Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1966 > December 1966 Decisions > G.R. No. L-20406 December 29, 1966 ENRIQUE R. YU KING v. CITY OF ZAMBOANGA:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-20406. December 29, 1966.]

ENRIQUE R. YU KING, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITY OF ZAMBOANGA, Defendant-Appellant.

Jose G. Bornas, Jr. for Plaintiff-Appellee.

City Fiscal of Zamboanga City, for Defendant-Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. TAXATION; POWER OF CITY TO ENACT ORDINANCE IMPOSING SPECIFIC TAX ON GASOLINE OR CRUDE OIL SOLD. — Under Section 14(a) of Commonwealth Act No. 39, as amended which grants to the City of Zamboanga the power "to tax, fix the license fee for . . . regulate the business and fix the location of match factory or factories . . . the storage and sale of gunpowder . . . coal oil, gasoline, benzine . . . petroleum; or any of the products thereof and of all other highly combustible or explosive materials", the authority of said city to impose the tax in question is clear.

2. MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES; BURDEN TO PROVE ABSENCE OR LACK OF CERTIFICATION; PRESUMPTION OF COMPLIANCE OF OFFICIAL DUTY. — He who seeks the annulment of an ordinance upon the ground that it lacks certification from the City Mayor must prove such absence of lack of certification. Even if said ordinances were approved as emergency measures, the presumption must be that official duty in connection with their enactment had been duly complied with, in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary.

3. ID.; ORDINANCES MADE RETROACTIVE FIVE DAYS, NOT VOID. — It will be observed that Ordinance No. 340 was passed on October 6, 1950 and it was made effective or retroactive as of October 1 of the same year — a matter of five days. We do not believe such insignificant circumstance could render the measure void.


D E C I S I O N


DIZON, J.:


The City of Zamboanga appeals from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga in Civil Case No. 620 entitled "Enrique R. Yu King v. City of Zamboanga" declaring void Ordinances Nos. 340, 503 and 672 of the City Council of said city and ordering it to refund to Yu King the amount of P26,779.92 paid by the latter as specific or license tax on the gasoline, kerosene and oil sold by him from November 9, 1950 to December 20, 1955, pursuant to said ordinances, with legal interest from the date of the complaint and to pay attorney’s fees in the sum of P1,000.00.

On July 17, 1956, appellee filed the abovementioned action in the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga alleging in his complaint that he was engaged in the business of buying and selling gasoline, kerosene and oil in the City of Zamboanga; that on October 6, 1950, the City Council passed Ordinance No. 340, which, among other things, imposed a specific tax of P0.50 per liter of gasoline sold, P0.02 per liter of lubricating oil, P0.01 per gallon of kerosene and P0.01 per gallon of crude oil sold; that said ordinance was superseded by Ordinance No. 503 approved on December 29, 1952 and later by Ordinance No. 672 approved on December 29, 1954, imposing an identical tax on the sale of the aforementioned items; that Ordinance No. 340 was approved with retroactive effect as of October 1, 1950 and all said ordinances were passed as emergency measures; that pursuant thereto, appellee was forced to pay to the City Treasurer of Zamboanga from November 9, 1950 to December 20, 1955 the total amount of P26,779.92 as specific or license tax on gasoline, kerosene and oil sold by him; that said ordinances were null and void because (1) Ordinance No. 340 was made to have a retroactive effect; (2) they were enacted and passed as emergency measures without their having been previously so certified by the City Mayor as provided for in paragraph (f), Section 10, Article 11 of Commonwealth Act No. 39, as amended, and (3) they were ultra vires since no power to impose said tax has been granted to the City of Zamboanga under its charter (Commonwealth Act No. 39, as amended); and that appellee had demanded the refund of said sum of P26,779.92 from appellant, thru its City Treasurer, but failed.

