CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE DON PEDRO v. CITY OF MANILA

11/15/21, 11:49 AM G.R. No. L-7679 September 29, 1955 - CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE DON PEDRO v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.
ET AL. <br /><br />09…
Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence
September 1955 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court

Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1955 >

September 1955 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-7679 September 29,
1955 - CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE DON PEDRO v. CITY OF
MANILA, ET AL.
097 Phil 627:

FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. L-7679. September 29, 1955.]
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1955septemberdecisions.php?id=188 1/14
11/15/21, 11:49 AM G.R. No. L-7679 September 29, 1955 - CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE DON PEDRO v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL. <br /><br />09…
CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE DON PEDRO, Plaintiff-

Appellee, v. CITY OF MANILA and M. SARMIENTO, as
City Treasurer of Manila, Defendants-Appellants.
Recto & Guerrero for Appellee.
City Fiscal Engenio Angeles and Assistant City Fiscal

Arsenio Nañawa for appellants.

SYLLABUS

1. TAXATION; TAX ON MANUFACTURES AND PRODUCES;

DISTINCTION BETWEEN "MANUFACTURER" AND "DEALER." —
The manufacturer becomes a dealer if he carries on the
business of selling goods or his products manufactured by him
at a store or warehouse selling goods, especially as
distinguished from a manufacturer, without altering their
condition . . ." (Webster’s International Dictionary.) It has also
been held that a dealer, as used in a law taking wholesale
liquor dealers, "cannot be construed to mean a manufacturer
who sells articles manufactured by him; . . ." A dealer is a
middleman between the producer and the consumer. A dealer,
in the popular acceptation or sense of the word, is one who
buys to sell again. He stands immediately between the
producer and consumer, and depends to his profits not on the
labor he bestows on his commodities, but on the skill and
foresight with which he watches the markets. Taylor v.
Vincent, 80 Tenn. (12 Lea) 282, 285, 47 Am. Rep. 338. (11
Words and Phrases, pp. 158-159.)
2. ID.; TAX ON RETAILERS AND WHOLESALERS; CASE AT

BAR. — In the case at bar, plaintiff sugar central receives
sugar cane which it mills and converts into sugar. In making
the sale of the sugar it has manufactured, it may be liable for
the manufacturer’s tax, or the producer’s tax. But the mere
fact that it sells the sugar it manufactures does not thereby
make it a dealer in sugar, and does not make it liable to pay
the tax on retailers or wholesalers.
DECISION

LABRADOR, J.:

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of

Manila, ordering the defendant-appellant City Treasurer of Manila
to refund to the plaintiff-appellee the sum of P6,208.40, with
interest at the legal rate from May 8, 1952 until the said amount
shall have been paid. The sum ordered to be refunded was
assessed and collected from the plaintiff-appellee partly under
Section 1, Municipal Ordinance No. 3420, imposing a municipal
tax on wholesale dealers, and partly under Section 1, Municipal
Ordinance No. 1925, as amended by Ordinance No. 3364,
imposing a tax on retailers.
According to the stipulation of facts, plaintiff-appellee is engaged

in milling and manufacturing sugar from sugar cane, for which
purpose it operates and maintains a sugar mill where sugar cane
is processed, warehouses where manufactured sugar is stored, a
main office in Manila and a branch office in the Municipality of
Nasugbu, Batangas. In November, 1950, plaintiff-appellee agreed
to sell sugar to Kim Kee, Chua Yu & Co., Inc., and pursuant
thereto deliveries of sugar were made to the purchaser on
different dates in 1951. In November, 1950, plaintiff-appellee also
agreed to sell sugar to the San Miguel Brewery, and in the year
1951 deliveries of the sugar so sold were made to the purchaser.
Kim Kee Chua Yu & Co., Inc. purchased the sugar for resale, while
the San Miguel Brewery, for the manufacture of soft drinks. The
sugar sold and delivered was taken from warehouses of the
plaintiff-appellee and was delivered partly in the City of Manila,
partly in Pasay City, and partly in Nasugbu, Batangas.
The defendant-appellant claims that the plaintiff-appellee is a

dealer in sugar in the City of Manila. Plaintiff-appellee claimed the
refund of the amounts, which it had paid under protest,
contending that it has never been engaged in the wholesale
business or in the retail business in the City of Manila or
elsewhere. The Court of First Instance of Manila found that
plaintiff-appellee is not a wholesale or a retail dealer at all but is a

manufacturer of sugar from sugar cane in its sugar central and
that the sale of the sugar from its mills does not make it a dealer
in sugar. Defendant has appealed from this decision.
It is argued that when the plaintiff-appellee made the sales to

