Share Tweet: Like 0

7/28/2019 G.R. No. L-9637 - AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY vs.
CITY OF MANILA
|
ChanRobles™Virtual Law Library™
chanrobles.com™
Like 0 Tweet Share
CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
Home > ChanRobles Virtual Law Library > Philippine Supreme Court
Jurisprudence >
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-9637 April 30, 1957
AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY, Plaintiff-

Appellant, vs. CITY OF MANILA, Defendant-
Appellee.
City Fiscal Eugenio Angeles and Juan Nabong for

appellant.
www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence1957/apr1957/gr_l-9637_1957.php 1/17
7/28/2019 G.R. No. L-9637 - AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY vs. CITY OF MANILA
Assistant City Fiscal Arsenio Na awa for
appellee.
FELIX, J.:
Plaintiff-appellant is a foreign, non-stock, non-

profit, religious, missionary corporation duly
registered and doing business in the Philippines
through its Philippine agency established in
Manila in November, 1898, with its principal
office at 636 Isaac Peral in said City. The
defendant appellee is a municipal corporation
with powers that are to be exercised in
conformity with the provisions of Republic Act
No. 409, known as the Revised Charter of the
City of Manila. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
In the course of its ministry, plaintiff's Philippine

agency has been distributing and selling bibles
and/or gospel portions thereof (except during
the Japanese occupation) throughout the
Philippines and translating the same into several
Philippine dialects. On May 29 1953, the acting
City Treasurer of the City of Manila informed
plaintiff that it was conducting the business of
general merchandise since November, 1945,
without providing itself with the necessary
Mayor's permit and municipal license, in violation
of Ordinance No. 3000, as amended, and
Ordinances Nos. 2529, 3028 and 3364, and
required plaintiff to secure, within three days,
the corresponding permit and license fees,
together with compromise covering the period
from the 4th quarter of 1945 to the 2nd quarter
of 1953, in the total sum of P5,821.45 (Annex
A).
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
Plaintiff protested against this requirement, but

the City Treasurer demanded that plaintiff
deposit and pay under protest the sum of
P5,891.45, if suit was to be taken in court
regarding the same (Annex B). To avoid the
closing of its business as well as further fines
and penalties in the premises on October 24,
1953, plaintiff paid to the defendant under
protest the said permit and license fees in the
aforementioned amount, giving at the same time
notice to the City Treasurer that suit would be
taken in court to question the legality of the
ordinances under which, the said fees were
being collected (Annex C), which was done on
the same date by filing the complaint that gave
rise to this action. In its complaint plaintiff prays
that judgment be rendered declaring the said
Municipal Ordinance No. 3000, as amended, and
Ordinances Nos. 2529, 3028 and 3364 illegal and
unconstitutional, and that the defendant be
ordered to refund to the plaintiff the sum of
P5,891.45 paid under protest, together with
legal interest thereon, and the costs, plaintiff
further praying for such other relief and remedy
as the court may deem just equitable. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
Defendant answered the complaint, maintaining
in turn that said ordinances were enacted by the
Municipal Board of the City of Manila by virtue of
the power granted to it by section 2444,
subsection (m-2) of the Revised Administrative
Code, superseded on June 18, 1949, by section
18, subsection (1) of Republic Act No. 409,
known as the Revised Charter of the City of
Manila, and praying that the complaint be
dismissed, with costs against plaintiff. This
answer was replied by the plaintiff reiterating the
unconstitutionality of the often-repeated
ordinances. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
Before trial the parties submitted the following

stipulation of facts:
COME NOW the parties in the above-

entitled case, thru their undersigned
attorneys and respectfully submit the
following stipulation of facts: chanrobles virtual law library
1. That the plaintiff sold for the use of

the purchasers at its principal office at
636 Isaac Peral, Manila, Bibles, New
Testaments, bible portions and bible
concordance in English and other
foreign languages imported by it from
the United States as well as Bibles,
New Testaments and bible portions in
the local dialects imported and/or
purchased locally; that from the fourth
quarter of 1945 to the first quarter of
1953 inclusive the sales made by the
plaintiff were as follows: chanrobles virtual law library
Quarter Amount of
Sales
4th quarter 1945 P1,244.21
1st quarter 1946 2,206.85
2nd quarter 1946 1,950.38
3rd quarter 1946 2,235.99
4th quarter 1946 3,256.04
1st quarter 1947 13,241.07
2nd quarter 1947 15,774.55

