GR L 1281; (May, 1949) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-1281; May 31, 1949
JOSEPH E. ICARD, petitioner-appellee, vs. THE CITY COUNCIL OF BAGUIO and the city of baguio, respondent-appellants.
FACTS
The City of Baguio enacted ordinances imposing: (1) an amusement tax of P0.20 per person entering a night club (Ordinance No. 6-V), (2) a property tax on motor vehicles (Ordinance No. 11-V), and (3) a graduated license fee on admission tickets for certain enterprises (Ordinance No. 12-V). Petitioner Joseph E. Icard, owner of the “El Club Monaco” night club in Baguio, paid the amusement tax under Ordinance No. 6-V under protest and also faced the property tax on his private vehicle under Ordinance No. 11-V, despite already paying the national amusement tax under the Internal Revenue Code and the vehicle registration fee under the Revised Motor Vehicle Law. He filed an action for declaratory relief, contending the ordinances were ultra vires and seeking a refund.
ISSUE
Is the City of Baguio empowered to levy a property tax on motor vehicles and an amusement tax on night clubs?
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision declaring the relevant portions of Ordinances No. 6-V and No. 11-V null and void. A municipal corporation has no inherent power of taxation; such power must be expressly granted by statute and construed strictissimi juris. The City of Baguio’s charter (Section 2553(b) of the Revised Administrative Code) authorizes it to levy taxes only “as provided by law,” meaning specific legislative authority is required for each tax. No such specific authority exists for Baguio to impose an amusement tax on night clubs or a property tax on motor vehicles, unlike the charter of Manila which contains express grants for such taxes. The Revised Motor Vehicle Law proviso regarding property taxes does not itself authorize municipal imposition. The City of Baguio was ordered to refund the P254.80 amusement tax paid by Icard.
AI Generated by Armztrong.