Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 67 views

    Victoria Milling Co., Inc. v. Municipality of Victoria, GR No. L-21183, 27 Sept. 1968

    Uploaded by

    Gabriel Hernandez
    Case Digest

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Victoria Milling Co., Inc. v. Municipality of Victoria, GR No. L-21183, 27 Sept. 1968

    Uploaded by

    Gabriel Hernandez
    67 views2 pages
    Case Digest

    Original Title

    44. Victoria Milling Co., Inc. v. Municipality of Victoria, GR No. L-21183, 27 Sept. 1968

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Case Digest

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    67 views2 pages

    Victoria Milling Co., Inc. v. Municipality of Victoria, GR No. L-21183, 27 Sept. 1968

    Uploaded by

    Gabriel Hernandez
    Case Digest

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Victorias Milling v.

    Municipality of Victorias
       Equal Protection
    G.R. No. Ponente  Date 
    L-21183 J. SANCHEZ SEPTEMBER 27, 1968
    Petitioners Respondents
    VICTORIAS MILLING, CO., THE MUNICIPALITY OF VICTORIAS, PROVINCE OF NEGROS
    INC., OCCIDENTAL,

    DOCTRINE:

    ORDINANCE IN QUESTION IS NOT DISCRIMINATORY. — The ordinance in question does not


    single out Victorias as the only object of the ordinance. Said ordinance is made to apply to any
    sugar central or sugar refinery which may happen to operate in the municipality. So it is, that the
    fact that plaintiff is actually the sole operator of a sugar refinery does not make the ordinance
    discriminatory.

    ORDINANCE IN QUESTION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE DOUBLE TAXATION. — Plaintiff’s


    argument on double taxation must not be upheld: First. The two taxes cover two different objects.
    Section 1 of the ordinance taxes a person operating sugar centrals or engaged in the manufacture
    of centrifugal sugar. While under Section 2, those taxed are the operators of sugar refinery mills.
    One occupation or business is different from the other. Second. The disputed taxes are imposed
    on occupation or business. Both taxes are not on sugar. The amount thereof depends on the
    annual output capacity of the mills concerned, regardless of the actual sugar milled. Plaintiff’s
    argument perhaps could make out a point if the object of taxation here were the sugar it produces,
    not the business of promoting it.

    I. Facts of the case 


     The Municipal Council of Victorias, Negros Occidental approved Ordinance No. 1,
    series of 1956 on September 22, 1956.
     Said Ordinance amended two existing municipal ordinances separately imposing
    license taxes on operators of sugar centrals 1 and sugar refineries. 2 The changes
    were: with respect to sugar centrals, by increasing the rates of license taxes; and
    as to sugar refineries, by increasing the rates of license taxes as well as the range
    of graduated schedule of annual output capacity.
     Thus Victorias Milling filed before the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental,
    a suit docketed as Civil Case No. 5565 seeking to declare Ordinance No. 1, series
    of 1956, as null and void; other reliefs seeked were that the CFI issue an Order
    directing the refund of all license taxes paid and to be paid under protest; issue an
    Oder directing the officials of Victorias and the Province of Negros Occidental to
    observe, during the pendency of the action, the provisions of section 357 of the
    Revised Manual of Instructions to Treasurers of Provinces, Cities and
    Municipalities, 1954 edition, 5regarding the treatment of licenses taxes paid under
    protest by virtue of disputed ordinance; and other reliefs.
     The reasons put forth by plaintiff are that: (a) the ordinance exceeds the amounts
    fixed in Provincial Circular 12-A issued by the Finance Department on February 27,
    1940; (b) it is discriminatory since it singles out plaintiff which is the only operator of
    a sugar central and a sugar refinery within the jurisdiction of defendant
    municipality; (c) it constitutes double taxation; and (d) the national government has
    pre-empted the field of taxation with respect to sugar centrals or refineries.
     The CFI eventually rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the dispositive
    portion of the Decision is quoted below viz:

    “"WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered (a) declaring that Ordinance No. 1, series of