3rd quarter 1947 14,654.13
4th quarter 1947 12,590.94
1st quarter 1948 11,143.90
2nd quarter 1948 14,715.26
3rd quarter 1948 38,333.83
4th quarter 1948 16,179.90
1st quarter 1949 23,975.10
2nd quarter 1949 17,802.08
3rd quarter 1949 16,640.79
4th quarter 1949 15,961.38
1st quarter 1950 18,562.46
2nd quarter 1950 21,816.32
3rd quarter 1950 25,004.55
4th quarter 1950 45,287.92
1st quarter 1951 37,841.21
2nd quarter 1951 29,103.98
3rd quarter 1951 20,181.10
4th quarter 1951 22,968.91
1st quarter 1952 23,002.65
2nd quarter 1952 17,626.96
3rd quarter 1952 17,921.01
4th quarter 1952 24,180.72
1st quarter 1953 29,516.21
2. That the parties hereby reserve the

right to present evidence of other facts
not herein stipulated. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed

that this case be set for hearing so
that the parties may present further
evidence on their behalf. (Record on
Appeal, pp. 15-16).
When the case was set for hearing, plaintiff

proved, among other things, that it has been in
existence in the Philippines since 1899, and that
its parent society is in New York, United States
of America; that its, contiguous real properties
located at Isaac Peral are exempt from real
estate taxes; and that it was never required to
pay any municipal license fee or tax before the
war, nor does the American Bible Society in the
United States pay any license fee or sales tax for
the sale of bible therein. Plaintiff further tried to
establish that it never made any profit from the
sale of its bibles, which are disposed of for as
low as one third of the cost, and that in order to
maintain its operating cost it obtains substantial
remittances from its New York office and
voluntary contributions and gifts from certain
churches, both in the United States and in the
Philippines, which are interested in its missionary
work. Regarding plaintiff's contention of lack of
profit in the sale of bibles, defendant retorts that
the admissions of plaintiff-appellant's lone
witness who testified on cross-examination that
bibles bearing the price of 70 cents each from
plaintiff-appellant's New York office are sold here
by plaintiff-appellant at P1.30 each; those
bearing the price of $4.50 each are sold here at
P10 each; those bearing the price of $7 each are
sold here at P15 each; and those bearing the
price of $11 each are sold here at P22 each,
clearly show that plaintiff's contention that it
never makes any profit from the sale of its bible,
is evidently untenable. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
After hearing the Court rendered judgment, the

last part of which is as follows:
As may be seen from the repealed
section (m-2) of the Revised
Administrative Code and the repealing
portions (o) of section 18 of Republic
Act No. 409, although they seemingly
differ in the way the legislative intent
is expressed, yet their meaning is
practically the same for the purpose of
taxing the merchandise mentioned in
said legal provisions, and that the
taxes to be levied by said ordinances is
in the nature of percentage graduated
taxes (Sec. 3 of Ordinance No. 3000,
as amended, and Sec. 1, Group 2, of
Ordinance No. 2529, as amended by
Ordinance No. 3364). chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING

CONSIDERATIONS, this Court is of the
opinion and so holds that this case
should be dismissed, as it is hereby
dismissed, for lack of merits, with
costs against the plaintiff.
Not satisfied with this verdict plaintiff took up

the matter to the Court of Appeals which
certified the case to Us for the reason that the
errors assigned to the lower Court involved only
questions of law. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
Appellant contends that the lower Court erred:
1. In holding that Ordinances Nos.

2529 and 3000, as respectively
amended, are not unconstitutional; chanrobles virtual law library
2. In holding that subsection m-2 of

Section 2444 of the Revised
Administrative Code under which
Ordinances Nos. 2592 and 3000 were
promulgated, was not repealed by
Section 18 of Republic Act No. 409; chanrobles virtual law library
3. In not holding that an ordinance

providing for taxes based on gross
sales or receipts, in order to be valid
under the new Charter of the City of
Manila, must first be approved by the
President of the Philippines; and chanrobles virtual law library
4. In holding that, as the sales made

by the plaintiff-appellant have
assumed commercial proportions, it
cannot escape from the operation of
said municipal ordinances under the
cloak of religious privilege.
The issues. - As may be seen from the

proceeding statement of the case, the issues
involved in the present controversy may be
reduced to the following: (1) whether or not the
ordinances of the City of Manila, Nos. 3000, as
amended, and 2529, 3028 and 3364, are
constitutional and valid; and (2) whether the
provisions of said ordinances are applicable or
not to the case at bar. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
Section 1, subsection (7) of Article III of the

Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines,
provides that:
(7) No law shall be made respecting an

establishment of religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof, and the free
exercise and enjoyment of religious
profession and worship, without
discrimination or preference, shall
forever be allowed. No religion test
shall be required for the exercise of
civil or political rights.
Predicated on this constitutional mandate,

plaintiff-appellant contends that Ordinances Nos.
2529 and 3000, as respectively amended, are
unconstitutional and illegal in so far as its society
is concerned, because they provide for religious
censorship and restrain the free exercise and
enjoyment of its religious profession, to wit: the
distribution and sale of bibles and other religious
literature to the people of the Philippines. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
Before entering into a discussion of the

constitutional aspect of the case, We shall first
consider the provisions of the questioned
ordinances in relation to their application to the
sale of bibles, etc. by appellant. The records,
show that by letter of May 29, 1953 (Annex A),
the City Treasurer required plaintiff to secure a
Mayor's permit in connection with the society's
alleged business of distributing and selling
bibles, etc. and to pay permit dues in the sum of
P35 for the period covered in this litigation, plus
the sum of P35 for compromise on account of
plaintiff's failure to secure the permit required by
Ordinance No. 3000 of the City of Manila, as
amended. This Ordinance is of general
application and not particularly directed against
institutions like the plaintiff, and it does not
contain any provisions whatever prescribing
religious censorship nor restraining the free
exercise and enjoyment of any religious
profession. Section 1 of Ordinance No. 3000
reads as follows:
SEC. 1. PERMITS NECESSARY. - It

shall be unlawful for any person or
entity to conduct or engage in any of
the businesses, trades, or occupations
enumerated in Section 3 of this
Ordinance or other businesses, trades,
or occupations for which a permit is
required for the proper supervision and
enforcement of existing laws and
ordinances governing the sanitation,
security, and welfare of the public and
the health of the employees engaged
in the business specified in said section
3 hereof, WITHOUT FIRST HAVING
OBTAINED A PERMIT THEREFOR FROM
THE MAYOR AND THE NECESSARY
LICENSE FROM THE CITY TREASURER.
The business, trade or occupation of the plaintiff

involved in this case is not particularly
mentioned in Section 3 of the Ordinance, and the
record does not show that a permit is required
therefor under existing laws and ordinances for
the proper supervision and enforcement of their
provisions governing the sanitation, security and
welfare of the public and the health of the
employees engaged in the business of the
plaintiff. However, sections 3 of Ordinance 3000
contains item No. 79, which reads as follows:
79. All other businesses, trades or

occupations not
mentioned in this Ordinance, except
those upon which the
City is not empowered to license or to
tax P5.00
Therefore, the necessity of the permit is made to

depend upon the power of the City to license or
tax said business, trade or occupation. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
As to the license fees that the Treasurer of the

City of Manila required the society to pay from
the 4th quarter of 1945 to the 1st quarter of
1953 in the sum of P5,821.45, including the sum
of P50 as compromise, Ordinance No. 2529, as
amended by Ordinances Nos. 2779, 2821 and
3028 prescribes the following:
SEC. 1. FEES. - Subject to the

provisions of section 578 of the
Revised Ordinances of the City of
Manila, as amended, there shall be
paid to the City Treasurer for engaging
in any of the businesses or occupations
below enumerated, quarterly, license
fees based on gross sales or receipts
realized during the preceding quarter
in accordance with the rates herein
prescribed: PROVIDED, HOWEVER,
That a person engaged in any
businesses or occupation for the first
time shall pay the initial license fee
based on the probable gross sales or
receipts for the first quarter beginning
from the date of the opening of the
business as indicated herein for the
corresponding business or occupation.
x x x x x x x x x
chanrobles virtual law library
GROUP 2. - Retail dealers in new (not

yet used) merchandise, which dealers
are not yet subject to the payment of
any municipal tax, such as (1) retail
dealers in general merchandise; (2)
retail dealers exclusively engaged in
the sale of . . . books, including
stationery.
x x x x x x x x x
As may be seen, the license fees required to be

paid quarterly in Section 1 of said Ordinance No.
2529, as amended, are not imposed directly
upon any religious institution but upon those
engaged in any of the business or occupations
therein enumerated, such as retail "dealers in
general merchandise" which, it is alleged, cover
the business or occupation of selling bibles,
books, etc. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
Chapter 60 of the Revised Administrative Code

which includes section 2444, subsection (m-2) of
said legal body, as amended by Act No. 3659,
approved on December 8, 1929, empowers the
Municipal Board of the City of Manila:
(M-2) To tax and fix the license fee on