For its part, appellant City claimed that the questioned ordinances were valid, as they were passed by the City Council of Zamboanga pursuant to Section 10 of Article 2, paragraph (f) of Commonwealth Act No. 39, as amended, and were authorized under its taxing power, as provided for in Section 14(M) of its charter, which authority to enact said ordinances was confirmed by Congress in Section 4 of Republic Act No. 1435, approved June 14, 1956, which provides, among other things, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Section 4. Municipal boards or councils may, notwithstanding the provisions of section one hundred and forty-two and one hundred and forty-five of the National Internal Revenue Code as hereinabove amended, levy an additional Tax of not exceeding twenty-five per cent of the rates fixed in said sections, on manufactured oils sold or distributed within the limits of the city or municipality; Provided, That municipal taxes heretofore levied by cities through city ordinances on gasoline, airplane fuel, lubricating oil and other fuels, are hereby ratified and declared valid. The method of collecting said additional tax shall be prescribed by the Municipal Board or Council concerned."cralaw virtua1aw library

and, finally, that appellee did not pay the taxes in dispute under protest as shown by the official receipts issued to him by appellant as enumerated in its answer.

After due trial, the court rendered the decision appealed from.

Main questions to be determined in this appeal are firstly, whether the City of Zamboanga had authority to enact the questioned ordinances, and secondly, whether or not they were properly enacted and approved as emergency measures.

The first question must be answered in the affirmative for it appears that under Section 14(a) of Commonwealth Act No. 39, as amended, the City of Zamboanga has the power "to tax, fix the license fee for . . . regulate the business and fix the location of match factory or factories . . . the storage and sale of gunpowder . . . coal, oil, gasoline, benzine . . . petroleum, or any of the products thereof and of all other highly combustible or explosive materials."cralaw virtua1aw library

The authority of the City of Zamboanga to impose the tax in question being thus clear, the remaining question is whether the ordinances aforesaid are void because Ordinance No. 340 was made retroactive and the three other ordinances were not duly certified by the City Mayor as required by paragraph (8) Section 10, Article 2 of Commonwealth Act No. 39, as amended.

Appellee contends that although the ordinances in question were approved as emergency measures there is no proof that they had been previously certified by the City Mayor. In this connection it is obvious that it was incumbent upon appellee to prove the absence or lack of certification, he having gone to court to seek the annulment of said ordinance precisely upon that ground. To this we must add that, even if said ordinances are emergency measures, the presumption must be that official duty in connection with their enactment had been duly complied with, in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary.

With respect to the retroactive effect given to Ordinance No. 340, it will be observed that the same was passed on October 6, 1950 and it was made effective or retroactive as of October 1 of the same year — a matter of five days. We do not believe such insignificant circumstance could render the measure void. Besides, said ordinance was superseded by Ordinance No. 50 enacted on December 29, 1950, while the present action was commenced only on July 17, 1956.

Having arrived at the above conclusions, We deem it unnecessary to consider and pass upon the other questions raised in appellant’s brief.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed and, as a result, the complaint filed by appellee in the lower court is dismissed, with costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Bengzon, J. P., Zaldivar, and Sanchez, JJ., concur.

Regala and Castro, JJ., took no part.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






December-1966 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-21168 December 16, 1966 BACHRACH TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. GAVINO CAMUNAYAN

  • G.R. No. L-14441 December 17, 1966 PEDRO R. PALTING v. SAN JOSE PETROLEUM INCORPORATED

  • G.R. No. L-21915 December 17, 1966 GEORGE W. LUFT COMPANY, INC. v. NGO GUAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21803 December 17, 1966 BAY VIEW HOTEL, INC. v. MANILA HOTEL WORKERS’ UNION-PTGWO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21775 December 17, 1966 CO PEK, ET AL. v. MARTINIANO VIVO

