THE CITY OF MANILA, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. LEOCADIO TANQUINTIC, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

The City of Manila was successful in the lower court in securing a
judgment against Leocadio Tanquintic, a public utility operator, for
the sum of P214, representing the amount of license fees for
automobiles operated for compensation or hire on the streets of Manila
during the years 1925 to 1929, inclusive. Conceding for the purposes of
the appeal that the provisions of the Revised Ordinances of the City of
Manila apply to public passenger motor vehicles, the main question is
whether or not the operator of such automobiles for compensation or
hire on the streets of Manila, after paying the annual license fees and
securing the proper licenses pursuant to the provisions of the Motor
Vehicle Traffic Act, No. 3045, can also be required to pay to the City
of Manila the annual license fees provided for in sections 785 and 786
of the Revised Ordinances.

The case was submitted and
decided on an agreed statement of facts. This stipulation discloses
that during the period from 1925 up to and including 1929, Leocadio
Tanquintic was the holder of a certificate of public convenience
granted by the Public Service Commission, which authorized him to
operate for compensation or hire automobiles for the transportation of
passengers in the City of Manila and certain enumerated provinces.
During the years in question, Tanquintic in fact operated automobiles
on the streets of Manila and in the various provinces covered by his
certificate of public convenience. Tanquintic paid the annual license
fees for his automobiles to the Bureau of Public Works and was given
proper licenses or certificates of annual registration under the Motor
Vehicle Traffic Act. Tanquintic also paid to the Bureau of Internal
Revenue the privilege tax of P2 for each automobile as required by the
Administrative Code, as well as the percentage tax of 1 per cent on the
gross proceeds of operation likewise required by the Administrative
Code. However, the public utility owner operated his automobiles in the
City of Manila without first obtaining licenses from the City of Manila.

The Manila Charter (sec. 2444 [l], [n],
Administrative Code) empowers the municipal board of the City of Manila
“to regulate and fix the amount of the license fees for * * * public
vehicles * * *” and “to tax motor and other vehicles, notwithstanding
the provisions to the contrary contained in section thirteen of Act
Numbered Twenty-Five hundred and eighty-seven, * * *.” The city
authorities have provided for licenses for public vehicles in section
785 of the Revised Ordinances, wherein it is stated that “no person
shall own, keep, or operate for compensation or hire, on the streets of
the city any public vehicle without first having obtained a license
therefor * * *” and have provided for specified fees in section 786,
although it has not escaped our attention that these fees are for “each
two-wheeled” first class or second class passenger vehicle.

The defense that the provisions of the Revised Ordinances are
inapplicable to passenger motor vehicles has not been raised and,
therefore, cannot be discussed. Conceding for present purposes that the
slight reference to licenses for passenger motor vehicles made in
section 1200 of the Revised Ordinances makes applicable thereto the
provisions of sections 785 and 786 of the Revised Ordinances, the
question recurs as to whether or not the City of Manila can provide for
licenses for passenger motor vehicles.

Act No. 3045 is the
Motor Vehicle Traffic Act enacted by the Philippine Legislature. The
portion of the Act to which particular attention must be directed is
section 53 thereof. Among other things, the section provides that “The
certificate of registration issued under the provisions of this Act for
any motor vehicle shall, while the same is effective and has not been
suspended or revoked, authorize such motor vehicle to be used and
operated on all public highways in any province, city, or municipality
of the Philippine Islands. Every license issued under the provisions of
this Act to any operator shall entitle the person to whom issued, while
the same is effective and not suspended or revoked, to operate the
motor vehicles described in such license in any province, city or
municipality of the Philippine Islands. No further fees than those
fixed in this Act shall be exacted or demanded by any public authority
of these Islands for the operation or use of any motor vehicle on any
public highway, bridge or ferry, or for the operation of any motor
vehicle by the owner thereof.” The section also contains a proviso to
the effect “That nothing in this Act shall be construed to exempt any
motor vehicle from the payment of any lawful and equitable Insular,
local or municipal property tax (contribucion in Spanish) imposed thereupon.”

As will be noted, the Motor Vehicle Traffic Act provides for the
necessary licenses for motor vehicles. These licenses are intended to
be sufficient. On the other hand, local authorities are authorized to
impose a property tax on motor vehicles. The differences between the
license and the property tax are well established. The license
represents the permission conceded to do an act, is not supposed to be
imposed for revenue, and is in the main for police purposes. A property
tax, on the other hand, is a tax in the ordinary sense, assessed
according to the value of property.

The thought must be
repeated that the City of Manila can provide for a property tax on
motor vehicles. The City of Manila can not provide for licenses for
motor vehicles operated as public vehicles. The Motor Vehicle Traffic
Act was intended to be an all-inclusive Act. It was enacted with the
end in view of amending and compiling the laws regulating motor
vehicles in the Philippines. The Motor Vehicle Traffic Act comings from
a higher authority, any ordinance emanating from a lower authority in
contravention thereof can not be enforced. It would appear clear that
the Motor Vehicle Traffic Act has fully occupied the field of
legislation with reference to the imposition” of fees for the operation
of motor vehicles for compensation or hire to the exclusion of local
authorities, except that the latter may provide for a property tax on
motor vehicles.

In order that it may not be taken for
granted that we have not considered the point slightly pressed having
to do with the Spanish translation of the words “property tax” as “contribucion“,
we will merely state that little comfort can be derived from any
argument predicated on the Spanish translation, for giving to the word “contribucion”
its widest signification it could not be logically made to include
licenses. Also with the same object in view we make passing reference
to the case of Zamboanga Transportation Co. vs. Municipality of
Zamboanga ([1921], 42 Phil., 545), relied upon by the appellee, and
will here only observe that that case had to do with the provisions of
a different insular motor vehicle act and with the provisions of a
different municipal ordinance, while a close reading of the decision
will disclose that, fundamentally, it is in accord with the result
toward which we are tending.

Before concluding, the author
of this decision may be permitted to remark that he had the privilege
of drafting the Revised Ordinances of the City of Manila of 1908, 1917,
and 1927. The successive revisions represented successive efforts to
bring the ordinances up-to-date and to harmonize them with the Acts of
the Philippine Legislature. In so doing, an opinion was secured from
the Director of Public Works on February 11, 1927, that the Manila
Ordinance then in force governing the regulations of the motor vehicle
traffic in the city is not in conflict with the provisions of the
Insular Law, Act No. 3045, and the chapter of the Revised Ordinances
having to do with motor vehicles was given up to such regulations. Then
in compiling the Manila Charter, after quoting section 53 of the Motor
Vehicle Act, the following was appended: “The extent of municipal power
is doubtful, but would seem to be limited to the imposition of a
property tax on motor vehicles.”

The question submitted by
the appeal and discussed in this opinion is answered in the negative.
As we have been given to understand that many operators of public
utilities will be affected, it should be emphasized that the opinion is
limited in scope to the City of Manila, should not be taken as relating
to license fees heretofore paid without protest, and does not preclude
the City of Manila from providing for a property tax on motor vehicles
if it so desires.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment
will be reversed, and the complaint dismissed, with the costs of both
instances assessed against the plaintiff.

Avanceña, C. J., Villa-Real, Hull, and Imperial, JJ., concur.