(a) dealers in new automobiles or
accessories or both, and (b) retail
dealers in new (not yet used)
merchandise, which dealers are not yet
subject to the payment of any
municipal tax. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
For the purpose of taxation, these

retail dealers shall be classified as (1)
retail dealers in general merchandise,
and (2) retail dealers exclusively
engaged in the sale of (a) textiles . . .
(e) books, including stationery, paper
and office supplies, . . .: PROVIDED,
HOWEVER, That the combined total tax
of any debtor or manufacturer, or
both, enumerated under these
subsections (m-1) and (m-2), whether
dealing in one or all of the articles
mentioned herein, SHALL NOT BE IN
EXCESS OF FIVE HUNDRED PESOS PER
ANNUM.
and appellee's counsel maintains that City

Ordinances Nos. 2529 and 3000, as amended,
were enacted in virtue of the power that said Act
No. 3669 conferred upon the City of Manila.
Appellant, however, contends that said
ordinances are longer in force and effect as the
law under which they were promulgated has
been expressly repealed by Section 102 of
Republic Act No. 409 passed on June 18, 1949,
known as the Revised Manila Charter. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
Passing upon this point the lower Court

categorically stated that Republic Act No. 409
expressly repealed the provisions of Chapter 60
of the Revised Administrative Code but in the
opinion of the trial Judge, although Section 2444
(m-2) of the former Manila Charter and section
18 (o) of the new seemingly differ in the way the
legislative intent was expressed, yet their
meaning is practically the same for the purpose
of taxing the merchandise mentioned in both
legal provisions and, consequently, Ordinances
Nos. 2529 and 3000, as amended, are to be
considered as still in full force and effect
uninterruptedly up to the present.
Often the legislature, instead of simply

amending the pre-existing statute, will
repeal the old statute in its entirety
and by the same enactment re-enact
all or certain portions of the
preexisting law. Of course, the problem
created by this sort of legislative action
involves mainly the effect of the repeal
upon rights and liabilities which
accrued under the original statute. Are
those rights and liabilities destroyed or
preserved? The authorities are divided
as to the effect of simultaneous repeals
and re-enactments. Some adhere to
the view that the rights and liabilities
accrued under the repealed act are
destroyed, since the statutes from
which they sprang are actually
terminated, even though for only a
very short period of time. Others, and
they seem to be in the majority, refuse
to accept this view of the situation,
and consequently maintain that all
rights an liabilities which have accrued
under the original statute are
preserved and may be enforced, since
the re-enactment neutralizes the
repeal, therefore, continuing the law in
force without interruption. (Crawford-
Statutory Construction, Sec. 322).
Appellant's counsel states that section 18 (o) of

Republic Act No, 409 introduces a new and wider
concept of taxation and is different from the
provisions of Section 2444(m-2) that the former
cannot be considered as a substantial re-
enactment of the provisions of the latter. We
have quoted above the provisions of section
2444(m-2) of the Revised Administrative Code
and We shall now copy hereunder the provisions
of Section 18, subdivision (o) of Republic Act No.
409, which reads as follows:
(o) To tax and fix the license fee on

dealers in general merchandise,
including importers and indentors,
except those dealers who may be
expressly subject to the payment of
some other municipal tax under the
provisions of this section. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
Dealers in general merchandise shall

be classified as (a) wholesale dealers
and (b) retail dealers. For purposes of
the tax on retail dealers, general
merchandise shall be classified into
four main classes: namely (1) luxury
articles, (2) semi-luxury articles, (3)
essential commodities, and (4)
miscellaneous articles. A separate
license shall be prescribed for each
class but where commodities of
different classes are sold in the same
establishment, it shall not be
compulsory for the owner to secure
more than one license if he pays the
higher or highest rate of tax prescribed
by ordinance. Wholesale dealers shall
pay the license tax as such, as may be
provided by ordinance. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
For purposes of this section, the term

