Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 95 views

    Jardine Davies V Aliposa

    Uploaded by

    Charles Davis
    1) The Makati Revenue Code imposed higher tax rates than the Metro Manila Revenue Code. The Philippine Racing Club appealed to the DOJ, arguing the ordinance was approved without public hearings and some provisions were unconstitutional. 2) The DOJ ruled the ordinance was null and void for being enacted without public hearings. Makati sought reconsideration and filed a petition with the RTC to have the DOJ decision declared void. 3) Makati alleged public hearings were conducted and the ordinance was valid. It asked the RTC to render judgment declaring the DOJ decision null and void and allowing implementation of the Makati Revenue Code. Makati continued implementing the ordinance pending resolution of its petition.

    Copyright:

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

    Jardine Davies V Aliposa

    Uploaded by

    Charles Davis
    95 views1 page
    1) The Makati Revenue Code imposed higher tax rates than the Metro Manila Revenue Code. The Philippine Racing Club appealed to the DOJ, arguing the ordinance was approved without public hearings and some provisions were unconstitutional. 2) The DOJ ruled the ordinance was null and void for being enacted without public hearings. Makati sought reconsideration and filed a petition with the RTC to have the DOJ decision declared void. 3) Makati alleged public hearings were conducted and the ordinance was valid. It asked the RTC to render judgment declaring the DOJ decision null and void and allowing implementation of the Makati Revenue Code. Makati continued implementing the ordinance pending resolution of its petition.

    Original Description:

    Digest on Jardine Davies v Aliposa

    Original Title

    Jardine Davies v Aliposa

    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 Makati Revenue Code imposed higher tax rates than the Metro Manila Revenue Code. The Philippine Racing Club appealed to the DOJ, arguing the ordinance was approved without public hearings and some provisions were unconstitutional. 2) The DOJ ruled the ordinance was null and void for being enacted without public hearings. Makati sought reconsideration and filed a petition with the RTC to have the DOJ decision declared void. 3) Makati alleged public hearings were conducted and the ordinance was valid. It asked the RTC to render judgment declaring the DOJ decision null and void and allowing implementation of the Makati Revenue Code. Makati continued implementing the ordinance pending resolution of its petition.

    Copyright:

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

    Jardine Davies V Aliposa

    Uploaded by

    Charles Davis
    1) The Makati Revenue Code imposed higher tax rates than the Metro Manila Revenue Code. The Philippine Racing Club appealed to the DOJ, arguing the ordinance was approved without public hearings and some provisions were unconstitutional. 2) The DOJ ruled the ordinance was null and void for being enacted without public hearings. Makati sought reconsideration and filed a petition with the RTC to have the DOJ decision declared void. 3) Makati alleged public hearings were conducted and the ordinance was valid. It asked the RTC to render judgment declaring the DOJ decision null and void and allowing implementation of the Makati Revenue Code. Makati continued implementing the ordinance pending resolution of its petition.

    Copyright:

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

    Jardine Davies v Aliposa (Makati RTC Judge)

    February 27, 2003


    Callejo, J
    Digest by P. Plaza
    Topic: Administrative Issuances


    Pursuant to Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991, the
    then Sangguniang Bayan of Makati enacted Municipal Ordinance No. 92-072, otherwise known as the
    Makati Revenue Code, which provides, inter alia, for the schedule of real estate, business and franchise
    taxes in the Municipality of Makati at rates higher than those in the Metro Manila Revenue Code.
    On May 10, 1993, the Philippine Racing Club, Inc. (PRCI for brevity), a taxpayer of Makati, appealed
    to the Department of Justice (DOJ for brevity) for the nullification of said ordinance, alleging that it was
    approved without previous public hearings, in violation of the Local Government Code and Article 276 of its
    Implementing Rules, and that some of the ordinances provisions were unconstitutional:
    (2) The in-lieu-of-all-taxes clause of the franchise of the Philippine Racing Club, Inc. exempts it from payment of
    the real property tax, annual business tax and other new taxes imposed by the ordinance here in question. To withdraw
    the exemption would impair the obligation of contract in violation of its constitutional right as franchise holder.
    (3) The imposition of the franchise tax is not within the scope of the taxing powers of the Municipality of Makati
    (Sections 134, 137 and 142 of Republic Act No. 7160 and Articles 223, 226 and 231 of Rule XXX of the Implementing
    Rules and Regulations of the Local Government Code of 1991). and
    (4) The Municipality of Makati already shares 5 of the 25% franchise tax provided for in Section 8 of the franchise
    of the Philippine Racing Club, Inc. To allow the said municipality to impose another franchise tax and to base the tax
    on the gross annual receipts, as it does in the ordinance, would certainly be unjust, excessive, oppressive or
    confiscatory (Section 130 of Republic Act No. 7160 and Article 219 of Rule XXX of the Implementing Rules and
    Regulations).
    [1]

    Although required by the DOJ to comment on the appeal, respondent Makati failed to do so.
    On July 5, 1993, the DOJ came out with a resolution
    [2]
    declaring null and void and without legal effect
    the said ordinance for having been enacted in contravention of Section 187 of the Local Government Code
    of 1991 and its implementing rules and regulations.
    [3]

    On August 19, 1993, respondent Makati sought a reconsideration of the ruling of the DOJ. Pending
    resolution of its motion, said respondent filed a petition ad cautelam
    [4]
    with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
    Makati, entitled Hon. Jejomar C. Binay and the Municipality of Makati, Petitioners, v. Hon. Franklin M. Drilon,
    Department of Justice and Philippine Racing Club, Inc., Respondents, and docketed as Case No. 93-2844.
    The case was raffled to Branch 148 of the Makati RTC. Respondent Makati alleged, inter alia,that public
    hearings were conducted before the approval of the ordinance and hence the ordinance was valid. It prayed
    that after due proceedings judgment be rendered in its favor, thus:
    WHEREFORE, petitioners respectfully pray that this Honorable Court promulgate judgment:
    (a) declaring null and void the DOJ Decision dated July 5, 1993; and
    (b) allowing the full implementation of Makati Municipal Ordinance No. 92-072.
    Petitioners pray for such further or other reliefs as this Honorable Court may deem just and equitable.
    [5]

    In the meantime, respondent Makati continued to implement the ordinance.

    You might also like