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
 

   
January-1958 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. Nos. L-9456 & L-9481 January 6, 1958 - THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. DOMINGO DE LARA

    102 Phil 813

  • G.R. No. L-9692 January 6, 1958 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION COMPANY

    102 Phil 822

  • G.R. Nos. L-8845-46 January 7, 1958 - BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION COMPANY v. MARTIN SOUZA

    102 Phil 835

  • G.R. No. L-10202 January 8, 1958 - IN RE: SY CHHUT alias TAN BING TIONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    102 Phil 839

  • G.R. No. L-10420 January 10, 1958 - IN RE: LIM KIM So alias FRANCISCO LIM KIM SO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    102 Phil 843

  • G.R. Nos. L-10249-60 January 14, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUFINO CRISOSTOMO

    102 Phil 846

  • G.R. No. L-10285 January 14, 1958 - SAMPAGUITA SHOE v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

    102 Phil 850

  • G.R. No. L-10423 January 21, 1958 - AMADO P. JALANDONI v. ANGELA MARTIR-GUANZON

    102 Phil 859

  • G.R. No. L-11000 January 21, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALICIA RAPIRAP

    102 Phil 863

  • G.R. No. L-11014 January 21, 1958 - VICTORIANA ESPIRITU v. THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

    102 Phil 866

  • G.R. No. L-10196 January 22, 1958 - SANTOS LUMBER COMPANY v. CITY OF CEBU

    102 Phil 870

  • G.R. No. L-10776 January 23, 1958 - MELITON HERRERA v. THE AUDITOR GENERAL OF THE REP. OF THE PHIL.

    102 Phil 875

  • G.R. No. L-10922 January 23, 1958 - GREGORIO P. DE GUZMAN v. JOSE B. RAMOSO

    102 Phil 883

  • G.R. No. L-12294 January 23, 1958 - UNITED PEPSI-COLA SALES ORGANIZATION (PAFLU) v. HON. ANTONIO CAÑIZARES

    102 Phil 887

  • G.R. No. L-10234 January 24, 1958 - IN RE: Victoriano Yap Subieng to be admitted a citizen of the Phil.; VICTORIANO YAP SUBIENG v. REP. OF THE PHIL.

    102 Phil 892

  • G.R. No. L-9689 January 27, 1958 - JESUS T. QUIAMBAO v. PEDRO R. PERALTA

    102 Phil 899

  • G.R. No. L-10806 January 27, 1958 - DAVID AZNAR v. ASUNCION SUCILLA

    102 Phil 902

  • G.R. No. L-11093 January 27, 1958 - LEONARDO ENAGE LABAJO v. CIRIACO ENRIQUEZ

    102 Phil 907

  • G.R. No. L-10446 January 28, 1958 - COLLEGE OF ORAL & DENTAL SURGERY v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS

    102 Phil 912

  • G.R. No. L-10874 January 28, 1958 - RUFINO D. ANDRES v. THE CROWN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

    102 Phil 919

  • G.R. No. L-10702 January 29, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIXTO CABARLES

    102 Phil 926

  • G.R. No. L-10091 January 29, 1958 - BOY SCOUTS OF THE PHIL. v. JULIANA V. ARAOS

    102 Phil 1080

  • G.R. No. L-11343 January 29, 1958 - CARLOS LEDESMA v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS

    102 Phil 931

  • G.R. No. L-11248 January 30, 1958 - ANACLETA VILLAROMAN v. QUIRINO STA. MARIA

    102 Phil 937

  • Adm. Case No. 195 January 31, 1958 - IN RE: Attorney JESUS T. QUIAMBAO

    102 Phil 940

  • G.R. No. L-8252 January 31, 1958 - JOSE C. ZULUETA v. NICANOR NICOLAS

    102 Phil 944

  • G.R. No. L-9871 January 31, 1958 - ATKINS v. B. CUA HIAN TEK

    102 Phil 948

  • G.R. No. L-9928 January 31, 1958 - REP. OF THE PHIL. v. THE COURT OF APPEALS

    102 Phil 953

  • G.R. No. L-10022 January 31, 1958 - NORTHERN MOTORS v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION

    102 Phil 958

  • G.R. No. L-10141 January 31, 1958 - REP. OF THE PHIL. v. PHILIPPINE RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

    102 Phil 960

  • G.R. Nos. L-10236-48 January 31, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUSTACIO DE LUNA

    102 Phil 968

  • G.R. No. L-10370 January 31, 1958 - THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. MATIAS H. AZNAR

