Punzalan vs Mun.Board of Manila

Punzalan vs Mun.Board of Manila

Keyword: Double taxation

Facts: This suit was commenced in the CFI of Manila by plaintiffs composed of 2 lawyers,a medical practitioner, public accountant, dental surgeon and pharmacist. It’s objective is to annul the ordinance No.3398 together w/ the provisions authorizing it. Said ordinance no. 3398 imposes a municipal occupation tax on persons exercising various professions in the city and penalizes non-payment of tax “by a fine of not more than 200 pesos or by imprisonment of not more than 6 mos. Or both such fine in the discretion of the court”. The lower court upheld the validity of the ordinance of the provision of the law authorizing such but declared the ordinance illegal and void on the ground that the penalty provided for non-payment was not legally authorized. From this decision both parties appeal to this court. Petitioners contend that the ordinance is unjust and oppressive and amounts to double taxation.

Issue: Whether or not Ordinance No 3398 constitute double taxation?

Ruling: The Sc ruled that Legislature may select what occupations shall be taxed, and in the exercise of that discretion it may tax all, or it may select for taxation certain classes and leave the others untaxed. Manila 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. The ordinance imposes the tax upon every person “exercising” or “pursuing” in the City of Manila but does not say that such person must have his office in Manila. The argument against double taxation may not be invoked where one tax is imposed by the state( national gov.) and the other is imposed by the city( through ordinances). Therefore decision of the lower court is hereby reversed w/ cost against plaintiff.