"General merchandise" shall include
poultry and livestock, agricultural
products, fish and other allied
products.
The only essential difference that We find

between these two provisions that may have any
bearing on the case at bar, is that, while
subsection (m-2) prescribes that the combined
total tax of any dealer or manufacturer, or both,
enumerated under subsections (m-1) and (m-2),
whether dealing in one or all of the articles
mentioned therein, shall not be in excess of P500
per annum, the corresponding section 18,
subsection (o) of Republic Act No. 409, does not
contain any limitation as to the amount of tax or
license fee that the retail dealer has to pay per
annum. Hence, and in accordance with the
weight of the authorities above referred to that
maintain that "all rights and liabilities which have
accrued under the original statute are preserved
and may be enforced, since the reenactment
neutralizes the repeal, therefore continuing the
law in force without interruption", We hold that
the questioned ordinances of the City of Manila
are still in force and effect. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
Plaintiff, however, argues that the questioned

ordinances, to be valid, must first be approved
by the President of the Philippines as per section
18, subsection (ii) of Republic Act No. 409, which
reads as follows:
(ii) To tax, license and regulate any

business, trade or occupation being
conducted within the City of Manila,
not otherwise enumerated in the
preceding subsections, including
percentage taxes based on gross sales
or receipts, subject to the approval of
the PRESIDENT, except amusement
taxes.
but this requirement of the President's approval
was not contained in section 2444 of the former
Charter of the City of Manila under which
Ordinance No. 2529 was promulgated. Anyway,
as stated by appellee's counsel, the business of
"retail dealers in general merchandise" is
expressly enumerated in subsection (o), section
18 of Republic Act No. 409; hence, an ordinance
prescribing a municipal tax on said business does
not have to be approved by the President to be
effective, as it is not among those referred to in
said subsection (ii). Moreover, the questioned
ordinances are still in force, having been
promulgated by the Municipal Board of the City
of Manila under the authority granted to it by
law.
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
The question that now remains to be determined

is whether said ordinances are inapplicable,
invalid or unconstitutional if applied to the
alleged business of distribution and sale of bibles
to the people of the Philippines by a religious
corporation like the American Bible Society,
plaintiff herein. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
With regard to Ordinance No. 2529, as amended

by Ordinances Nos. 2779, 2821 and 3028,
appellant contends that it is unconstitutional and
illegal because it restrains the free exercise and
enjoyment of the religious profession and
worship of appellant. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
Article III, section 1, clause (7) of the

Constitution of the Philippines aforequoted,
guarantees the freedom of religious profession
and worship. "Religion has been spoken of as a
profession of faith to an active power that binds
and elevates man to its Creator" (Aglipay vs.
Ruiz, 64 Phil., 201).It has reference to one's
views of his relations to His Creator and to the
obligations they impose of reverence to His being
and character, and obedience to His Will (Davis
vs. Beason, 133 U.S., 342). The constitutional
guaranty of the free exercise and enjoyment of
religious profession and worship carries with it
the right to disseminate religious information.
Any restraints of such right can only be justified
like other restraints of freedom of expression on
the grounds that there is a clear and present
danger of any substantive evil which the State
has the right to prevent". (Ta ada and Fernando
on the Constitution of the Philippines, Vol. 1, 4th
ed., p. 297). In the case at bar the license fee
herein involved is imposed upon appellant for its
distribution and sale of bibles and other religious
literature:
In the case of Murdock vs.

Pennsylvania, it was held that an
ordinance requiring that a license be
obtained before a person could
canvass or solicit orders for goods,
paintings, pictures, wares or
merchandise cannot be made to apply
to members of Jehovah's Witnesses
who went about from door to door
distributing literature and soliciting
people to "purchase" certain religious
books and pamphlets, all published by
the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society.
The "price" of the books was twenty-
five cents each, the "price" of the
pamphlets five cents each. It was
shown that in making the solicitations
there was a request for additional
"contribution" of twenty-five cents
each for the books and five cents each
for the pamphlets. Lesser sum were
accepted, however, and books were
even donated in case interested
persons were without funds. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
On the above facts the Supreme Court

held that it could not be said that
petitioners were engaged in
commercial rather than a religious
venture. Their activities could not be
described as embraced in the
occupation of selling books and
pamphlets. Then the Court continued: chanrobles
virtual law library
"We do not mean to say that religious

