Title
American Bible Society vs. City of Manila
Case
G.R. No. L-9637
Decision Date
Apr 30, 1957
American Bible Society challenged Manila's ordinances imposing fees on its Bible distribution, arguing violation of religious freedom. Supreme Court ruled ordinances unconstitutional as applied, protecting non-profit religious activities.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-9637)

Petitioner

American Bible Society (through its Philippine agency in Manila).

Respondent

City of Manila (acting through its Municipal Board and City Treasurer).

Key Dates

• Philippine agency established: November 1898
• Alleged unpermitted operations since: November 1945
• Demand for unpaid fees and compromise: May 29, 1953
• Payment under protest and filing of suit: October 24, 1953
• Trial court decision: Dismissal (date unspecified)
• Supreme Court decision: April 30, 1957

Applicable Law

• 1935 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, Article III, Section 1(7) guaranteeing free exercise of religion;
• Commonwealth Act No. 466 (National Internal Revenue Code), Section 27(e) on tax exemptions for religious corporations;
• Revised Administrative Code, § 2444(m-2), empowering Manila to license and tax retail dealers in merchandise (annual cap ₱500);
• Republic Act No. 409 (Revised Charter of the City of Manila), § 18(o) and (ii), authorizing municipal taxes on dealers in general merchandise and requiring Presidential approval for certain percentage-based license taxes;
• Manila City Ordinance No. 3000 (permit requirement) and Ordinance No. 2529 (license fees on gross receipts), as amended by Ordinances Nos. 3028, 3364, etc.

Factual Background

From the fourth quarter of 1945 through the second quarter of 1953, the Society’s Philippine agency sold imported and locally procured Bibles and related materials across multiple quarters, generating gross receipts for which no municipal permit or license fee was secured. In May 1953, the City Treasurer demanded a mayor’s permit fee and quarterly license taxes plus compromise penalties totalling ₱5,821.45. To avoid business closure, the Society paid ₱5,891.45 under protest and filed suit to recover the amount, challenging the validity and constitutionality of the ordinances.

Ordinances and Municipal Authority

Ordinance No. 3000 mandates that any person or entity conducting businesses enumerated in its Section 3, or those requiring permits for public health and welfare, must secure a mayor’s permit and license. Its catch-all Item 79 covers “all other businesses” at a ₱5.00 permit fee if not otherwise exempt. Ordinance No. 2529 imposes quarterly license fees on retail dealers in general merchandise (including books) based on gross receipts. These ordinances derive authority from:
• Section 2444(m-2) of the Revised Administrative Code, permitting Manila to tax retail dealers in general merchandise up to ₱500 per annum; and
• Section 18(o) of R.A. 409, re-enacting taxation power over general merchandise dealers without an annual limit; additionally, Section 18(ii) requires Presidential approval for percentage-based taxes on businesses not otherwise enumerated.

Charter Authority and Repeal Analysis

The Society argued that R.A. 409 repealed § 2444(m-2) entirely, invalidating ordinances enacted under it. The trial court found R.A. 409’s § 18(o) a substantive re-enactment of § 2444(m-2), preserving municipal taxing power. The absence of an annual cap in § 18(o) did not signal a new exercise of authority but a continuation. The Court applied the doctrine that simultaneous repeal and re-enactment maintain accrued rights and liabilities, holding the ordinances in force.

Presidential Approval Requirement

The Society contended that Ordinance No. 2529’s percentage tax on gross sales required Presidential approval under R.A. 409, § 18(ii). However, “retail dealers in general merchandise” are expressly listed in § 18(o), exempting such ordinances from the § 18(ii) approval requirement. Thus, no presidential endorsement was needed.

Constitutional Challenge: Free Exercise of Religion

Under Article III, Section 1(7) of the 1935 Constitution, no law shall prohibit the free exercise of religion or impose religious censorship. The Society invoked U.S. precedents (e.g., Murdock v. Pennsylvania) establishing that flat license taxes on religious literature distributors impose a burden tantamount to censorship or suppression of religious exercise. It asserted that its sale and distribution of Bibles—conducted at minimal or below cost and subsidized by gifts—are purely religious activities immune from commercial taxation.

Tax Exemptions and Missionary Activities

Commonwealth Act No. 466 exempts income of corporations organized exclusively for religious purposes, though income from profit-conducting activities remains taxable. The Society had secured an income tax exemption, reinforcing its characterization of Bible distr

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.