CITY OF MANILA vs.

COCA-COLA BOTTLERS
PHILIPPINES, INC.- CTA, Double Taxation

FACTS:
Respondent paid the local business tax only as a manufacturers as it was expressly
exempted from the business tax under a different section and which applied to
businesses subject to excise, VAT or percentage tax under the Tax Code. The City of
Manila subsequently amended the ordinance by deleting the provision exempting
businesses under the latter section if they have already paid taxes under a different
section in the ordinance. This amending ordinance was later declared by the Supreme
Court null and void. Respondent then filed a protest on the ground of double taxation.
RTC decided in favor of Respondent and the decision was received by Petitioner on
April 20, 2007. On May 4, 2007, Petitioner filed with the CTA a Motion for Extension of
Time to File Petition for Review asking for a 15-day extension or until May 20, 2007
within which to file its Petition. A second Motion for Extension was filed on May 18,
2007, this time asking for a 10-day extension to file the Petition. Petitioner finally filed
the Petition on May 30, 2007 even if the CTA had earlier issued a resolution dismissing
the case for failure to timely file the Petition.

ISSUES:

(1) Has Petitioner’s the right to appeal with the CTA lapsed?
(2) Does the enforcement of the latter section of the tax ordinance constitute double
taxation?

HELD:
(1) NO. Petitioner complied with the reglementary period for filing the petition. From
April 20, 2007, Petitioner had 30 days, or until May 20, 2007, within which to file their
Petition for Review with the CTA. The Motion for Extension filed by the petitioners on
May 18, 2007, prior to the lapse of the 30-day period on 20 May 2007, in which they
prayed for another extended period of 10 days, or until 30 May 2007, to file their Petition
for Review was, in reality, only the first Motion for Extension of petitioners. Thus, when
Petitioner filed their Petition via registered mail their Petition for Review on 30 May
2007, they were able to comply with the period for filing such a petition.
 (2) YES. There is indeed double taxation if respondent is subjected to the taxes under
both Sections 14 and 21 of the tax ordinance since these are being imposed: (1) on the
same subject matter — the privilege of doing business in the City of Manila; (2) for the
same purpose — to make persons conducting business within the City of Manila
contribute to city revenues; (3) by the same taxing authority — petitioner City of Manila;
(4) within the same taxing jurisdiction — within the territorial jurisdiction of the City of
Manila; (5) for the same taxing periods — per calendar year; and (6) of the same kind or
character — a local business tax imposed on gross sales or receipts of the business.

JOSE J. FERRER, JR. VS. CITY MAYOR HERBERT BAUTISTA

G.R. No. 210551 June 30, 2015

FACTS
Respondent Quezon City Council enacted an ordinance, Socialized Housing Tax of Quezon City, which will collect 0.5%
on the assessed value of land in excess of Php 100,000.00. This shall accrue to the Socialized Housing Programs of the
Quezon City Government. The special assessment shall go to the General Fund under a special account to be established
for the purpose. On the other hand, Ordinance No. SP-2235 and S-2013 was enacted collecting garbage fees on residential
properties which shall be deposited solely and exclusively in an earmarked special account under the general fund to be
utilized for garbage collections. Petitioner, a Quezon City property owner, questions the validity of the said ordinances.

ISSUES
1. Whether the Socialized Housing Tax is valid.
2. Whether the ordinance on Garbage Fee violates the rule on double taxation.

RULING
1. The SHT is valid. The tax is within the power of Quezon City Government to impose. LGUs may be considered as having
properly exercised their police power only if there is a lawful subject and a lawful method. Herein, the tax is not a pure
exercise of taxing power or merely to raise revenue; it is levied with a regulatory purpose. The levy is primarily in the
exercise of the police power for the general welfare of the entire city. It is greatly imbued with public interest. On the
question of inequality, the disparities between a real property owner and an informal settler as two distinct classes are too
obvious and need not be discussed at length. The differentiation conforms to the practical dictates of justice and equity and
is not discriminatory within the meaning of the Constitution. Notably, the public purpose of a tax may legally exist even if
the motive which impelled the legislature to impose the tax was to favor one over another. Further, the reasonableness of
Ordinance No. SP-2095 cannot be disputed. It is not confiscatory or oppressive since the tax being imposed therein is
below what the UDHA actually allows. Even better, on certain conditions, the ordinance grants a tax credit.

2. No. Pursuant to Section 16 of the LGC and in the proper exercise of its corporate powers under Section 22 of the same, the
Sangguniang Panlungsod of Quezon City, like other local legislative bodies, is empowered to enact ordinances, approve
resolutions, and appropriate funds for the general welfare of the city and its inhabitants. In this regard, the LGUs shall
share with the national government the responsibility in the management and maintenance of ecological balance within
their territorial jurisdiction. The Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000, affirms this authority as it expresses
that the LGUs shall be primarily responsible for the implementation and enforcement of its provisions. Necessarily, LGUs
are statutorily sanctioned to impose and collect such reasonable fees and charges for services rendered. The fee imposed
for garbage collections under Ordinance No. SP-2235 is a charge fixed for the regulation of an activity as provided by the
same. As opposed to petitioner’s opinion, the garbage fee is not a tax. Hence, not being a tax, the contention that the
garbage fee under Ordinance No. SP-2235 violates the rule on double taxation must necessarily fail.
Luz Yamane vs BA Lepanto
Condominium Corporation
Taxation – Tax Remedies – Local Taxation – Original & Appellate Jurisdiction in Tax Cases
In 1998, BA Lepanto Condominium Corporation (Lepanto) received a tax assessment in the amount
of P1.6 million from Luz Yamane, the City Treasurer of Makati, for business taxes. Lepanto
protested the assessment as it averred that Lepanto, as a corporation, is not organized for profit;
that it merely exists for the maintenance of the condominium. Yamane denied the protest. Lepanto
then appealed the denial to the RTC of Makati. RTC Makati affirmed the decision of Yamane.
Lepanto then filed a petition for review under Rule 42 with the Court of Appeals. The Court of
Appeals reversed the RTC.
Yamane now filed a petition for review under Rule 45 with the Supreme Court. Yamane avers that
a.) Lepanto is liable for local taxation because its act of maintaining the condominium is an activity
for profit because the end result of such activity is the betterment of the market value of the
condominium which makes it easier to sell it; that Lepanto is earning profit from fees collected from
condominium unit owners; and that b.) Lepanto’s petition for review of the decision of the RTC to the
CA is erroneous because when the RTC decided on the appeal brought to it by Lepanto, the RTC
was exercising its original jurisdiction and not its appellate jurisdiction; that as such, what Lepanto
should have done is to file an ordinary appeal under Rule 41.
ISSUE: Whether or not a RTC deciding an appeal from the decision of a city treasurer on tax
protests is exercising original jurisdiction. Whether or not a condominium corporation organized
solely for the maintenance of a condominium is liable for local taxation.
HELD:
1. Yes. Although the LGC (Section 195) provides that the remedy of the taxpayer whose protest
is denied by the local treasurer is “to appeal with the court of competent jurisdiction” or in this case
the RTC (considering the amount of tax liability is P1.6 million), such appeal when decided by the
RTC is still in the exercise of its original jurisdiction and not its appellate jurisdiction. This is because
appellate jurisdiction is defined as the authority of a court higher in rank to re-examine the final order
or judgment of a lower court which tried the case now elevated for judicial review. Here, the
City Treasurer is not a lower court.
The Supreme Court however clarifies that this ruling is only applicable to similar cases before the
passage of Republic Act 9282 (effective April 2004). Under RA 9282, the Court of Tax Appeals
(CTA), not CA, exercises exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review on appeal decisions, orders or
resolutions of the Regional Trial Courts in local tax cases whether originally decided or resolved
by them in the exercise of their original or appellate jurisdiction.
2. No. Lepanto was not organized for profit. The fees it was collecting from the condominium
unit owners redound to the owners themselves because the fees collected are being used for the
maintenance of the condo. Further, it appears that the assessment issued by Yamane did not state
the legal basis for the tax being imposed on Lepanto – it merely states that Makati is authorized to
collect business taxes under the Local Government Code (LGC) but no other reference specific
reference to specific laws were cited.