Palanca vs.

CIty of manila and trinidad

facts:
appeal from an ammended decision of the court requiring defendant city to pay the
plaintiff php 2400 with legal interest
stipulations are as follows
from july 1, 1914 - june 30, 1916 plaintiff held a distiller's license and paid the
proper taxes to conduct his business of distilling liquor.
place of business indicated in license was 1925 calle analoague, manila
plaintiff had a store at nos. 538-540 calle pinpin, manila that was not adjacent to the
distillery but is entirelt separate therefrom
stores at calle pinpin sold liquor distilled from calle analogue however, no sales were
made at the distillery in calle analoague.
the city assessor and collector demanded the plaintiff to get a wholesale dealers
licenseand pay taxes of php 1200 per year to continue operation
plaintiff paid to said city assessor php 300 quarterly from the 3rd qtr of 1914 - 2nd.
OF 1916 while protesting in writing. HOWEver, said protests were overruled and
denied with no part of the money being refunded
manila liquor license act no. 59 ammended by act no. 95
sec. 16 states that licenses, known as distiller's license, for periods of one year may
be given upon payment in advance of the sum of 600 php to conduct business as a
distiller of alcohol and to sell, give away or dispose by gallon.
sec. 17 provides the issuance of "First class wholesale liquor license" upon payment
in advance of 1200 php which may be made in 4 quarterly installments. HOWEver,
nothing in this section may be construed to prohibit any person holding either of the
licenses from disposing of the products of such brewery or distillery
Issue: whether or not the plaintiff, after taking out and paying for his license as a distiller,
was entitled to sell the products of his distillery in a separate and distinct store without
the necessity of acquiring or paying for an additional license as a wholesale liquor dealer?
held:
legislative intent is reinforced by sec.17 of the aforementioned law.
no provision of the act limits the sale or disposition of the products of the license
distiller to the distillery proper
administrative code of 1916 sec. 2502 and 2503 and administrative code of 1917 sec.
2530 and 2531 continue the language of act no. 59 and respective amendments with
the careful insertion fo the phrase, in the distillery.
1916 administrative code would provide that the plaintiff must obtain a wholesale
liquor dealer's license. To that effect, statute was modified to reenact it as part of the
aforementioned code with the insertion of the words "at the place of production". By
express repeal, the legislative body shows that prior to that word the statute had a
different meaning, permitting the distiller to sell the products at places other than "the
place of production
liquor license act adopted from ohio and carried with it the construction given to it.
The courts could avail of actual proceedings of the legislative to assist in determining
the construction of a statute of doubtful import, as in this case
in senior v. Ratterman (1887) wholesale dealers and not manufacturers are liable to

the tax imposed by the terms of the act of the general assembly on may 14, 1886
under the law in force during period to which this litigation relates the plaintiff with
respect to his license cannot be required to avail of an dditional license as wholesale
liquor dealer.
STATUTES WHICH ARE PLAIN AND SPECIFIC SHOULD BE APPLIED
WITHOUT ATTEMPTED CONSTRUCTION OR INTERPRETATION.