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 Charterof 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

municipal occupation tax

on

said

ordinance empowers the

personsengaged in

various

Municipal

Board

professions.

of

the

Petitioners,

city
having

to

impose

already

paid

theiroccupation 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
lawauthorizing

Issue:
amounts

Held:

it.

Whether or Not the ordinance and law authorizing it constitute class legislation, and authorize what
to

double

taxation.

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
sameoccupation 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.