G.R. No. L-22814 - Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company of the Philippines, Inc. vs. City of Butuan

Plaintiff-Appellant: Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company of the Philippines, Inc., a domestic corporation with principal place of business in Quezon City, operating a warehouse in Butuan City for distribution of “Pepsi-Cola” soft drinks.
Defendants-Appellees: City of Butuan, its City Mayor, members of its Municipal Board, and City Treasurer.

Ordinance No. 110, Series 1960, enacted August 16, 1960, and amended by Ordinance No. 122, Series 1960, effective November 28, 1960 (Exhibits A & B).
Tax imposed: P0.10 per case of 24 bottles of soft drinks and carbonated beverages.
Payments under protest:

P4,926.63 for period August 16–December 31, 1960.
P9,250.40 for period January 1–July 30, 1961.
Total claimed for recovery: P14,177.03 (plus any subsequent payments until resolution).

City Treasurer’s tax computation form (Exhibit C).
Profit and Loss Statements for January 1–July 30, 1961 (Exhibits D–D-5); dispute over depreciation claim: plaintiff P3,052.63 vs. defendants P1,202.55.
Price increase on November 21, 1960: uniform P1.92 per case nationwide.
Reserved issues: constitutionality and legality of Ordinance No. 110 as amended.

Section 1: Definition of “liquors.”
Section 2: Tax liability of “any agent and/or consignee” of dealers in liquors, imported or local.
Section 3: Specific tax of P0.10 per 24-bottle case of soft drinks, carbonated beverages, and “all other soft drinks or carbonated drinks.”
Section 3-A: Definition of “consignee or agent” – one to whom at least 1,000 cases are consigned or shipped monthly.
Section 4: Taxes paid monthly.
Section 5: Computation based on cargo manifest, bill of lading, or other receipt records.
Sections 6–8: Surcharges for late payment and penalties for willful refusal to pay or to furnish required records.
Section 9: Applicability to goods received outside but sold within the City.
Section 10: Revenue allocation – 40% Roads and Bridges Fund, 40% General Fund, 20% School Fund.

Whether Ordinance No. 110, as amended by Ordinance No. 122, is null and void on grounds that it:

Partakes of an import tax beyond municipal authority.
Constitutes double taxation.
Is excessive, oppressive, or confiscatory.
Is discriminatory and violates the constitutional uniformity requirement.
Results from an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power under Section 2 of Republic Act No. 2264.