City of Manila and City Treasurer Vs. Judge Amador F. Gomez of the Court of First Instance of Manila and ESSO Philippines, inc.
City of Manila and City Treasurer, Petitioners-appellants,
Vs.
Judge Amador F. Gomez of the Court of First Instance of Manila and ESSO Philippines, inc., Respondents-appellees
G.R. No. L-37251, August 31, 1981
Facts:
The Revised Charter of Manila Axes the annual Realty tax at 1-1/2%. While, the Special Education Fund Law imposed an annual additional tax of 1% on the assessed value of real property in addition to the real property tax regularly levied thereon but the total real property tax shall not exceed 3%. The Municipal Board of Manila imposed an additional 1/2% to fix the total imposable tax on real property at 3% which is divided into: 1.5% as per charter of Manila, 1% as per Special Education Fund and 1/2% as per order of the Municipal Board.
Private Respondent ESSO Philippines paid the additional one half percent real property tax under protest and later filed a complaint for the recovery of the said amount. It is contented that the additional 1/2% paid is void because it was not authorized by the city charter or any law.
Issue:
Whether or Not the additional one half percent imposed by the City of Manila is valid and legal.
Held:
Yes. The Real Property Tax Law imposes that a city council, by ordinance, may impose a real property tax of not less than 1/2% but not more than 2% of the assessed value of the real property. Thus, the additional one half percent is then legal. Furthermore, the doctrine of implications sustains the contention of the City of Manila that the additional one half percent is sanctioned by the Special Education Fund Law when the same states that the total real property tax shall not exceed a maximum of 3%. The doctrine of necessary implications means that which is plainly implied by the language of the statute is as much a part of it as that which is expressed.
Section 4 of the Special Education Fund Law, as confirmed by the Real Property Tax Code, in prescribing a total realty tax of 3%, impliedly authorized the augmentation by 1/2% of the pre-existing 1-1/2% Realty Tax.
Comments
Post a Comment