    1956, of the municipality of Victorias, Negros Occidental, is invalid; (b) ordering all
    officials of the defendant to observe the provisions of Section 357 of the Revised
    Manual of Instructions to Treasurers of Provinces, Cities and Municipalities, 1954
    Edition; with particular reference to any license taxes paid by the plaintiff under
    said Ordinance No. 1 series of 1956, after notice of this decision; and (c) ordering
    the defendant to refund to the plaintiff any and all such license taxes paid under
    protest after notice of this decision."
     Both plaintiff and defendant appealed direct to this Court. Plaintiff questions that
    portion of the decision denying the refund of the license taxes paid under protest in
    the amount of P280,000 covering the period from the first quarter of 1957 to the
    second quarter of 1960; and balked at the court’s order limiting refund to "any and
    all such license taxes paid under protest after notice of this decision." Defendant,
    upon the other hand, challenges the correctness of the court’s decision invalidating
    Ordinance No. 1, series of 1956, it contents that the said Ordinance is Valid.
    II. Issue/s

    Whether or not Ordinance No. 1 is Discriminatory in nature and violative of Equal


    Protection?
    Whether or not Ordinance No. 1 constitutes as Double Taxation?

    III. Ratio/Legal Basis

    ● NO, Ordinance No. 1 is NOT discriminatory in nature and NOT violative of Equal
    Protection
    ● The ordinance does not single out Victorias as the only object of the ordinance. The said
    ordinance is made to apply to any sugar central or sugar refinery which may happen to
    operate in the municipality.
    ● The fact that plaintiff is actually the sole operator of a sugar central and a sugar refinery does
    not make the ordinance discriminatory. Arguments along the same lines was rejected in
    Shell Co. of P.I., Ltd. v. Vaño, where the Court holding that the circumstance "that there is no
    other person in the locality who exercises "the occupation designated as installation
    manager "does not make the ordinance discriminatory and hostile, inasmuch as it is and will
    be applicable to any person or firm who exercises such calling or occupation."
    ● Ordinance No. 1, series of 1956, of the Municipality of Victorias, was promulgated not in the
    exercise of the municipality’s regulatory power but as a revenue measure — a tax on
    occupation or business. The authority to impose such tax is backed by the express grant of
    power in Section 1 of Commonwealth Act 472.
    ● NO, Ordinance No. 1 DOES NOT constitute as Double Taxation
    ● Plaintiff reasons out that in computing the amount of taxes to be paid by the sugar refinery
    the cost of the raw sugar coming from the sugar central is not deducted, thus ergo, plaintiff is
    taxed twice on the raw sugar
    ● Double taxation has been otherwise described as "direct duplicate taxation." For double
    taxation to exist, "the same property must be taxed twice, when it should be taxed but once."
    Double taxation has also been "defined as taxing the same person twice by the same
    jurisdiction for the same thing."
    ● The two taxes cover two different objects. Section 1 of the ordinance taxes a person
    operating sugar centrals or engaged in the manufacture of centrifugal sugar. While under
    Section 2, those taxed are the operators of sugar refinery mills. One occupation or business
    is different from the other. Second. The disputed taxes are imposed on occupation or
    business. Both taxes are not on sugar. The amount thereof depends on the annual output
    capacity of the mills concerned, regardless of the actual sugar milled. Plaintiff’s argument
    perhaps could make out a point if the object of taxation here were the sugar it produces, not
    the business of producing it. Contrary to the allegation of the plaintiff, respectfully there is no
    double taxation in the case at bar.

    IV. Disposition 

    FOR THE REASONS GIVEN, —


    The judgment under review is hereby REVERSED; and Judgment is hereby rendered:
    (a) declaring valid and subsisting Ordinance No. 1, series of 1956, of the Municipality of
    Victorias, Province of Negros Occidental; and
    (b) dismissing plaintiff’s complaint as supplemented and amended. Costs against
    plaintiff.

    SO ORDERED

    V. Notes

    You might also like