G.R. No. L-1281 - Icard vs. City Council of Baguio

The case involves petitioner Joseph E. Icard, holder of a municipal license to operate a night club called "El Club Monaco" in the City of Baguio, and respondents—the City Council and the City of Baguio.
The petitioner challenges certain local ordinances enacted by the City of Baguio that impose taxes beyond those authorized by national law.

Provides for an amusement tax of ₱0.20 per person entering a night club licensed to do business in the city.
This tax is imposed in addition to the annual license fee required for the operation of the night club.
For the first quarter of 1946, the tax computed at ₱0.20 per person amounted to ₱254.80, which the petitioner paid under protest.

Imposes a property tax on motor vehicles kept and operated in the City of Baguio.
The petitioner, as the owner of a six-passenger automobile (a Chevrolet Ford or Sedan), had already paid a registration fee of ₱37 for 1946 under the Revised Motor Vehicle Law.
Despite this, the ordinance would require him to pay an additional annual property tax of ₱15 on the same vehicle.

Imposes a graduated license fee on every admission ticket sold by enterprises, which include cinematographs, among others.
The petitioner does not have any business that falls under the ambit of this ordinance, and his claim against it was dismissed by the lower court.

The petitioner filed an action for declaratory relief asserting that the ordinances are unjust and ultra vires, seeking both the voiding of the ordinances and a refund of the ₱254.80 paid as amusement tax.
The Court of First Instance, presided over by Judge Conrado Sanchez, rendered a decision as follows:

Declared Ordinance No. 11-V (concerning the property tax on motor vehicles) null and void.
Declared void only the portion of Ordinance No. 6-V that imposed the ₱0.20 per person amusement tax, while not pronouncing on the remainder of the ordinance.
Dismissed the petition for declaratory relief regarding Ordinance No. 12-V due to the petitioner not being affected by that provision.
Ordered the City of Baguio to refund the ₱254.80 paid by the petitioner under protest as an amusement tax.

The City Attorney of Baguio, representing the respondents, raised the following points on appeal:

The lower court erred in declaring void Ordinance No. 11-V.
The lower court erred in declaring void the portion of Ordinance No. 6-V imposing the amusement tax.
The lower court erred in ordering the refund of ₱254.80 paid under protest.

A property tax on motor vehicles.
An amusement tax on night clubs (imposing ₱0.20 per person in addition to the license fee).

The entire controversy hinges on the limitations of municipal taxing power under the city charter and statutory law.

Whether the City of Baguio possesses the inherent authority to levy taxes such as an amusement tax on night clubs and a property tax on motor vehicles.
Whether the imposed taxes fall within the scope of powers expressly granted by law or are beyond the municipality’s jurisdiction.

The legality of Ordinance No. 6-V’s provision to impose an amusement tax of ₱0.20 per person on night club patrons.
The legality of Ordinance No. 11-V’s imposition of a property tax on motor vehicles operating within the city.
The controversy over the refund of the ₱254.80 paid as amusement tax when it is contended that such tax was unlawfully imposed.

Whether the provision in section 2553(b) of the Revised Administrative Code, which frames the city’s authority to levy taxes “as provided by law,” can be interpreted to allow general taxation powers not specifically enumerated.
The contrast between the City of Baguio’s charter provisions and those of the City of Manila, which expressly authorize certain taxes, raising the question of legislative intent.