    102 Phil 979

  • G.R. No. L-10547 January 31, 1958 - THE PHIL. GUARANTY CO. v. LAURA DINIO

    102 Phil 991

  • G.R. No. L-10691 January 31, 1958 - ERLINDA STERNBERG v. GONZALO SOLOMON

    102 Phil 995

  • G.R. No. L-10747 January 31, 1958 - MARIANO DIAZ v. PASCUAL MACALINAO

    102 Phil 999

  • G.R. No. L-10902 January 31, 1958 - FLORIDA LAGMAY v. EMERENCIANA QUINIT

    102 Phil 1003

  • G.R. No. L-11024 January 31, 1958 - ALFONSO ANGELES v. THE COURT OF APPEALS, GREOGORIO STA. INES

    102 Phil 1006

  • G.R. No. L-11186 January 31, 1958 - ALFONSO CABABA v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

    102 Phil 1013

  • G.R. No. L-11395 January 31, 1958 - SOTERA GARCIA DIMAGIBA v. HON. AMBROSIO M. GERALDEZ

    102 Phil 1016

  • G.R. No. L-11647 January 31, 1958 - FLORENTINO NAVARRO v. HON. ELOY BELLO

    102 Phil 1019

  • G.R. No. L-12724 January 31, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARIDAD CAPISTRANO

    102 Phil 1025

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-10196 January 22, 1958 - SANTOS LUMBER COMPANY v. CITY OF CEBU<br /><br />102 Phil 870

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. L-10196. January 22, 1958.]

    SANTOS LUMBER COMPANY, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF CEBU, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

    Pedro B. Uy Calderon for Appellants.

    City Fiscal Jose L. Abad and Quirico del Mar for Appellees.


    SYLLABUS


    MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS; POWER OF TAXATION; NOT INHERENT IN MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS; CASE AT BAR. — A municipal corporation unlike a sovereign state, is clothed with no inherent power of taxation. Its charter must plainly show an intent to confer that power or the corporation cannot assume it. And the power when granted is to be construed strictissimi juris. Any doubt or ambiguity arising out of the term used must be resolved against the corporation. In the case at bar, while the Charter of the City of Cebu grants to the city the power to tax the business of lumber yards, it expressly withheld from the city the power to tax the sale of lumber stocked therein. Hence, the city ordinance imposing tax upon every person or company engaged in the sale of lumber are ultra vires and, therefore, invalid.


    D E C I S I O N


    BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:


    Plaintiffs brought this action in the proper court of first instance seeking to nullify Ordinance No. 92, series of 1950, and Ordinance No. 116, series of 1951, of the Municipal Board of the City of Cebu, and to recover the taxes paid by them under said ordinances. Plaintiffs claim that these ordinances are ultra vires and, therefore invalid. Defendants answered the complaint alleging that said ordinances are valid having been enacted pursuant to the power conferred upon the City of Cebu by its charter, Commonwealth Act No. 58.

    Deciding the case on the basis of facts agreed upon by the parties, the lower court upheld the validity of the ordinances and dismissed the case without costs. Plaintiffs appealed from the decision but took the case directly to us on the ground that only questions of law are involved in the appeal.

    Ordinance No. 92, as subsequently modified by Ordinance No. 116, imposes upon every person, individual, company or corporation engaged in the sale of lumber a tax of P2 "for every first local sale of one thousand board feet of lumber sold during the month", which shall be paid not later than the first twenty (20) days of the succeeding month. Failure to pay the tax within said period subjects the taxpayer to a surcharge of 20 per cent which shall be added to the tax. Plaintiffs claim that the Charter of the City of Cebu Commonwealth Act No. 58) does not confer upon it the power to impose the tax provided for in said ordinances.

    The pertinent portion on which the power of the City of Cebu is predicated is section 17 (m) of Commonwealth Act No. 58, which provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "SEC. 17. General powers and duties of the Board. — Except as otherwise provided by law, and subject to the conditions and limitations thereof, the Municipal Board shall have the following powers:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    x       x       x


    "(m) To tax, fix the license fee for, regulate the business, and fix the location of match factories, blacksmith shops, foundries, steam boilers, lumber yards, shipyards, the storage and sale of gunpowder, tar, pitch, resin, coal, oil, gasoline, benzine, turpentine, hemp, cotton, nitroglycerin, petroleum, or any of the products thereof, and of all other establishments likely to endanger the public safety or give rise to conflagration or explosions, and, subject to the provisions of ordinances issued by the Philippine Health Service in accordance with law, tanneries, renderies, tallow chandleries, bone factories, and soap factories."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Under the provision above-quoted, it would appear that the City of Cebu is given the power (1) to tax the business of, among other things, lumber yards, and (2) to tax the sale of gunpowder, tar, pitch, resin, coal, oil, gasoline, benzine, turpentine, hemp, cotton, nitroglycerin, petroleum, or any other products thereof. Note that lumber is not therein enumerated. Considering the well-known principle of inclusio unius est exclusio alterius, the conclusion is inevitable that the power to tax the sale of lumber has been withdrawn.