groups and the press are free from all
financial burdens of government. See
Grosjean vs. American Press Co., 297
U.S., 233, 250, 80 L. ed. 660, 668, 56
S. Ct. 444. We have here something
quite different, for example, from a tax
on the income of one who engages in
religious activities or a tax on property
used or employed in connection with
activities. It is one thing to impose a
tax on the income or property of a
preacher. It is quite another to exact a
tax from him for the privilege of
delivering a sermon. The tax imposed
by the City of Jeannette is a flat license
tax, payment of which is a condition of
the exercise of these constitutional
privileges. The power to tax the
exercise of a privilege is the power to
control or suppress its enjoyment. . . .
Those who can tax the exercise of this
religious practice can make its exercise
so costly as to deprive it of the
resources necessary for its
maintenance. Those who can tax the
privilege of engaging in this form of
missionary evangelism can close all its
doors to all those who do not have a
full purse. Spreading religious beliefs in
this ancient and honorable manner
would thus be denied the needy. . . . chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
chanrobles virtual law library
It is contended however that the fact
that the license tax can suppress or
control this activity is unimportant if it
does not do so. But that is to disregard
the nature of this tax. It is a license
tax - a flat tax imposed on the exercise
of a privilege granted by the Bill of
Rights . . . The power to impose a
license tax on the exercise of these
freedom is indeed as potent as the
power of censorship which this Court
has repeatedly struck down. . . . It is
not a nominal fee imposed as a
regulatory measure to defray the
expenses of policing the activities in
question. It is in no way apportioned.
It is flat license tax levied and collected
as a condition to the pursuit of
activities whose enjoyment is
guaranteed by the constitutional
liberties of press and religion and
inevitably tends to suppress their
exercise. That is almost uniformly
recognized as the inherent vice and
evil of this flat license tax." chanrobles virtual law library
Nor could dissemination of religious

information be conditioned upon the
approval of an official or manager even
if the town were owned by a
corporation as held in the case of
Marsh vs. State of Alabama (326 U.S.
501), or by the United States itself as
held in the case of Tucker vs. Texas
(326 U.S. 517). In the former case the
Supreme Court expressed the opinion
that the right to enjoy freedom of the
press and religion occupies a preferred
position as against the constitutional
right of property owners. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
"When we balance the constitutional

rights of owners of property against
those of the people to enjoy freedom
of press and religion, as we must here,
we remain mindful of the fact that the
latter occupy a preferred position. . . .
In our view the circumstance that the
property rights to the premises where
the deprivation of property here
involved, took place, were held by
others than the public, is not sufficient
to justify the State's permitting a
corporation to govern a community of
citizens so as to restrict their
fundamental liberties and the
enforcement of such restraint by the
application of a State statute."
(Ta ada and Fernando on the
Constitution of the Philippines, Vol. 1,
4th ed., p. 304-306).
Section 27 of Commonwealth Act No. 466,
otherwise known as the National Internal
Revenue Code, provides:
SEC. 27. EXEMPTIONS FROM TAX ON

CORPORATIONS. - The following
organizations shall not be taxed under
this Title in respect to income received
by them as such - chanrobles virtual law library
(e) Corporations or associations

organized and operated exclusively for
religious, charitable, . . . or educational
purposes, . . .: Provided, however,
That the income of whatever kind and
character from any of its properties,
real or personal, or from any activity
conducted for profit, regardless of the
disposition made of such income, shall
be liable to the tax imposed under this
Code;
Appellant's counsel claims that the Collector of

Internal Revenue has exempted the plaintiff from
this tax and says that such exemption clearly
indicates that the act of distributing and selling
bibles, etc. is purely religious and does not fall
under the above legal provisions. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
It may be true that in the case at bar the price

asked for the bibles and other religious
pamphlets was in some instances a little bit
higher than the actual cost of the same but this
cannot mean that appellant was engaged in the
business or occupation of selling said
"merchandise" for profit. For this reason We
believe that the provisions of City of Manila
Ordinance No. 2529, as amended, cannot be
applied to appellant, for in doing so it would
impair its free exercise and enjoyment of its
religious profession and worship as well as its
rights of dissemination of religious beliefs. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
With respect to Ordinance No. 3000, as

amended, which requires the obtention the
Mayor's permit before any person can engage in
any of the businesses, trades or occupations
enumerated therein, We do not find that it
imposes any charge upon the enjoyment of a
right granted by the Constitution, nor tax the
exercise of religious practices. In the case of
Coleman vs. City of Griffin, 189 S.E. 427, this
point was elucidated as follows:
An ordinance by the City of Griffin,

