Case Digest (G.R. No. 10572)
Facts:
In Francis A. Churchill and Stewart Tait vs. James J. Rafferty, decided December 21, 1915 under the 1912 Organic Act and the Philippine Bill (1902), plaintiffs Churchill and Tait operated outdoor advertising structures—signs, signboards, and billboards—on private lands in the Province of Rizal. Pursuant to subsection (6) of section 100 of Act No. 2339, effective July 1, 1914, Collector of Internal Revenue Rafferty assessed an annual tax on these advertising devices and asserted authority to summarily remove any structure deemed “offensive to the sight.” Plaintiffs sought a preliminary and permanent injunction in the Court of First Instance restraining Rafferty from (a) collecting the billboard tax and (b) destroying or removing their advertising devices. The trial court granted relief on both counts, enjoined collection of the tax, prohibited removal of the signs, and canceled the plaintiffs’ injunction bond. Rafferty appealed.Issues:
- May a court of equity enjoin the collecti
Case Digest (G.R. No. 10572)
Facts:
- Parties and procedure
- Francis A. Churchill and Stewart Tait (plaintiffs/appellees) operated outdoor advertising signs, signboards, and billboards on private lands in Rizal Province.
- James J. Rafferty (defendant/appellant), Collector of Internal Revenue, sought to enforce (a) an annual tax on such advertisements under subsection (6) of section 100, Act No. 2339 (effective July 1, 1914), and (b) summary removal of any billboard “offensive to the sight” as a nuisance.
- Trial court action
- Plaintiffs sued for a permanent injunction and cancellation of their bond, alleging lack of jurisdiction to enjoin the tax and invalidity of removal powers.
- A preliminary injunction was first granted; on final hearing, the court perpetually restrained enforcement of the tax and the removal provisions, and cancelled the injunction bond.
- Statutory framework
- Act No. 2339 § 100(6): imposes annual tax on signs and authorizes the Collector, after “due investigation,” to remove any advertising structure deemed offensive or a nuisance, with appeal to the Secretary of Finance and Justice.
- Act No. 2339 §§ 139–140: expressly prohibit courts from granting injunctions to restrain collection of any internal revenue tax and prescribe payment under protest with suit to recover as the exclusive remedy.
- Underlying dispute
- Plaintiffs contended inability to pay the tax and asserted their billboards were neither nuisances nor offensive.
- Defendant, acting on complaints by foreign consuls, decided the structures were “offensive to the sight,” ordered removal, and threatened summary seizure if not complied with.
Issues:
- Jurisdictional question
- Validity of removal power
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)