058&073-Punsalan v. Municipal Board, 95 Phil. 46
058&073-Punsalan v. Municipal Board, 95 Phil. 46
058&073-Punsalan v. Municipal Board, 95 Phil. 46
L-4817 1 of 3
Taxation, Vol. 4, 4th ed., pp. 3393-3395.) Plaintiffs' complaint is that while the law has authorized the City of
Manila to impose the said tax, it has withheld that authority from other chartered cities, not to mention
municipalities. We do not think it is for the courts to judge what particular cities or municipalities should be
empowered to impose occupation taxes in addition to those imposed by the National Government. That matter is
peculiarly within the domain of the political departments and the courts would do well not to encroach upon it.
Moreover, as the seat of the National Government and with a population and volume of trade many times that of
any other Philippine city or municipality, Manila, no doubt, offers a more lucrative field for the practice of the
professions, so that it is but fair that the professionals in Manila be made to pay a higher occupation tax than their
brethren in the provinces.
Plaintiffs brand the ordinance unjust and oppressive because they say that it creates discrimination within a class in
that while professionals with offices in Manila have to pay the tax, outsiders who have no offices in the city but
practice their profession therein are not subject to the tax. Plaintiffs make a distinction that is not found in the
ordinance. The ordinance imposes the tax upon every person "exercising" or "pursuing" in the City of Manila
naturally any one of the occupations named, but does not say that such person must have his office in Manila.
What constitutes exercise or pursuit of a profession in the city is a matter of judicial determination. The argument
against double taxation may not be invoked where one tax is imposed by the state and the other is imposed by the
city (1 Cooley on Taxation, 4th ed., p. 492), it being widely recognized that there is nothing inherently obnoxious
in the requirement that license fees or taxes be exacted with respect to the same occupation, calling or activity by
both the state and the political subdivisions thereof. (51 Am. Jur., 341.)
In view of the foregoing, the judgment appealed from is reversed in so far as it declares Ordinance No. 3398 of the
City of Manila illegal and void and affirmed in so far as it holds the validity of the provision of the Manila charter
authorizing it. With costs against plaintiffs-appellants.
Pablo, Bengzon, Montemayor, Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, and Concepcion, JJ., concur.
Separate Opinions
PARAS, C.J., dissenting:
I am constrained to dissent from the decision of the majority upon the ground that the Municipal Board of Manila
cannot outlaw what Congress of the Philippines has already authorized. The plaintiffs-appellants two lawyers, a
physician, an accountant, a dentist and a pharmacist had already paid the occupation tax under section 201 of
the National Internal Revenue Code and are thereby duly licensed to practice their respective professions
throughout the Philippines; and yet they had been required to pay another occupation tax under Ordinance No.
3398 for practising in the City of Manila. This is a glaring example of contradiction the license granted by the
National Government is in effect withdrawn by the City in case of non-payment of the tax under the ordinance. I fit
be argued that the national occupation tax is collected to allow the professional residing in Manila to pursue his
calling in other places in the Philippines, it should then be exacted only from professionals practising
simultaneously in and outside of Manila. At any rate, we are confronted with the following situation: Whereas the
professionals elsewhere pay only one occupation tax, in the City of Manila they have to pay two, although all are
on equal footing insofar as opportunities for earning money out of their pursuits are concerned. The statement that
practice in Manila is more lucrative than in the provinces, may be true perhaps with reference only to a limited few,
but certainly not to the general mass of practitioners in any field. Again, provincial residents who have occasional
or isolated practice in Manila may have to pay the city tax. This obvious discrimination or lack of uniformity
cannot be brushed aside or justified by any trite pronouncement that double taxation is legitimate or that legislation
may validly affect certain classes.
My position is that a professional who has paid the occupation tax under the National Internal Revenue Code
should be allowed to practice in Manila even without paying the similar tax imposed by Ordinance No. 3398. The
City cannot give what said professional already has. I would not say that this Ordinance, enacted by the Municipal
Board pursuant to paragraph 1 of section 18 of the Revised Charter of Manila, as amended by Republic Act No.
Punsalan v. Municipal Board G.R. No. L-4817 3 of 3
409, empowering the Board to impose a municipal occupation tax not to exceed P50 per annum, is invalid; but that
only one tax, either under the Internal Revenue Code or under Ordinance No. 3398, should be imposed upon a
practitioner in Manila.