ORMOC SUGARCANE PLANTERS ASSOCIATION, INC., PETITIONER-APPELLANT, VS. THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF ORMOC CITY AND HON. ESTEBAN C. CONEJOS, AS MAYOR OF ORMOC CITY, RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES.

This is a companion case to G. R. No. L-23794, Ormoc Sugar Co., Inc. vs. Treasurer of Ormoc
City, et al., wherein this Court holds, through Associate Justice Jose P. Bengzon, that Ordinance No. 4, Series of 1964, enacted by
the Municipal Board of Ormoc City, is
unconstitutional and void.

Section 1 of the said ordinance provides:

“Municipal Tax.- There shall be paid to the City Treasurer on
any and all produc­tions of centrifugal sugar milled at the Ormoc
Sugar Company, Incorporated, in Ormoc City a
municipal tax equivalent to one percentum
(%) per export sale to the United States of America and other foreign
countries.”

In G. R. No. L-23794 suit was brought by
the Ormoc Sugar Co., Inc., to seek a refund of the
sum of P12,087.50 which it had paid under protest in
1964 pursuant to the ordinance in question. 
The decision in said case holds that the ordinance imposes a tax on
export, and that it infringes the equal protection clause of the constitution,
since it refers exclusively in the Ormoc Sugar
Company.

On the other hand the instant case is a petition for declaratory
judgment filed by Ormoc Sugarcane Planters
Association Inc., rights of whose members ale also affected by the
ordinance.  No other relief than
declaration of its nullity is prayed for, and the same must be granted in
accordance with and for the reason already set forth in the other case.

For purposes of our decision herein, however one other ground may
be cited, namely, that the taxing power granted to chartered cities, municipalities
and municipal districts in Section 2 of Republic Act No. 2264 (June 19, 1959)
was amended on June 19, 1965 by R.A. No. 4497, as follows:

“SECTION 1.  Section two of Republic Act Numbered Twenty-two hundred sixty-four is amended to read as
follows:

“SECTION 2. Taxation.- Any provision
of law to the contrary notwithstanding, all chartered cities, municipalities
and municipal districts shall have authority to impose municipal license taxes
or fees upon persons engaged in any occupation or business, or exercising
privileges in chartered cities, municipalities or municipal districts by
requiring them to secure licenses at rates fixed by the municipal board or city
council of the city, the municipal council of the municipality, or the
municipal district coun­cil of the municipal district; to collect fees and
charges for service rendered by the city, municipality or municipal district;
to regulate and impose reason­able fees for services rendered in con­nection
with any business, profession or occupation being conducted within the city,
municipality or municipal district and otherwise to levy for public purposes,
just and uniform taxes, licenses or fees: 
Provided, That municipalities and municipal districts shall, in no case,
impose any percentage tax on sales or other taxes in any form based thereon nor
impose taxes on articles subject to specific tax, except gasoline, under the
provisions of the National Internal Revenue code:  Provided, however, That no city, municipality
or municipal district may levy or impose any of the following:

“x   x    x   x   x   x

“(1) Taxes, fees, or
levies, of any kind, which in effect impose e burden on exports of Philippine
finished, manufactured or processed products and products of Philippine cottage
industries.”

Subsection 1 of section 1 just quoted did not exist in R.A. No.
2264 before it was amended.  The
amendment is clearly a denial of the power to impose export taxes, and in
effect repeals the Ormoc
City ordinance subject of this
case.

Wherefore the said ordinance is hereby declared
unconstitutional and void, and no longer of any effect.  No costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.