Case Digest (G.R. No. L-8799)
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-8799)
Facts:
The City of Manila v. The Inter-Island Gas Service, Inc., G.R. No. L-8799, August 31, 1956, the Supreme Court En Banc, Concepcion, J., writing for the Court. The plaintiff-appellee City of Manila sued defendant-appellant Inter-Island Gas Service, Inc. for deficiency municipal license fees allegedly due under Ordinance No. 1925, as amended by Ordinance No. 3364. The litigation turned on whether sales of liquefied flammable gas in cylinders fell within Group 2 of Section 1 of Ordinance No. 1925 (retail dealers in new merchandise) and thus were subject to the quarterly license fees prescribed thereunder.The parties stipulated key facts: the defendant sold cooking appliances and liquefied petroleum gas at retail in Manila from the fourth quarter of 1949 through the fourth quarter of 1951, with quarterly gross sales for the periods stated in the stipulation; the defendant had paid license fees under Ordinance No. 1925 based only on its cooking-appliance sales; the City claimed a total deficiency under Section 1, Group 2, of P11,250 computed on the defendant’s total sales, while the defendant had paid fees under Ordinance No. 3259 (regulating storage, installation, use and transportation of compressed and liquefied inflammable gases) covering the same quarters.
Upon submission, the Court of First Instance of Manila ruled for the City, holding that liquefied flammable gas was taxable under Ordinance No. 1925 as amended, and rendered judgment ordering the defendant to pay P8,361 as deficiency tax (including a P50 surcharge) and costs. The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning error principally that (1) the ordinance did not clearly apply to liquefied flammable gas; (2) the Municipal Board lacked authority to include such gas within the term “merchandise” in light of the Revised Charter (Republic Act No. 409), Sec. 18, paras (m) and (o); (3) the schedule in Group 2 constituted a percentage tax requiring the President’s approval; and (4) imposing Ordinance No. 1925 in addition to Ordinance No. 3259 resulted in unconstitutional double taxation.
Issues:
- Did Ordinance No. 1925, Group 2, as amended by Ordinance No. 3364, include retail sales of liquefied flammable gas within the meaning of “merchandise”?
- Is the license-fee schedule in Group 2 of Ordinance No. 1925 a percentage tax (thereby requiring presidential approval)?
- Does subjecting the defendant to Ordinance No. 1925 after it paid fees under Ordinance No. 3259 amount to prohibited double taxation?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)