c


   


Posted by Berne Guerrero under (a) oas , digests


   
GR 11572, 22 September 1916
Second Division, Trent (J): 4 concur

! Section 100 of Act 2339 (promulgated 1914) imposed an annual tax of P4 per square meter
upon electric signs, billboards, and spaces used for posting or displaying temporary signs, and all
signs displayed on premises not occupied by buildings. The section was amended by Act 2432,
reducing the tax to P2 per square meter. The taxes imposed by Act 2432 were ratified by the US
Congress on 4 March 1915. Francis A. Churchill and Stewart Tait, co-partners in Mercantile Advertising
Agency, owed a billboard to which they were taxed at P104. The tax was paid under protest. Churchill
and Tait instituted the action to recover the amount.

"  Whether the statute or tax is void for lack of uniformity.

#$Uniformity in taxation means that all taxable articles or kinds of property, of the same class,
shall be taxed at the same rate. It does not mean that lands, chattels, securities, incomes,
occupations, franchises, privileges, necessities, and luxuries shall all be assessed at the same rate.
Different articles may be taxed at different amounts provided the rate is uniform on the same class
everywhere, with all people, at all times. Herein, the Act imposes a tax of P2 per square meter or a
fraction thereof upon every electric sign, billboard, etc., wherever found in the Philippine Islands. The
rule of taxation upon such signs is uniform throughout the islands. The rule does not require taxes to
be graded according to the value of the subject(s) upon which they are imposed, especially those
levied as privilege or occupation taxes.

p
c
% &!' 
  ()
'  !*&+,+-
+
Posted by Berne Guerrero under (a) oas , digests

% &!' 
  ()'  !

GR L-22814, 28 August 1968
En Banc, Concepcion (J): 5 concur

! Ordinance 110 was enacted by the City of Butuan imposing a tax of P0.10 per case of 24
bottles of softdrinks or carbonated drinks. The tax was imposed upon dealers engeged in selling
softdrinks or carbonated drinks. When Ordinance 110, the tax was imposed upon an agent or
consignee of any person, association, partnership, company or corporation engaged in selling
softdrinks or carbonated drinks, with ³agent or consignee´ being particularly defined on the inserted
provision Section 3-A. In effect, merchants engaged in the sale of softdrinks, etc. are not subject to
the tax unless they are agents or consignees of another dealer who must be one engaged in business
outside the City. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. filed suit to recover sums paid by it to the city pursuant to the
Ordinance, which it claims to be null and void.

"  Whether the Ordinance is discriminatory.

#$The Ordinance, as amended, is discriminatory since only sales by ³agents or consignees´ of

outside dealers would be subject to the tax. Sales by local dealers, not acting for or on behalf of other
merchants, regardless of the volume of their sales , and even if the same exceeded those made by
said agents or consignees of producers or merchants established outside the city, would be exempt
from the tax. The classification made in the exercise of the authority to tax, to be valid must be
reasonable, which would be satisfied if the classification is based upon substantial distinctions which
makes real differences; these are germane to the purpose of legislation or ordinance; the classification
applies not only to present conditions but also to future conditions substantially identical to those of
the present; and the classification applies equally to all those who belong to the same class. These
conditions are not fully met by the ordinance in question.

p
p