G.R. No. L-6975. May 27, 1955
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, VS. SANTIAGO MENDAROS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.
BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:
Feria, Simplicio Streeter and Cenon Mendaros were accused in separate
informations before the Justice of the Peace Court of Palauig, Zambales, of a
violation of Municipal Ordinance No. 5, S. 1946, of the municipal council of
Palauig for their failure to pay the occupation tax for the year 1952 as
prescribed in said ordinance. After a joint trial, following the denial of a
motion to quash filed by the defense on the ground that said ordinance is void
for lack of approval by the Secretay of Agriculture and Natural Resources, said
defendants were convicted and sentended each to pay a fine of P5.00, to suffer
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs. Defendants
were also ordered to pay the tax due for the year 1952.
On appeal to the court of first instance, the provincial fiscal filed against
them a joint information wherein they were charged with a similar violation.
Defendants again presented a motion to quash on the same ground that the
municipal ordinance does not bear the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture
and Natural Resources. This time the motion was sustained, the trial court
holding that the ordinance was null and void because the municipal council of
Palauig had no authority to impose the license tax levied therein. His motion
for reconsideration having been denied, the provincial fiscal took the case on
appeal directly to this Court.
The pertinent portion of the ordinance in question reads as follows:
“CLASS ‘C’
“(Business, occupation or privileges taxable at the rate.of P50.00 or less
per annum. The maximum rate of P50.00 per annum may be exceeded with the
approval of the Secretary of Finance. – Section k (2), Commonwealth Act No.
472).
31. Fishponds, owners having not more than 10 hectares —————- 32 Fishponds, owners having more than 50 hectares——————— 33 Fishponds, owners having more than 10 but less than 50 hectares —- Section 12 – Penal Provisions
“Violation of any provision of this Ordinance shall subject the offender,
upon conviction, to a fine not exceeding P200.00 or to imprisonment not
exceeding 6 months, or both, at the discretion of the Court, (pp. 25, 127,
rec.)”
The ground on which the trial court declared the municipal ordinance invalid
would seem to be that, since the land on which the fishpond is situated is
already subject to land tax, it would be unfair and discriminatory to levy
another tax on the owner of the fishpond because that would amount to double
taxation. This view is erroneous because it is a well settled rule that a
license tax may be levied upon a business or occupation although the land or
property used therein is subject to property tax. It was also held that “the
state may collect an ad. valorem tax on property fused in a calling, and at the
same time impose a license tax on the pursuit of that calling,” The imposition
of this kind of tax “is in no sense called a double tax.”
“24. Double Taxation.- In general, the same property cannot be taxed twice by
the same taxing authority. This rule, however does not preclude the
imposition of a “license tax upon a business or calling although the property
used therein has been subjected to a property tax. It is a well-settled rule
that the state may collect an ad valorem tax on property used in a calling, “and
at the same time impose a license tax on the pursuit of that calling. This
is in no sense a double tax; the state does not tax the calling as property, but
simply requires a license for the privilege of engaging in it, or for enjoying
advantages incident to its exercise. The same principle applies to the
imposition of a privilege tax upon property which has been subjected to a
property tax. For example, the imposition of license and privilege taxes upon
automobiles, upon which property taxes have also been imposed, is not double
taxation. It is not necessarily double taxation where an occupation tax is
imposed upon a particular business and a license tax is imposed upon a
particular article sold in such business. ” (33 Am. Jur., Licenses, pp. 344-345;
Underlining supplied)
As to whether the municipal council of Palauig has the power to impose an
occupation or business tax on owners of fishponds, it cannot be denied, for such
power is expressly vested by Commonwealth Act No. 472 which took effect on June
16, 1939. Section 1 of said Act reads as follows:,
“Section 1. A municipal council or municipal district council shall have
authority to impose municipal license taxes upon persons engaged in any
occupation or business, or exercising privileges in the municipality or
municipal district, by requiring them to secure licenses at rates fixed by the
municipal council, or municipal district council, and to collect fees and
charges for services rendered by the municipality or municipal district and
shall otherwise have power to levy for public local purposes, and for school
purposes, including teachers’ salaries, just and uniform taxes other than
percentage taxes and taxes on specified articles.”
From the foregoing it clearly appears that a municipal council has authority
“to impose municipal license taxes upon persons engaged in any occupation or
business” within the municipality or “to levy for public local purposes x x x
just and uniform taxes other than percentage taxes and taxes on specified
articles.” The ordinance in question, as its language would indicate, levies a
business or occupation tax on owners of fishponds, which clearly comes within
the purview of the power first mentioned. And even if the running of a fishpond
be not considered as business in the strict sense, still the imposition of the
tax may be justified under the grant of the second power because it was
undoubtedly levied for a public purpose within the municipality. In either case,
therefore, the validity of the ordinance may be sustained.
But it is contended that the ordinance is not valid because it does not bear
the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and watural Resources, and in this
respect the Fisheries Act (Act No. 4003) as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 471,
is invoked. This Act indeed provides that “all ordinances, rules or regulations
pertaining to fishing or fisheries promulgated or enacted by provincial boards,
municipal boards or councils, or municipal district councils shall bo submitted
to the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce for approval” (Section 4). This
section, however, only applies to fishponds operated within “municipal waters”
which, by the very provisions of said Act, do not include those operated on
lands “subject of private ownership” (Section 6). Since the fishponds in
question arc operated on lands of private ownership, it is evident that they may
be the subject of an ordinance which does not require the approval of the
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources.
The decision appealed from is reversed. The case shall be remanded to the
lower court for further proceedings. No costs,
Bengzon, Padilla Montemayor, Reyes, Labrador, Concepcion, and
J.B.L. Reyes, JJ., concur.
Pablo, J., took no part.