Title
City of Bacolod vs. San Miguel Brewery, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. L-25134
Decision Date
Oct 30, 1969
City of Bacolod sued San Miguel Brewery for unpaid bottling taxes and surcharges; SC ruled second suit for surcharges barred due to improper splitting of cause of action.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-25134)

Relevant Ordinances

On February 17, 1949, the City Council of Bacolod enacted Ordinance No. 66, imposing a bottling tax on manufacturers of soft drinks, which was later amended by Ordinance No. 150 in 1959, adjusting the tax rate from P0.01 to P0.03 per case. The ordinances provided for a 2% monthly surcharge on delinquent payments, capped at 24% for a year.

Initial Lawsuit and Judgment

The City of Bacolod initially filed a lawsuit (Civil Case No. 5693) in March 1960 to recover unpaid bottling taxes amounting to P26,306.54. The court ruled in favor of the City, ordering San Miguel Brewery to comply with the amended tax provisions. Subsequently, the ruling was affirmed on appeal, establishing the constitutionality and validity of the ordinances.

Subsequent Action for Surcharges

After the initial judgment had become final, the City sought to include surcharges in the execution of that decision, which was denied. As a result, the City initiated a second lawsuit (Civil Case No. 7355) seeking recovery of the surcharges totaling P36,519.10 arising from the previously unpaid bottling taxes.

Appellant's Defense

San Miguel Brewery moved to dismiss the second action, arguing that it was barred by the prior judgement and that the City had improperly split its cause of action into separate lawsuits. The Brewery maintained that since the surcharges were not included in the first complaint, they were precluded from recovery in the subsequent action.

Rulings on the Motion to Dismiss and Trial Court's Decision

The trial court denied the Brewery's motion to dismiss, leading to a judgment ordering the Brewery to pay the surcharges. The Brewery appealed this decision, claiming that it was erroneous for the trial court to hold them liable for surcharges previously omitted from the initial lawsuit.

Legal Principles of Cause of Action Splitting

The Supreme Court upheld the principle that a party may not split a single cause of action into multiple lawsuits as per Section 3 and 4 of Rule 2 of the Rules of Court, which prohibits the submission of separate complaints for different parts of a single cause of action.

...continue reading

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