marinduque iron mines v. municipal council of hinabangan, samar

7/24/2019 Marinduque Iron Mines v. Municipal Council of Hinabangan, Samar

1/3

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-18924 June 30, 1964

MARINU!UE IRON MINES AGENTS, INC.,petitioner-appellee,vs.T"E MUNICIPAL COUNCIL O# T"E MUNICIPALIT$ O# "INA%ANGAN, PRO&INCE O# SAMAR, ET

AL.,respondents-appellants.

Santiago de los Reyes and Francisco C. Catral for petitioner-appellee.Eliseo de Veyra and Juan Figueroa for defendants-appellants.

RE$ES, J.%.L.,J.:

Appeal from a declaratory decision of the Court of irst !nstance of Manila declarin" Municipal #rdinanceNo. $, %eries of &'(), of the Municipality of *inaban"an, %amar, null and void.

#n +une $, &'(), the Municipality of *inaban"an, throu"h its duly constituted Municipality Council,enacted #rdinance No. $, %eries of &'(), hich in full reads as follos

An #rdinance !mposin" a Municipal /icense 0a1 #n the 2ross #utputs of the Mines and #therBusiness3 !ts !mposition and Penalties 0hereof 4ithin the +urisdiction of this Municipality.

Be it ordained by the Municipal Council of *inaban"an. %amar, 0*A0

%ection &. 5 or the purpose of this #rdinance, the folloin" terms are defined

6C#RP#RA0!#N6 refers to any person or persons, firm or association en"a"ed in the businessfor hich this #rdinance is enacted.

62R#%% #70P70%6 shall be interpreted as the total actual mar8et value of minerals or mineralproducts from each mine or mineral land operated as separate entity ithout any deduction one1penses incurred in the operation of the business.

6M7N!C!PA/ 0REA%7RER6 herein referred to, is the duly appointed Municipal 0reasurerincludin" his authori9ed representatives and:or deputies in his office.

%ection . 5 Republic Act (; empoers the Municipal Council of *inaban"an, %amar, toimpose a "raduated Municipal /icense ees on any occupation or business in the municipality toany Corporation, based on the "ross outputs or in accordance ith folloin" schedule

M!NE% AN< #0*ER B7%!NE%%

Yearly Gross Output or SalesAmount of a!

to "e #e$ied

P =),))).)) to P &)),))).)) 5 P &)).))

P &)),))&.)) to P =)),))).)) 5 P &,))).))

P =)),))&.)) to P &,=)),))).)) 5 P $,=)).))

P &,=)),))&.)) to P >,=)),))).)) 5 P (,=).))

P >,=)),))&.)) to P $,=)),))).)) 5 P $=,))).))

P $,=)),))&.)) to P &>,=)),))).)) 5 P &(?,$=).))

P &>,=)),))&.)) to P >,=)),))).)) 5 P >=,=)).))

P >,=)),))&.)) to P =),))),))).)) 5 P ?$=,))).))


2/3

P =),))),))&.)) to P up 5 P &,))),))).))

%ection >. 5 Any corporation sub@ect to payment of the Municipal /icense herein imposed shallimmediately at the end of each calendar year, but in no case shall it e1ceed beyond the first!0EEN &=


3/3

A statute ill not be construed as imposin" a ta1 unless does so clearly& e!pressly and itunam"iguously. ? C.+.%., '=( Emphasis supplied

and that 5

!t is an ancient principle that a ta! can not "e imposed 'it(out clear and e!press 'ords for that

purpose. Accordin"ly, the "eneral rule of reuirin" ad(erence to t(e letter in construing statutesapplies 'it( peculiar strictness to ta! la's and the provisions of a ta1in" act are not to bee1tended by implication. >) Am. +ur. &=>3 also McHuillin on Municipal Corp., Dol. &(, p. ($3emphasis ours

A mere readin" of the ordinance discloses that not only are there no ords therein imposin" a ta1 but thatthe peruser is left in doubt as to hether the intention is to levy a ta1 for revenue or char"e a fee forpermittin" the business to be carried on3 for section declares that the la 6empoers the MunicipalCouncil of *inaban"an, %amar to impose "raduated Municipal /icense ecs.6 %ince the validity of ta1esand license fees are "overned by different principles, the ta1payer is left in doubt as to the true nature ofthe char"e and hether he must bear it or not. 0he rule is that ta1es may not be imposed byimplication,&and 6a ta1 statute is to be construed strictly andagainst t(e su")ection to a ta! lia"ility herethe uestion is hether a matter, property or person is sub@ect to the ta16 ? C.+.%., p. '=$. Considerin"

the avoidability of ta1es by the citi9en, it seems that the least he is entitled to is to be e1pressly reuiredto pay a ta1, hich the ords of the uestioned ordinance do not state. 0his is particularly true here theordinance, as in this case, carries penal provisions.

4e further a"ree ith the @ud"ment appealed from that #rdinance No. $, %er. &'(), of *inaban"an,%amar, is invalid because the same infrin"es upon the e1press restrictions placed by the le"islature uponthe ta1in" poer dele"ated to city and municipal councils. %ection , para"raph &, of Republic Act No.(;, after conferrin" poer to cities, municipalities, and municipal districts to impose license ta1es andservice fees or char"es on business and occupations, e1pressly limited said poers by the folloin"proviso

Provided that municipalities and municipal districts shall, in no case, impose any percenta"e ta1on sales or other ta1es in any form based thereon3 ... .

Even "rantin" that it does impose a ta1, the ordinance in uestion, hile not providin" for a percenta"eta1, but a "raduated ta1 the pro"ressive ta1 therein imposed not bein" calculated on a percenta"e of thesales made by the ta1payer, nevertheless, it prescribes a ta1 based on sales, contrary to the statuteR.A. (;. !t is true that the ordinance purports to base the ta1 on either 6"ross output or sales but theonly standard provided for measurin" the "ross output is its peso value, as determined from 6true copiesof receipts and:or invoices hich are precisely the evidence of sales that the ta1payer is reuired tosubmit to the municipal treasurer section >, ithout deduction bein" provided for frei"ht insurance, orincidental costs. 3 #lson vs. #8lahoma 0a1 Commission, &?) Pac. d.,(3 *arrin"ton vs. Cobb, &$ A/R, ?>$3 5n re /unch Rooms, ?= ed. d., &))3 5n re CaliforniaPea Products, !nc., >$ ed. %upp., (=?3 5n re Bush 0erminal Co., '> ed. d., (='.

marinduque iron mines v. municipal council of hinabangan, samar

Documents