Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 56 views

    City of Manila and Treasurer Vs

    Uploaded by

    Pat P. Monte
    1. The City of Manila passed an ordinance imposing an additional 0.5% real estate tax, bringing the total tax to 3%. Esso Philippines paid the tax under protest and sued for a refund. 2. The trial court ruled the additional tax was void because it was not authorized by the city charter or other law. 3. The Supreme Court overturned this ruling, finding that the Special Education Fund Law, which set a maximum real estate tax of 3%, impliedly authorized municipalities to increase their tax up to this maximum. By allowing a total tax of 3%, it permitted Manila to augment its existing 1.5% tax by the additional 0.5%.

    Copyright:

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

    City of Manila and Treasurer Vs

    Uploaded by

    Pat P. Monte
    56 views1 page
    1. The City of Manila passed an ordinance imposing an additional 0.5% real estate tax, bringing the total tax to 3%. Esso Philippines paid the tax under protest and sued for a refund. 2. The trial court ruled the additional tax was void because it was not authorized by the city charter or other law. 3. The Supreme Court overturned this ruling, finding that the Special Education Fund Law, which set a maximum real estate tax of 3%, impliedly authorized municipalities to increase their tax up to this maximum. By allowing a total tax of 3%, it permitted Manila to augment its existing 1.5% tax by the additional 0.5%.

    Original Title

    City of Manila and Treasurer vs

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. The City of Manila passed an ordinance imposing an additional 0.5% real estate tax, bringing the total tax to 3%. Esso Philippines paid the tax under protest and sued for a refund. 2. The trial court ruled the additional tax was void because it was not authorized by the city charter or other law. 3. The Supreme Court overturned this ruling, finding that the Special Education Fund Law, which set a maximum real estate tax of 3%, impliedly authorized municipalities to increase their tax up to this maximum. By allowing a total tax of 3%, it permitted Manila to augment its existing 1.5% tax by the additional 0.5%.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    56 views1 page

    City of Manila and Treasurer Vs

    Uploaded by

    Pat P. Monte
    1. The City of Manila passed an ordinance imposing an additional 0.5% real estate tax, bringing the total tax to 3%. Esso Philippines paid the tax under protest and sued for a refund. 2. The trial court ruled the additional tax was void because it was not authorized by the city charter or other law. 3. The Supreme Court overturned this ruling, finding that the Special Education Fund Law, which set a maximum real estate tax of 3%, impliedly authorized municipalities to increase their tax up to this maximum. By allowing a total tax of 3%, it permitted Manila to augment its existing 1.5% tax by the additional 0.5%.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    City of Manila and Treasurer vs.

    Judge Gomez

    G.R. No. L-37251. August 31, 1981]

    FACTS:
    1. Section 64 of the Revised Charter of Manila, Republic Act No. 409, which took
    effect on June 18, 1949, fixed the annual realty tax at one and one-half percent.
    On the other hand, Section 4 of the Special Education Fund Law, Republic Act
    No. 5447, which took effect on January 1, 1969, imposed “an annual additional
    tax of one per centum on the assessed value of real property in addition to the
    real property tax regularly levied thereon under existing laws” but “the total real
    property tax shall not exceed a maximum of three per centrum.

    2. That maximum limit gave the municipal board of Manila the Idea of fixing the
    realty tax at three percent. [B]y means of Ordinance No. 7125, approved by the
    city mayor on December 26, 1971 and effective beginning the third quarter of
    1972, the board imposed an additional one-half percent realty tax.

    3. Esso Philippines, Inc. paid under protest and later filed a complaint in the
    Court of First Instance of Manila for the recovery of it. It contended that the
    additional one-half percent tax is void because it is not authorized by the city
    charter nor by any law (Civil Case No. 88827).

    4. After hearing, the trial court declared the tax ordinance void and ordered the
    city treasurer of Manila to refund to Esso the said tax.

    5. The City of Manila and its treasurer appealed under Republic Act No. 5440
    (which superseded Rule 42 of the Rules of Court) with the ruling of Judge
    Gomez brought about the jurisdiction to the Supreme Court.
    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the additional one-half percent realty tax is legal and valid.
    HELD: YES.
    The Supreme Court held that the doctrine of implications in statutory
    construction and sustained the City of Manila’s contention that the additional one-half
    percent realty tax was sanctioned by the provision in Section 4 of the Special
    Education Fund Law. The doctrine of implications means that “that which is
    plainly implied in the language of a statute is as much a part of it as that
    which is expressed”. The obvious implication is that an additional one-half percent
    tax could be imposed by municipal corporations. Inferentially, that law (the ordinance)
    fixed at two percent the realty tax that would accrue to a city or municipality. Section
    4 of the Special Education Fund Law, as confirmed by the Real Property Tax Code
    (later), in prescribing a total realty tax of three percent impliedly authorized the
    augmentation by one-half percent of the pre-existing one and one- half percent realty
    tax.

    You might also like