  • G.R. No. L-19457 December 17, 1966 VICTORIO MERCADO, ET AL. v. FELIX R. DOMINGO

  • G.R. No. L-18411 December 17, 1966 MAGDALENA ESTATES, INC. v. ANTONIO A. RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16394 December 17, 1966 JOSE STA. ANA, JR., ET AL. v. ROSA HERNANDEZ

  • G.R. No. L-18328 December 17, 1966 DIOSDADA SABINO v. CONRADO CUBA

  • G.R. No. L-21763 December 17, 1966 MUNICIPALITY OF COMPOSTELA, CEBU v. NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY

  • G.R. No. L-19740 December 17, 1966 SEVERINO GAGOLA v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18630 December 17, 1966 APOLONIO TANJANCO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17392 December 17, 1966 JOSE SORIANO v. COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS

  • G.R. No. L-21335 December 17, 1966 ABOITIZ SHIPPING CORPORATION v. VIVENCIA ANDO PEPITO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25641 December 17, 1966 RAFAEL M. ABAYA v. ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21601 December 17, 1966 NIELSON & COMPANY, INC. v. LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-19879 December 17, 1966 CINEMA, STAGE & RADIO ENTERTAINMENT FREE WORKERS v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18089 December 17, 1966 VICTORINA ZABALLERO MILLAR v. RURAL BANK OF LUCENA, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-16379 December 17, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LAO WAN SING

  • G.R. No. L-18393 December 17, 1966 USAFFE VETERANS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. TREASURER OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19797 December 17, 1966 MARCIANA VILLOCINO, ET AL. v. PEDRO DOYON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20011 December 17, 1966 PEDRO CABALAG, ETC., ET AL. v. ROXAS Y CIA., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17742 December 17, 1966 DON VICENTE NOBLE v. MARIA S. NOBLE

  • G.R. No. L-18159 December 17, 1966 CASINO ESPAÑOL DE MANILA v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18826 December 17, 1966 ANTONIO Y. MAYUGA v. CESAR. R. MARAVILLA

  • G.R. No. L-23139 December 17, 1966 MOBIL PHILIPPINES EXPLORATION, INC. v. CUSTOMS ARRASTRE SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17571 December 17, 1966 HOSPICIA ENCABO, ET AL. v. CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-22395 December 17, 1966 STATE BONDING INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22209 December 17, 1966 PHILIPPINES INTERNATIONAL SURETY CO., INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-25503 December 17, 1966 LEON DEL ROSARIO v. HON. BIENVENIDO CHINGCUANGCO

  • G.R. No. L-16745 December 17, 1966 AURORA CAMARA VDA. DE ZUBIRI v. WENCESLAO ZUBIRI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19548 December 22, 1966 NICEFORO S. AGATON v. PATRICIO PEREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26723 December 22, 1966 ARTHUR MEDlNA Y YUMUL v. MARCELO F. OROZCO, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-20330 December 22, 1966 ADOLFO RACAZA v. SUSANA REALTY INC.

  • G.R. No. L-19297 December 22, 1966 MARVEX COMMERCIAL CO. INC. v. PETRA HAWPIA & CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19173 December 27, 1966 ROSE DESAMITO v. TRINIDAD CASAS-CUYEGKENG

  • G.R. No. L-21278 December 27, 1966 FEATI UNIVERSITY v. JOSE S. BAUTISTA

  • G.R. No. L-21950 December 28, 1966 AMBROCIO DE LA CRUZ, ET AL. v. PRIMITIVA BERROYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19460 December 28, 1966 ROQUE BAIRAN v. AGUSTIN TAN SIU LAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20406 December 29, 1966 ENRIQUE R. YU KING v. CITY OF ZAMBOANGA

  • G.R. No. L-19945 December 29, 1966 NATIONAL MARKETING CORPORATION v. PRISCO WORKERS UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18210 December 29, 1966 LAURENTIO ARMENTIA v. ERLINDA PATRIARCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18735 December 29, 1966 NARCISO DEL ROSARIO v. YATCO, ET AL.