Kim Kee, Chua Yu & Co., Inc. it made a wholesale sale and when
it made sales to the San Miguel Brewery for the manufacture of
soft drinks said sales were in retail; that as the sales were made
in the City of Manila because the contracts of sale were
apparently made in Manila, the letter offering the sugar for sale
having been written from plaintiff’s office in Soriano Building,
Manila, plaintiff-appellee is taxable not as a manufacturer of
sugar, but as a dealer of sugar in the City. The case of Atlantic
Refining Co. v. Van Valkenburg, 109 A. 208, 209, 265 Pa. 456,
cited in 11 Words and Phrases, pp. 155-156, is cited in support of
the above contention.
The citation does not support appellants’ contention. The citation

says "One who carries on business of selling goods, wares and
merchandise, manufactured by him at a store or warehouse apart
from his own shop, or manufactory, is a dealer therein subject to
tax . . ." It may be admitted that the manufacturer becomes a
dealer if he carries on the business of selling goods or his
products manufactured by him at a store or warehouse apart
from his own shop or manufactory. But plaintiff-appellee did not
carry on the business of selling sugar or at stores or at its
warehouses. It entered into the contracts of sale at its central
office in Manila and made deliveries of the sugar sold from its
warehouses. It does not appear that the plaintiff keeps stores at
its warehouses and engages in selling sugar in said stores.
Neither does it appear that any one who desires to purchase
sugar from it may go to the warehouses and there purchase
sugar. All that it does was to sell the sugar it manufactured; it
does not open stores for the sale of such sugar. Plaintiff-appellee
did not, therefore, engage in the business of selling sugar.
A dealer is defined "as a person who makes a business of buying

and selling goods, especially as distinguished from a
manufacturer, without altering their condition . . ." (Webster’s
International Dictionary) It has also been held that a dealer as
used in a law taxing wholesale liquor dealers cannot be construed
to mean a manufacturer who sells articles manufactured by him; .

. . A manufacturer of whisky or other spirituous liquors, who sells
from his place of manufacture in unbroken packages, or as a
manufacturer, is not a wholesale dealer in whisky. A dealer is a
middleman between the producer and the consumer. A dealer, in
the popular acceptation or sense of the word, is one who buys to
sell again. He stands immediately between the producer and
consumer, and depends for his profits not on the labor he bestows
on his commodities, but on the skill and foresight with which he
watches the markets. Taylor v. Vincent, 80 Tenn. (12 Lea) 282,
285, 47 Am. Rep. 338." (11 Words and Phrases, pp. 158-159)
Again it has been held that the word dealer "does not
comprehend a person who merely buys a commodity in one form
and converts it by his skill and labor into an entirely different
commodity, and then sells it, such, for example, as one who buys
lumber, with which he manufactures furniture or any other useful
commodity that he sells, cannot be termed a ’dealer in lumber . .
." (11 Words and Phrases, p. 159)
In the case at bar, plaintiff-appellee receives sugar cane which it

mills and converts into sugar. In making the sale of the sugar it
has manufactured, it may be liable for the manufacturer’s tax, or
the producer’s tax. But the mere fact that it sells the sugar it
manufactures does not thereby make it a dealer in sugar.
". . . The right to manufacture necessarily implies the right to sell

the manufactured product at the manufactory. One who thus sells
the liquors mentioned in the statute, manufactured by him, is not
a ’wholesaler’ of liquors, within the popular or legal definition of
that word. The provision that ’no person paying a manufacturer’s
tax on brewed or malt liquors under this Act shall be liable to pay
a wholesale dealer’s tax on the same’ neither enlarges nor
restricts the right of the manufacturer to sell his product. The
statute, without this language, would give him the same right of
sale that he has with it, viz., the right to sell his product at his
brewery. The manufacturer is entitled to keep his goods in store
at the place of manufacture for the purpose of sale when
receiving orders, and in so doing is not a ’wholesaler,’ within the
popular or legal definition of that word.’Articles which the
consumer recognizes as single the retailer keeps wrapped up in
dozens, the wholesaler sends by the gross, and the manufacturer
supplies the packages.’ 8 Cent. Dict. Enc., under definition of the
word ’wholesaler.’" (People v. Voarhis, 91 NW 624, 626).
We, therefore, find that the judgment appealed from is in accord

with law and we hereby affirm it, with costs against the
defendant-appellant.
Bengzon, Acting C.J. Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Jugo,

Bautista Angelo, Concepcion and Reyes, J.B.L., JJ., concur.
Back to Home | Back to Main
Search

ChanRobles
Professional Review,
Inc.
ChanRobles On-Line
Bar Review
ChanRobles CPA
Review Online
ChanRobles Special
Lecture Series
September-1955
Jurisprudence

G.R. No. L-6363

September 15, 1955 -
IN RE: JOHANNA HOFER
BORROMEO v. CANUTO
O. BORROMEO
097 Phil 549

G.R. No. L-7797

IN RE: TY MA SIU v.
REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILS.
097 Phil 555

