SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. L-9637. April 30, 1957

AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF MANILA, Defendant-
Appellee
PONENTE: FELIX, J.

Nature of the Case:

This is an appeal from the judgment of CFI Manila dismissing plaintiffs
complaint for refund, and declaration of unconstitutionality of the
ordinances in question.

Facts:
Plaintiff - appellant is a foreign, non-stock, non-profit, religious, missionary
corporation duly registered and doing business in the Philippines through its
Philippine agency established in Manila in November 1898. The defendant - appellee
is a municipal corporation.

In the course of its ministry, plaintiff has been distributing and selling bibles and/or
gospel portions and translating them into Philippine dialects. In May 1953, the City
Treasurer of defendant informed plaintiff that it was conducting the business of
general merchandise without Mayors permit and municipal license, in violation of
Ordinances Nos. 3000 and 2529, and required plaintiff to secure the permit and
license fees with compromise of P5.8K for 1945 to 1953.

In October 1953, plaintiff paid under protest. Thereafter, it filed a suit in CFI
Manila questioning the legality/constitutionality of the ordinances, and asking for the
refund alleging, among others, that it never made any profit from the sale of its
bibles, as part of their missionary work. Defendant argued that the ordinances are
constitutional. The CFI dismissed the complaint. Hence, the present appeal.
Plaintiff-appellant contends that the ordinances are unconstitutional and
illegal because they provide for religious censorship and restrain the free
exercise and enjoyment of its religious profession, to wit: the distribution
and sale of bibles and other religious literature to the people of the
Philippines.

Issue:
Whether Ordinance 2529 [imposes a license fee] and 3000 [requires permit]
provide for religious censorship and restraint the free exercise and enjoyment of
religious profession.

Ordinance 2529 is unconstitutional for it impairs plaintiffs right to free

exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, as well as its
rights of dissemination of religious beliefs.

Ordinance 3000 is not unconstitutional [valid] for it does not impose any
charge on the enjoyment of the right, nor tax the exercise of religious
practices. But the ordinance 3000 does not apply to plaintiff, since
Ordinance 2529 is not applicable.
Ruling:
CA Decision is Reversed

Section 1, subsection (7) of Article III of the Constitution of the Republic of the
Philippines, provides that:

"(7) No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the

free exercise thereof, and the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession
and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No
religion test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights."cralaw
virtua1aw library

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; RELIGIOUS FREEDOM; DISSEMINATION OF RELIGIOUS

INFORMATION, WHEN MAY BE RESTRAINED; PAYMENT OF LICENSE FEE, IMPAIRS
FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION.

The constitutional guaranty of the free exercise and enjoyment of religious

profession and worship carries with it the right to disseminate religious information.

Any restraint of such right can only be justified like other restraints of freedom of
expression on the grounds that there is a clear and present danger of any
substantive evil which the State has the right to prevent." (Taada and Fernando on
the Constitution of the Philippines, Vol. I, 4th ed., p. 297).

In the case at bar, plaintiff is engaged in the distribution and sales of bibles
and religious articles. The City Treasurer of Manila informed the plaintiff that it
was conducting the business of general merchandise without providing itself with the
necessary Mayors permit and municipal license, in violation of Ordinance No. 3000,
as amended, and Ordinance No. 2529, as amended, and required plaintiff to secure
the corresponding permit and license.

Plaintiff protested against this requirement and claimed that it never made any
profit from the sale of its bibles. Held: It is true the price asked for the religious
articles was in some instances a little bit higher than the actual cost of the same, but
this cannot mean that plaintiff was engaged in the business or occupation of selling
said "merchandise" for profit. For this reasons, the provisions of City Ordinance No.
2529, as amended, which requires the payment of license fee for conducting the
business of general merchandise, cannot be applied to plaintiff society, for in doing
so, it would impair its free exercise and enjoyment of its religious profession and
worship, as well as its rights of dissemination of religious beliefs.

Upon the other hand, City Ordinance No. 3000, as amended, which requires
the obtention of the Mayors permit before any person can engage in any of
the businesses, trades or occupations enumerated therein, does not impose
any charge upon the enjoyment of a right granted by the Constitution, nor
tax the exercise of religious practices. Hence, it cannot be considered
unconstitutional, even if applied to plaintiff Society. But as Ordinance No.
2529 is not applicable to plaintiff and the City of Manila is powerless to
license or tax the business of plaintiff society involved herein, for the
reasons above stated, Ordinance No. 3000 is also inapplicable to said
business, trade or occupation of the plaintiff.

- Digested [1 August 2017, 7:42]