You are on page 1of 2

ASSOCIATION OF CUSTOMS BROKERS vs.

MUNICIPAL BOARD (1953)


Association of Customs Brokers, Inc. and G. Manlapit, Inc. petitioners-appellants, vs. The Municipality Board,
the City Treasurer, the City Assessor, and the City Mayor, all of the City of Manila, respondents-appellees.
GR No. L-4376, May 22, 1953, Bautista Angelo, J.

Petition for declaratory relief as regards the validity of a municipal ordinance imposing a license tax on motor
vehicles operating in Manila.

1. The petitioners, (1) a group of brokers and public service operators of motor vehicles in Manila, and (2)
a member thereof, challenged the validity of Ordinance 3379 of Manila’s municipal board.
2. The ordinance, enacted on 24 March 1950, imposed a 1% ad valorem license tax under the guise of a
property tax on motor and other vehicles operating within Manila.
3. The tax was said to be used for the repair and maintenance of roads and bridges within the city.
4. The petitioners prayed for declaratory relief with respect to this ordinance. They contended that the
ordinance:
a. was ​not a property tax​ but a license tax, the imposition of which was proscribed by the Motor
1
Vehicles Law (Act 3992 Section 70b ).
b. failed to observe ​uniformity​ in taxation
c. amounted to ​double taxation
5. The respondents claimed that it has a power to impose a property tax pursuant to Manila’s revised
charter (Sec 18p, RA 409)
6. The CFI held that the ordinance is valid. Petition dismissed.

The SC sided with the petitioners.

ISSUE: WON the ordinance is invalid → YES.

WON the tax is a license tax → YES.


7. The SC held that the subject tax is a license or an excise tax.
8. What is controlling is not the name of the tax nor the fact that it is a proportion of the value of the
property, but the nature or purpose of the tax.
9. In this case, the tax is used in connection with a privilege (to use the roads and bridges in Manila), thus
the subject tax is not sanctioned by the Motor Vehicles Law.
10. The imposition of a license tax is what the Motor Vehicles Law sought to prevent because the municipal
corporation already get a share in the taxes/fees collected under the said Law for maintenance and
improvement of roads.

WON the ordinance does not observe uniformity in taxation. → YES.


11. The SC held that the ordinance failed to observe uniformity in taxation.
12. Uniformity is anchored on the equal protection clause. The said principle considers a clear distinction
of the classes that are covered and not covered by the tax.
13. There was no clear distinction on the subject of taxation. For example:
a. those that merely pass by are not subject to the said tax, although they do contribute to the
degradation of roads.
b. The subject was too broad as it applies to all for vehicles for hire and those privately owned in
Manila.

The SC declared the ordinance null and void.

1
No further fees than those fixed in this Act shall be exacted or demanded…or for the operation of any motor vehicle…Provided
that nothing in this Act shall be construed to exempt any motro vehicle from the payment of any lawful and equitable insular, local
or municipal property tax imposed thereupon…
Note: There is no discussion on double taxation but it may be inferred from SC’s view on first issue.

You might also like