Title
American Mail Line vs. City of Basilan
Case
G.R. No. L-12647
Decision Date
May 31, 1961
Basilan City enacted Ordinance No. 180 imposing anchorage fees on foreign vessels. Appellees challenged its validity, claiming it exceeded the city's authority. The Supreme Court ruled the ordinance void, as it was a revenue measure, not a valid exercise of taxing or police power.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 127400)

Factual Background

On September 12, 1955, the City Council of Basilan enacted Ordinance No. 180, which amended previous regulations concerning the berthing, mooring, docking, and anchoring of vessels within its territorial waters. This ordinance imposed an anchorage fee on foreign vessels engaged in coastwise trade, requiring them to pay a fee based on their gross tonnage. The shipping companies contested the validity of this ordinance when the City Treasurer attempted to collect the fees prescribed by the ordinance.

Legal Proceedings Initiated

The appellants filed a lawsuit seeking a declaratory relief to assess the legality of the anchorage fees. The lower court responded by issuing a preliminary injunction to prevent the city from collecting these fees until the matter was resolved. The defendants' motion to dismiss the case, claiming improper venue, was denied, leading to the examination of the ordinance's authorization under relevant laws.

Authority and Legislative Powers

The City of Basilan argued that its authority to enact Ordinance No. 180 was derived from provisions in its charter, specifically Section 14. This section grants the city council powers to levy taxes and charges necessary for revenue generation and the maintenance of public order. However, the language in this section limits the city's power to levy taxes strictly "in accordance with law," suggesting that such powers should not be interpreted as a blanket authority to impose any fee.

Ordinance Validity Analysis

The court found that the provisions relied upon by the City of Basilan did not support the enactment of the ordinance in question, specifically regarding the collection of anchorage fees. It emphasized that the legislative intent behind the powers granted to the city council did not extend to ordinances that impose fees that act primarily as revenue-generating mechanisms. The ordinance's reliance on potentially generating income, rather than merely regulating certain activities within the harbor, was a key factor in deeming it invalid.

Police Power and Regulatory Fees

Appellants further contended that the ordinance was validly enacted under the city's police power, aiming to regulate maritime activities. However, the court referenced prevailing jurisprudence, asserting that fees imposed for regulatory purposes must be limited to covering the actual costs associated with regulation and inspection, rathe

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.