Case Digest (G.R. No. 11572)
Facts:
Francis A. Churchill and Stewart Tait et al. v. Venancio Concepcion, G.R. No. 11572. September 22, 1916, the Supreme Court, Trent, J., writing for the Court.The case arose under Section 100 of Act No. 2339 (Feb. 27, 1914, eff. July 1, 1914), which initially imposed an annual tax of P4 per square meter on “electric signs, billboards, and spaces used for posting or displaying temporary signs, and all signs displayed on premises not occupied by buildings.” That provision was amended by Act No. 2432 (effective Jan. 1, 1915) to reduce the tax to P2 per square meter (and later amended by Act No. 2445, which the Court found irrelevant to the present controversy). The internal-revenue taxes of Act No. 2432, as amended, were ratified by the Congress of the United States on March 4, 1915, by a clause legalizing collection "as fully to all intents and purposes as if the same had by prior Act of Congress been specifically authorized and directed."
The plaintiffs, copartners doing business as the Mercantile Advertising Agency (Francis A. Churchill and Stewart Tait), owned a billboard of 52 square meters on private property in Manila exposed to public view. Under the amended statute they were assessed P104 in tax (P2 × 52 sq. m.). They paid the tax under protest and, having exhausted administrative remedies, sued the Acting Collector of Internal Revenue, Venancio Concepcion, to recover the amount paid, invoking Section 140 of Act No. 2339 as the statutory avenue for refund. The trial court received evidence, made findings of fact (including the plaintiffs' testimony that the board cost P300 to construct and its annual gross earning power was P268), and dismissed the complaint on the merits. Plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court.
On appeal the plaintiffs argued (1) the tax was confiscatory and thus a deprivation of property without due process because it was excessive relative to earnings and discriminatory, and (2) the tax violated the uniformity requirement and was void for lack of grading by value, arbitrary classification, and double taxation. The Court considered the tri...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is the sign/billboard tax imposed by Section 100 of Act No. 2339, as amended by Act No. 2432 (and Act No. 2445), confiscatory and therefore a deprivation of property without due process?
- Is the tax void for lack of uniformity, for not being graded according to value, for constituting arbitrary classification, or fo...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)