Case Digest (G.R. No. L-36049)
Facts:
City of Naga, through Vicente P. Sibulo as Mayor and Joaquin C. Cleope as Treasurer, enacted Ordinance No. 360 on June 15, 1970, amending the graduated sales tax in Ordinance No. 4, Sec. 3 into a percentage tax. Catalino Agna, Felipe Agna, and Salud Velasco paid taxes for the quarter July 1–September 30, 1970, then filed claims for refund in February 1971 and sued when the claims were denied; the Court of First Instance ruled on October 9, 1971 that Ordinance No. 360 was effective only in 1971 and ordered refunds with interest, P500 attorney’s fees, and costs.Issues:
- Did Ordinance No. 360 take effect in 1970, the year of its approval, or in 1971, the next succeeding year?
- Whether Section 2309, Revised Administrative Code, or Sec. 2, Republic Act No. 2264 governs the effectivity of a tax ordinance changing an existing municipal license tax?
- Are the private respondents entitled to refund of the taxes paid under Ordinance No. 360?
Ruling:
The petition for certiorari was di Case Digest (G.R. No. L-36049)
Facts:
- Parties and nature of action
- CITY OF NAGA, VICENTE P. SIBULO, AS MAYOR, and JOAQUIN C. CLEOPE, AS TREASURER OF THE CITY OF NAGA, petitioners; CATALINO AGNA, FELIPE AGNA AND SALUD VELASCO, respondents.
- Petition for review on certiorari treated as a special civil action seeking review of the decision of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur in Civil Case No. 7084 (Agna, et al. vs. City of Naga, et al.).
- Ordinance and municipal action
- On June 15, 1970 the City Board enacted Ordinance No. 360 entitled "An ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 4, as amended, imposing a sales tax on the quarterly sales or receipts on all businesses in the City of Naga."
- Ordinance No. 360 amended the graduated tax on quarterly gross sales prescribed in Section 3, Ordinance No. 4 to a percentage tax on gross sales as provided in Section 2 of the new ordinance.
- The ordinance was transmitted to the Mayor for approval or veto on June 25, 1970 and was posted by the Secretary of the Municipal Board as required.
- Payments and refund claims
- Private respondents paid taxes for the quarter July 1, 1970 to September 30, 1970 as follows: Catalino Agna P1,805.17 (Official Receipt No. 1826591); Felipe Agna P625.00 (Official Receipt No. 1826594); Salud Velasco P129.81 (Official Receipt No. 1820339).
- Private respondents filed a claim for refund with the City Treasurer in February 1971 (record contains references to February 13, 1971 and February 15, 1971) seeking reimbursement of the differences: to Catalino Agna P1,555.17; to Felipe Agna P560.00; to Salud Velasco P127.81, plus interest from date of payments.
- The City Treasurer denied the refund claims.
- Pleadings, defenses and stipulation
- Respondents sued in Court of First Instance (Civil Case No. 7084) praying that Ordinance No. 360 be declared effective only in the year following its approval (1971); that Sections 4, 6 and 8 of Ordinance No. 360 be declared null and void as unjust and oppressive; that petitioners refund amounts with interest and pay attorney's fees and costs; and that petitioners be enjoined from enforcing the ordinance.
- Petitioners answered, asserting voluntary payment by respondents, valid publication, and that under Republic Act No. 305 an ordinance takes effect on the tenth day following its passage unless otherwise stated; petitioners raised defenses including lack of cause of action, insufficiency to justify injunctive relief, estoppel, and that the Mayor and Treasurer are not proper parties; they counterclaimed for exemplary damages of P2...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Primary legal question
- Whether Ordinance No. 360 took effect in 1970 (the year of its approval) or in 1971 (the year following its approval).
- Subsidiary statutory-construction issues
- Whether Section 2309 of the Revised Administrative Code (regarding change of municipal license taxes and effectivity) or Section 2 of Republic Act No. 2264 (Local Autonomy Act) (providing effectivity rules for tax ordinances) governs the effectivity of Ordinance No. 360.
- Whether Section 14 of Republic Act No. 305 (Charter of the City of N...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)