G.R. No. L-8446

APOLlNARIO VALERIO v.
BIENVENIDO A. TAN, ET
AL.
097 Phil 558

G.R. No. L-7553

EUGENIO PALUAY v.
CELESTINO BACUDAO,
ET AL.
097 Phil 561

G.R. No. L-7685

IN RE: NABIH AWAD v.
REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILS.
097 Phil 569

G.R. No. L-8158

WESTERN MINDANAO
LUMBER CO., INC. v.
COURT OF INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS, ET AL.
097 Phil 572

G.R. Nos. L-3770-71

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
DATUMANONG MONADI,
ET AL.
097 Phil 575

G.R. No. L-7412

IN RE: VICTOR TE TEK
LAY v. REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILS.
097 Phil 586

G.R. No. L-7534

MARIA MINA, ET AL. v.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET
AL.
097 Phil 590

G.R. No. L-7559

CONSUELO ROXAS, ET
AL. v. JUAN YSMAEL &
CO., INC.
097 Phil 594

G.R. No. L-6371

FILEMON NOTARTE, ET
AL.
097 Phil 598

G.R. No. L-7687

FERMIN VILLAR v.
CESARIA JAVIER DE
PADERANGA
097 Phil 604

G.R. No. L-8060

PAULINO GARCIA v.
MARIA BISAYA, ET AL.
097 Phil 609

G.R. No. L-8558

LEODEGARIO BENGA-
ORAS v. JOSE
EVANGELISTA, ET AL.
097 Phil 612

G.R. No. L-8559

RUFINA C. DE PAULA v.
JOSE ESCAY, ET AL.
097 Phil 617

G.R. No. L-7567

IN RE: KARAM SINGH v.
REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILS.
097 Phil 622

G.R. No. L-7679

CENTRAL AZUCARERA
DE DON PEDRO v. CITY
OF MANILA, ET AL.
097 Phil 627

G.R. No. L-7796

JOSE PIDELO v.
REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILS.
097 Phil 632

G.R. No. L-6553

ADVERTISING
ASSOCIATES, INC. v.
COLL. OF INTERNAL
REVENUE
097 Phil 636

G.R. No. 6758

GUILLERMO GALIT, ET
AL.
097 Phil 642

G.R. No. L-7311

NEW ZEALAND INS.
CO., LTD. v. ADRIANO
CHOA JOY
097 Phil 646

G.R. No. L-7495

EVARISTO CORPUZ v.
SUSANA CORPUZ, ET
AL.
097 Phil 655

G.R. No. L-7760

IN RE: MARIANO
RODRIGUEZ v. ZOILO
REYES
097 Phil 659

G.R. No. L-8474

PEDRO DE LA PEÑA, ET
AL.
097 Phil 669

Copyright © 1995 - 2021 REDiaz

CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE DON PEDRO v. CITY OF MANILA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE DON PEDRO v. CITY OF MANILA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE DON PEDRO v. CITY OF MANILA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

11/15/21, 11:49 AM G.R. No. L-7679 September 29, 1955 - CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE DON PEDRO v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

ET AL. <br /><br />09…

Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence

September 1955 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1955 >

097 Phil 627:

[G.R. No. L-7679. September 29, 1955.]

CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE DON PEDRO, Plaintiff-

Recto & Guerrero for Appellee.

City Fiscal Engenio Angeles and Assistant City Fiscal

1. TAXATION; TAX ON MANUFACTURES AND PRODUCES;

2. ID.; TAX ON RETAILERS AND WHOLESALERS; CASE AT

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of

According to the stipulation of facts, plaintiff-appellee is engaged

The defendant-appellant claims that the plaintiff-appellee is a

plaintiff-appellee is not a wholesale or a retail dealer at all but is a

It is argued that when the plaintiff-appellee made the sales to

The citation does not support appellants’ contention. The citation

A dealer is defined "as a person who makes a business of buying

to mean a manufacturer who sells articles manufactured by him; .

In the case at bar, plaintiff-appellee receives sugar cane which it

". . . The right to manufacture necessarily implies the right to sell

word ’wholesaler.’" (People v. Voarhis, 91 NW 624, 626).

We, therefore, find that the judgment appealed from is in accord

Bengzon, Acting C.J. Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Jugo,

Back to Home | Back to Main

G.R. No. L-6363

097 Phil 549

G.R. No. L-7797

097 Phil 555

G.R. No. L-8446

097 Phil 558

G.R. No. L-7553

097 Phil 561

G.R. No. L-7685

097 Phil 569

G.R. No. L-8158

097 Phil 572

G.R. Nos. L-3770-71

097 Phil 575

G.R. No. L-7412

097 Phil 586

G.R. No. L-7534

097 Phil 590

G.R. No. L-7559

097 Phil 594

G.R. No. L-6371

097 Phil 598

G.R. No. L-7687

097 Phil 604

G.R. No. L-8060

097 Phil 609

G.R. No. L-8558

097 Phil 612

G.R. No. L-8559

097 Phil 617

G.R. No. L-7567

097 Phil 622

G.R. No. L-7679