    But it is contended that the power to tax the business of lumber yards necessarily includes that of taxing the sale of lumber stocked therein, for, as the lower court said, "it is evident . . . that the intention was to include the sale of lumber, inasmuch as it cannot be denied that the ultimate business of maintaining a lumber yard is the accumulation of lumber and building materials and their subsequent sale for profit." But this reasoning is untenable considering that the Charter of the City of Cebu has expressly withheld, as we have already pointed out, the power to tax the sale of lumber. Moreover, a municipal corporation, unlike a sovereign state, is clothed with no inherent power of taxation. Its charter must plainly show an intent to confer that power or the corporation cannot assume it. And the power when granted is to be construed strictissimi juris. Any doubt or ambiguity arising out of the term used must be resolved against the corporation.

    "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. Coty Council, 53 Ala. p. 437; State v. Smith, 31 Iowa, p. 493; 83 Am. Jur. pp. 68, 72-73)." (Joseph K. Icard v. The City Council of Baguio and the City of Baguio, 46 Off. Gaz., No. 11, Sup. pp. 320, 323)

    "MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS; POWERS AND DUTIES OF; POWERS STRICTLY CONSTRUED. — Municipal corporations in the Philippines are mere creatures of Congress. As such, said corporations have only such powers as the legislative department may have deemed fit to grant them. By reason of the limited powers of local governments and the nature thereof, said powers are to be construed strictly and ‘any doubt or ambiguity arising out of the terms used in granting’ said powers ‘must be resolved against the municipality.’" (Syllabus, Fulgencio Vega, Et Al., v. The Municipal Board of the City of Iloilo, Et Al., 50 O. G., No. 6, p. 2456)

    A case squarely in point is Jos S. Johnston & Sons, Inc. v. Ramon Regondola, G. R. No. L-9355 (November 26, 1957). In that case plaintiff, a corporation engaged in lumber business in the City of Zamboanga, was made to pay a tax on its sales of lumber by virtue of an ordinance approved by the Municipal board and the question that arose was whether the city had the power to impose a tax on the sale of lumber under its charter, Commonwealth Act No. 39. This Court held that the ordinance was ultra vires because its enactment was beyond the power of the city, making on this point the following comment: 1

    "This provision of the city charter, it should be noted, authorizes the city to tax certain establishments — among them, lumber yards. It also authorizes the city to impose a tax upon ‘the storage and sale’ of certain materials therein expressly named or described, to wit: gunpowder, tar, pitch, resin, coal, oil, gasoline, benzine, turpentine, hemp, cotton, nitroglycerine, petroleum, ‘or any of the products thereof, and of all other highly combustible or explosive materials.’ It is appellant’s contention that the phrase ‘or any of the products thereof’ refers to products of the establishments mentioned, so that lumber, as a lumber yard product, is, in his opinion, among the articles whose storage and sale the charter means to subject to a municipal tax. To this we cannot agree. Appellant’s interpretation of the phrase would do violence to the language of the statute, for it is obvious from the context that the phrase has reference to products made from the materials enumerated. This is made more patent by the succeeding phrase ‘and of all other highly combustible or explosive materials’, which necessarily implies that the materials already mentioned are of that same character, that is to say, highly combustible or explosive. In other words, the materials whose storage and sale are authorized to be taxed by this provision of the charter are (1) those specifically mentioned for that purpose, namely, gunpowder, tar, pitch, etc., (2) any product made from them, and (3) all other highly combustible or explosive materials. Lumber is not specifically mentioned. Neither is it of the category described, because, though capable of undergoing combustion, it is not a highly combustible or explosive material. We therefore think that the trial judge was right in holding that the ordinance in question insofar as it imposes a tax on the sale of lumber is not authorized by the city charter."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Wherefore, the decision appealed from is reversed. The Court declares the ordinances in question illegal and orders appellees to return to appellants the sum of P97,542.57 and all such sums as may have been paid by the later after February, 1953, by Virtue of said ordinances. No costs.

    Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. The pertinent provisions of the Charter of Zamboanga are similar to those of the Charter of Cebu herein involved.

    G.R. No. L-10196 January 22, 1958 - SANTOS LUMBER COMPANY v. CITY OF CEBU<br /><br />102 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