ZAMBOANGA COPRA PROCUREMENT CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. CITY OF ZAMBOANGA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

The
Zamboanga court of first instance, upon the complaint of Zamboanga
Copra Procurement Corporation, annulled Ordinance No. 840, Series of
1950 of the City of Zamboanga, and ordered said City to pay the
plaintiff Corporation the amount of P22,033.44 with legal interest plus
costs. In addition, the City was required to pay P5,000.00 as
attorneys’ fees and P500.00 as expenses of litigation.

There
is no question that Zamboanga Copra Procurement Corporation paid under
protest, to the Treasurer of Zamboanga City the sum of P22,033.44 by
virtue of the Ordinance hereinabove mentioned imposing upon copra
dealers a tax of eight centavos per one hundred kilos of copra exported
abroad.

The Corporation’s contention that the City had no
power to impose such taxes was upheld by the court, notwithstanding the
City’s assertion of power under sec. 14, paragraph (m) of Commonwealth
Act No. 39 as amended, which for convenience, is quoted herewith:

“(m)
To tax, fix the license fee for * * * the storage and sale of
gun-powder, tar, pitch, resin, coal, oil, gasoline, benzine,
turpentine, hemp, cotton, nitroglycerine, petroleum, or any of the
products thereof, and all other highly combustible or explosive
materials, and other establishments likely to endanger the public
safety or give rise to conflagrations or explosions. * * *”

Under a similar provision of the Cebu Charter, the appellant points out, this Court held^[1]
the City of Cebu had power to impose a license fee or tax on persons
engaged in the business of buying and selling and storing copra in a
warehouse. Wherefore, appellant concludes, this ordinance should be
upheld under the same view that copra, although not specifically
mentioned in the above section, is included in the words “oil * * * or
any products thereof, etc. etc.”

We believe, however, that
the Zamboanga ordinance may not be classed with the Cebu ordinance. The
former imposed a tax on copra exported from the city whereas
the latter imposed taxes on copra stored in the municipality. On the
other hand, we think the issue is controlled by our pronouncements in
Saldaña vs. City of Iloilo^[2] and Panaligan vs. City of Tacloban, L-9319, September 27, 1957. In the first, we annulled, as ultra vires,
the ordinance of Iloilo City imposing fees on all animals, fish and
fruit taken out of the City. We said the ordinance was not only
unauthorized by the section in the City Charter in all material
respects similar to the provision herein invoked by appellant, but was
expressly prohibited by section 2287 of the Revised Administrative Code
providing a general rule of taxation for municipal corporations:

“It
shall not be in the power of the Municipal Council to impose a tax in
any form whatever upon goods and merchandise carried into the
municipality, or out of the same, and any attempt to impose an import
or export tax upon such goods in the guise of an unreasonable charge
for wharfage, use of bridges or otherwise, shall be void.”

In the second, we annulled an ordinance of Tacloban City levying
inspection fees (in realty taxes) upon animals exported or taken away
from the City.

In line with these two decisions, we must
hold, and we hereby hold, the ordinance in question to be invalid. It
was proper, therefore, to direct repayment of the amounts collected
thereunder. But appellee may not recover all he paid—P27,497,67 instead
of P22,034,44— because it has not appealed from the decision.

As to the amount of attorney’s fees, we think P2,500.00 should be sufficient.

Wherefore, with this modification, the appealed decision is affirmed. No costs.

Paras, C. J., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.

Padilla, J., took no part.

---

^[1] Uy Matiao vs. City of Cebu, 93 Phil., 300; 49 Off. Gaz., 1797.

[2] 104 Phil., 28; 55 Off. Gaz., 10267.