as a feature thereof, in an activity merely incidental which serves no other person or business, the incidental and restricted activity is not to be considered as intended to be separately or additionally taxed."cralaw virtua1aw library

    In conclusion, we hold that when a person or company is already taxed on its main business, it may not be further taxed for doing something or engaging in an activity or work which is merely a part of, incidental to and is necessary to its main business.

    In view of the foregoing, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed, and the Municipal Treasurer of Opon Cebu, is hereby ordered to return to the plaintiff-appellant the sum of P26,639.50, without interest, but with costs.

    Pablo, Acting C. J., Bengzon, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, and Labrador, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. L-6931   April 30, 1955 - STANDARD-VACUUM OIL COMPANY v. M. D. ANTIGUA<br /><br />096 Phil 909


    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