Case Digest (G.R. No. 120051)
Facts:
City of Manila, Hon. Alfredo S. Lim, as Mayor of the City of Manila, and Anthony Y. Acevedo, City Treasurer, petitioners, vs. Hon. Angel Valera Colet, as Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Manila (Br. 43), and Malaysian Airline System, respondents; G.R. Nos. 120051, 121613, 121675, 121704, 121720-28, 121847-55, 122333, 122335, 122349, and 124855, December 10, 2014, Supreme Court En Banc, Leonardo-De Castro, J., writing for the Court.The dispute arose from the Manila Revenue Code (Ordinance No. 7794), enacted June 22, 1993 and approved June 29, 1993, later amended by Ordinance No. 7807 (approved September 29, 1993). Paragraph (B) of Section 21, as amended, imposed a local tax of "FIFTY PERCENT (50%) OF ONE PERCENT (1%) per annum on the gross sales or receipts of the preceding calendar year" on, among others, transportation contractors and common carriers by land, air or water. The City began collecting the tax in January 1994.
Multiple taxpayers in the transportation and shipping industries (domestic and foreign carriers and their resident agents, government-owned PSTC, and Malaysian Airline System (MAS)) challenged Section 21(B). MAS filed Civil Case No. 94-69052 in RTC-Branch 43 after being assessed P1,100,000 in business tax; RTC-Branch 43 (Apr. 3, 1995) ruled for MAS, declaring Section 21(B) invalid insofar as it taxed transportation contractors and common carriers. The City sought review by the Supreme Court (docketed G.R. No. 120051).
Separately, numerous shipping companies filed petitions before various RTC branches that were consolidated before RTC-Branch 32. RTC-Branch 32 issued TROs and preliminary injunctions for several petitioners but, in a Decision dated August 28, 1995, upheld Section 21(B) and dissolved injunctions. Several petitioners (e.g., Maersk et al., Eastern Shipping, William Lines et al., PSTC, OFSI, Cosco et al., Sulpicio, AISL, Dongnama & Kyowa) brought petitions to the Supreme Court (variously by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, petitions for prohibition or certiorari, and appeals from Court of Appeals dispositions), which were consolidated at different times.
Procedural incidents at the Supreme Court included: the City Legal Officer’s attempted withdrawal of G.R. No. 120051 (motion denied by the Court), the Court’s initial dismissal of Maersk et al.’s petition for failure to pay a small fee (later reinstated on reconsideration), and a prior referral of Sulpicio’s petition to the Court of Appeals (later set aside and returned to the Court). The record shows motions to restore injunctions, bond increases, various returns of pleadings, and that the Court eventually treated the litany of petitions as a consolidated question regarding the constitutionality and validity of Section 21(B).
After consolidation and brie...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May the City Legal Officer withdraw G.R. No. 120051 at the stage when the case had been submitted for decision?
- Should the Court reinstate Maersk et al.’s dismissed petition that was denied for a deficiency in sheriffs fee and clerks commission?
- Should the Court set aside its prior referral of Sulpicio Lines’ petition to the Court of Appeals and give due course to the petition before the Supreme Court?
- Was Section 21(B) of Ordinance No. 7794 (the Manila Revenue Code), as amended by Ordinance No. 7807, a valid exercise of the City of Manila’s power to tax under the 1987 Constitution and the Local Government Code (R.A. No. 7160)?
- If Section 21(B) was invalid, are the respondents entitled to relief in the form of refund...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)