Facts:

The case involves the Pacific Commercial Company as the petitioner and appellee against Miguel Romualdez and Victor Alfonso, the Mayor and Treasurer of the City of Manila, respectively, as respondents and appellants. The events leading to this case began with the enactment of Ordinance No. 1264 on March 27, 1925, which amended a section of a previous ordinance concerning cold storage facilities. The ordinance imposed a permit fee on frozen meat stored in cold stores, charging two centavos per kilo for various types of meat and one centavo per kilo for poultry and other provisions. The Pacific Commercial Company had been engaged in the importation of frozen provisions for several years and stored these items in cold storage prior to sale. The company maintained a retail establishment known as the "International Cold Stores," which operated a refrigerator for its transactions.

Prior to the ordinance, the city treasurer reported that a significant quantity of frozen...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• The petitioner, Pacific Commercial Company, was engaged in the importation of frozen provisions such as beef, mutton, pork, poultry, and game, as well as other foodstuffs. These provisions were stored in cold stores before being sold for private consumption.
• The company also operated a retail establishment called the "International Cold Stores," which had a refrigerator for preserving frozen provisions for daily transactions but not for public storage.
• All importations were conducted in compliance with the rules and regulations of the Philippine Health Service and the Bureau of Agriculture to ensure public health and safety.

Enactment of Ordinance No. 1264

• On February 18, 1925, the city treasurer reported to the Mayor that a significant amount of frozen meat was entering Manila without paying fees, leading to unfair competition against locally slaughtered meat. The treasurer proposed an amendment to Ordinance No. 1174 to charge a permit fee of P0.03 per kilo on frozen meat stored in cold stores.
• A proposed ordinance was drafted and published in the Official Gazette on March 3, 1925. After a hearing attended by the petitioner and other interested parties, the ordinance was revised to include inspections by the city physician. It was passed by the Municipal Board and approved by the Mayor, becoming Ordinance No. 1264.
• The ordinance was published in the Official Gazette on April 4, 1925, and took effect on March 27, 1925.

Demand for Payment and Legal Action

• On April 2, 1925, the city treasurer demanded that the petitioner pay the fees under Ordinance No. 1264 for provisions stored in the Government Ice Plant and the International Cold Stores.
• The petitioner filed a case in the Court of First Instance of Manila seeking an injunction and a declaration of the ordinance's invalidity.

Stipulated Facts

• The parties agreed on the following facts:
  • Imported and stored frozen provisions in 1923, 1924, and the first six months of 1925 totaled millions of kilos.
  • The petitioner paid storage fees to the Government Ice Plant.
  • There were three private cold stores and one government-owned cold storage plant in Manila.
  • The city's sanitation budget for 1925 was P435,630.

Trial Court Decision

• The trial court declared Ordinance No. 1264 null and void, citing three reasons:
  1. Lack of adequate publication.
  2. The Municipal Board exceeded its powers in enacting the ordinance.
  3. The permit fees were essentially taxes on imports.
• The court made the preliminary injunction permanent, without costs.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Authority of the Municipal Board:

   • The Manila Charter granted the Municipal Board the power to "regulate and fix the amount of the license fees" for certain activities, including the storage and sale of meat and other provisions. However, this power was limited to regulation and did not include the authority to impose taxes for revenue purposes.
   • The Court emphasized that the Charter used the word "tax" in some subsections but omitted it in others, indicating that the power to tax was not granted where the word was absent.

2. Purpose of the Ordinance:

   • The primary purpose of Ordinance No. 1264 was to raise revenue, as evidenced by the city treasurer's recommendation and the substantial fees it would generate. This purpose was inconsistent with the regulatory authority granted to the Municipal Board.
   • The ordinance was not recommended by health authorities as a sanitary measure, further undermining its claim to be a regulatory measure.

3. Reasonableness of the Fees:

   • The fees imposed by the ordinance were excessive and unreasonable, amounting to an unauthorized exercise of the taxing power. The Court cited precedents holding that license fees must be reasonable and directly related to the cost of regulation.

4. Publication:

   • The Court did not address the issue of publication, as it found the ordinance invalid on other grounds. However, it noted that even if the ordinance were republished, it would still be invalid due to the Municipal Board's lack of authority to enact it.

5. Precedents:

   • The Court relied on several precedents, including Cuunjieng vs. Patstone and Kwong Sing vs. City of Manila, which established that the power to regulate does not include the power to tax unless explicitly granted by law.

Conclusion:

• The Supreme Court held that Ordinance No. 1264 was invalid because it exceeded the Municipal Board's authority and was primarily a revenue measure rather than a regulatory one. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed without costs.