declaring that the practice of
distributing either by hand or
otherwise, circulars, handbooks,
advertising, or literature of any kind,
whether said articles are being
delivered free, or whether same are
being sold within the city limits of the
City of Griffin, without first obtaining
written permission from the city
manager of the City of Griffin, shall be
deemed a nuisance and punishable as
an offense against the City of Griffin,
does not deprive defendant of his
constitutional right of the free exercise
and enjoyment of religious profession
and worship, even though it prohibits
him from introducing and carrying out
a scheme or purpose which he sees fit
to claim as a part of his religious
system.
It seems clear, therefore, that Ordinance No.

3000 cannot be considered unconstitutional,
even if applied to plaintiff Society. But as
Ordinance No. 2529 of the City of Manila, as
amended, is not applicable to plaintiff-appellant
and defendant-appellee is powerless to license or
tax the business of plaintiff Society involved
herein for, as stated before, it would impair
plaintiff's right to the free exercise and
enjoyment of its religious profession and
worship, as well as its rights of dissemination of
religious beliefs, We find that Ordinance No.
3000, as amended is also inapplicable to said
business, trade or occupation of the plaintiff. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual
law library
Wherefore, and on the strength of the foregoing

considerations, We hereby reverse the decision
appealed from, sentencing defendant return to
plaintiff the sum of P5,891.45 unduly collected
from it. Without pronouncement as to costs. It is
so ordered. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo,

Labrador, Concepcion and Endencia, JJ., concur.
CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920
1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960
1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
FEATURED
DECISIONScralaw
Search for www.chanrobles.com
QUICK SEARCH
1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920
1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960
1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Copyright © 1998 - 2019 ChanRoblesPublishing Company| Disclaimer | E-mailRestrictions

ChanRobles™Virtual Law Library ™ | chanrobles.com™ RED

Share Tweet: Like 0

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Share Tweet: Like 0

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Share Tweet: Like 0

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

7/28/2019 G.R. No. L-9637 - AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY vs.

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

G.R. No. L-9637 April 30, 1957

AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY, Plaintiff-

City Fiscal Eugenio Angeles and Juan Nabong for

Plaintiff-appellant is a foreign, non-stock, non-

In the course of its ministry, plaintiff's Philippine

Plaintiff protested against this requirement, but

Before trial the parties submitted the following

COME NOW the parties in the above-

1. That the plaintiff sold for the use of

4th quarter 1945 P1,244.21

1st quarter 1946 2,206.85

2nd quarter 1946 1,950.38

3rd quarter 1946 2,235.99

4th quarter 1946 3,256.04

1st quarter 1947 13,241.07

2nd quarter 1947 15,774.55

3rd quarter 1947 14,654.13

4th quarter 1947 12,590.94

1st quarter 1948 11,143.90

2nd quarter 1948 14,715.26

3rd quarter 1948 38,333.83

4th quarter 1948 16,179.90

1st quarter 1949 23,975.10

2nd quarter 1949 17,802.08

3rd quarter 1949 16,640.79

4th quarter 1949 15,961.38

1st quarter 1950 18,562.46

2nd quarter 1950 21,816.32

3rd quarter 1950 25,004.55

4th quarter 1950 45,287.92

1st quarter 1951 37,841.21

2nd quarter 1951 29,103.98

3rd quarter 1951 20,181.10

4th quarter 1951 22,968.91

2nd quarter 1952 17,626.96

3rd quarter 1952 17,921.01

4th quarter 1952 24,180.72

1st quarter 1953 29,516.21

2. That the parties hereby reserve the

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed

When the case was set for hearing, plaintiff

After hearing the Court rendered judgment, the

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING

Not satisfied with this verdict plaintiff took up

Appellant contends that the lower Court erred:

1. In holding that Ordinances Nos.

2. In holding that subsection m-2 of

3. In not holding that an ordinance

4. In holding that, as the sales made

The issues. - As may be seen from the

Section 1, subsection (7) of Article III of the

(7) No law shall be made respecting an

Predicated on this constitutional mandate,

Before entering into a discussion of the

SEC. 1. PERMITS NECESSARY. - It

The business, trade or occupation of the plaintiff

79. All other businesses, trades or