Title
Butuan Sawmill, Inc. vs. City of Butuan
Case
G.R. No. L-21516
Decision Date
Apr 29, 1966
Butuán Sawmill, Inc. challenged city ordinances imposing a 2% tax and regulations on electric wire disconnections, arguing violations of its franchise and double taxation; Supreme Court sided with petitioner, ruling ordinances unconstitutional.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 191940)

Applicable Law

The relevant legislation includes Republic Act No. 399, which granted Butuan Sawmill, Inc. its legislative franchise, as well as sections from the Local Autonomy Law (Republic Act 2264) and other statutes governing municipal taxing authority. The ordinances in question, specifically Ordinances No. 7, 11, 131, 148, and 104, are also central to the deliberation.

Summary of Facts

Butuan Sawmill, Inc. was granted a franchise for electric services in Butuan and Cabadbaran under Republic Act No. 399 on June 18, 1949, and received a certificate of public convenience in 1954. The City of Butuan enacted Ordinance No. 7 on October 1, 1950, imposing a 2% tax on gross sales. This was amended by subsequent ordinances that further defined taxable entities and included businesses engaged in electric services. Ordinance No. 104, enacted in 1960, imposed penalties for disconnecting electric service without consent.

Legal Arguments

The City of Butuan argued that it had the authority to impose taxes under its charter, which purportedly enabled it to levy taxes for general and special purposes. They contended that the franchise of Butuan Sawmill, Inc. could be amended or altered by the National Assembly, and thus supported the legality of the tax ordinances.

Conversely, Butuan Sawmill, Inc. contended that the ordinances were unconstitutional and ultra vires, infringing upon its contractual rights by imposing a tax that constituted a deprivation of property without due process. The petitioner maintained that the ordinances impaired the obligation of its franchise contract.

Judicial Analysis

The court analyzed the relationship between the city's charter and the legislative franchise granted to Butuan Sawmill, Inc. It established that the power to tax does not extend to franchises granted by legislative act unless expressly stated. The court emphasized that the franchise was enacted prior to the city's charter; thus, any subsequent municipal tax ordinance could not negate the express provisions of the franchise.

Furthermore, the court noted that the Local Autonomy Law does not empower municipalities to levy taxes on public utilities already subject to franchise taxes. Focus was placed on the interpretation of various sections of Republic Act 2264, where it was clarified that only utilities not subject to franchise taxation could be taxed by municipalities, distinguishing Butuan Sawmill's operations.

Ordinance No. 104 Review

The court found the provisions of Ordinance No. 104 problematic. It mandated the continued supply of electricity regardless of

...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.