CITY OF BAGUIO

Vs.
FORTUNATO DE LEON

G. R. No. L-24756            October 31, 1968

FACTS: The City of Baguio passed an ordinance imposing a license fee on any
person, entity or corporation doing business in the City. The ordinance sourced its
authority from RA No. 329, thereby amending the city charter empowering it to fix
the license fee and regulate businesses, trades and occupations as may be established
or practiced in the City.

According to the ordinance, a real estate dealer who leases property worth
P50,000.00 or above must pay annual fee of P100. if the property is worth P10,000.00
but not over P50,000.00, then he pays P50 and P24 if the value is less than
P10,000.00

De Leon was assessed for P50 annual fee it being shown that he was engaged
in property rental and deriving income therefrom. The latter assailed the validity of
the ordinance arguing that it is ultra vires for there is no statutory authority which
expressly grants the City of Baguio to levy such tax, and that there it imposed double
taxation, and violates the requirement of uniformity.

ISSUE: Whether or not such ordinance constitute ultra vires act and double
taxation.

HELD: No. RA 329 was enacted amending Section 2553 of the Revised
Administrative Code empowering the City Council not only to impose a license fee
but to levy a tax for purposes of revenue, thus the ordinance cannot be considered
ultra vires for there is more than ample statutory authority for the enactment thereof.
  
Second, an argument against double taxation may not be invoked where one
tax is imposed by the state and the other is imposed by the city, so that where, as here,
Congress has clearly expressed its intention, the statute must be sustained even though
double taxation results.
 ASSOCIATION OF CUSTOMS BROKERS, INC.
Vs.
THE MUNICIPALITY BOARD of MANILA
G.R. No. L-4376             May 22, 1953

FACTS: The Association of Customs Brokers, Inc., which is composed of all

brokers and public service operators of motor vehicles in the City of Manila challenge
the validity Ordinance No. 3379 on the ground that:
(1) while it levies a so-called property tax it is in reality a license tax which is beyond
the power of the Municipal Board of the City of Manila;
(2) said ordinance offends against the rule of uniformity of taxation; and
(3) it constitutes double taxation.

The respondents contend on their part that the challenged ordinance imposes a
property tax which is within the power of the City of Manila to impose under its
Revised Charter [Section 18 (p) of Republic Act No. 409], and that the tax in question
does not violate the rule of uniformity of taxation, nor does it constitute double
taxation.

ISSUE: Whether or not the ordinance is unconstitutional.

HELD: Yes. he ordinance infringes the rule of the uniformity of taxation

ordained by our Constitution. Note that the ordinance exacts the tax upon all motor
vehicles operating within the City of Manila. It does not distinguish between a motor
vehicle for hire and one which is purely for private use. Neither does it distinguish
between a motor vehicle registered in the City of Manila and one registered in another
place but occasionally comes to Manila and uses its streets and public highways. This
is an inequality which we find in the ordinance, and which renders it offensive to the
Constitution.