PUNSALAN VS.

MUNICIPAL BOARD OF
MANILA [95 PHIL 46; NO.L-4817; 26
MAY 1954]
Saturday, January 31, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes
Labels: Case Digests, Political Law

Facts:

Petitioners, who are professionals in the

city, assail Ordinance No. 3398 together with the
law authorizing it (Section 18 of the Revised
Charter of the City of Manila). The ordinance
imposes a municipal occupation tax on persons
exercising various professions in the city and
penalizes non-payment of the same. The law
authorizing said ordinance empowers the Municipal
Board of the city to impose a municipal occupation
tax on persons engaged in various professions.
Petitioners, having already paid their occupation
tax under section 201 of the National Internal
Revenue Code, paid the tax under protest as
imposed by Ordinance No. 3398. The lower court
declared the ordinance invalid and affirmed the
validity of the law authorizing it.

Issue:

Whether or Not the ordinance and law

authorizing it constitute class legislation, and
authorize what amounts to double taxation.

Held:

The Legislature may, in its discretion,

select what occupations shall be taxed, and in its
discretion may tax all, or select classes of
occupation for taxation, and leave others untaxed.
It is not for the courts to judge which cities or

municipalities should be empowered to impose

occupation taxes aside from that imposed by the
National Government. That matter is within the
domain of political departments. The argument
against double taxation may not be invoked if one
tax is imposed by the state and the other is
imposed by the city. It is widely recognized that
there is nothing inherently terrible in the
requirement that taxes be exacted with respect to
the same occupation by both the state and the
political subdivisions thereof. Judgment of the
lower court is reversed with regards to the
ordinance and affirmed as to the law authorizing it.