Punsalan v City of Manila
GR No L-4817, May 26, 1954
FACTS:
Ordinance 3398 was enacted pursuant to paragraph 18 of the Revised Charter of the City of Manila, imposing a municipal occupation tax on persons exercising various professions in the city. Various professionals filed suit to annul the ordinance and the provision of law authorizing the enactment of the ordinance and to call for the refund collected taxes under the ordinance.
ISSUE:
Whether the ordinance violates the equal protection clause
RULING:
No. The legislature may, in its discretion, select what occupation 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 other untaxed. Manila, 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, 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” any of the occupation named in the ordinance, and does not make any distinction between professionals having offices in Manila and outsiders who practice their profession therein. What constitutes exercise or pursuit of a profession in the city is a matter of judicial determination.
Thus, the ordinance does not violate the equal protection clause.
FACTS:
Ordinance 3398 was enacted pursuant to paragraph 18 of the Revised Charter of the City of Manila, imposing a municipal occupation tax on persons exercising various professions in the city. Various professionals filed suit to annul the ordinance and the provision of law authorizing the enactment of the ordinance and to call for the refund collected taxes under the ordinance.
ISSUE:
Whether the ordinance violates the equal protection clause
RULING:
No. The legislature may, in its discretion, select what occupation 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 other untaxed. Manila, 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, 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” any of the occupation named in the ordinance, and does not make any distinction between professionals having offices in Manila and outsiders who practice their profession therein. What constitutes exercise or pursuit of a profession in the city is a matter of judicial determination.
Thus, the ordinance does not violate the equal protection clause.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment