G.R. No. L-37251 August 1981 (City of Manila and City Treasurer v Judge Amador Gomez of the CFI of Manila and Esso Philippines, Inc.) Flashcards Preview

Stat Con Cases > G.R. No. L-37251 August 1981 (City of Manila and City Treasurer v Judge Amador Gomez of the CFI of Manila and Esso Philippines, Inc.) > Flashcards

Flashcards in G.R. No. L-37251 August 1981 (City of Manila and City Treasurer v Judge Amador Gomez of the CFI of Manila and Esso Philippines, Inc.) Deck (14):
1

Who is the petitioner?

City of Manila

AND

City Treasurer

2

Who is the respondent?

CFI of Manila

AND

Esso Philippines Inc.

3

How much tax is imposed by Section 64 of the Revised Charter of Manila / Republic Act No. 409 (took effect on June 1949)?

One and one-half per cent (1 and 1/2%) annual realty tax

4

How much tax is imposed by Section 4 of the Special Education Fund Law / Republic Act No. 5447 (took effect on January 1969)?

One per cent (1%) annual additional tax
(on top of the annual realty tax)

BUT shall not exceed three per cent (3%)

5

How much tax is imposed by Ordinance No. 7125 (approved by the City Mayor on December 1971 and effective on the 3rd quarter of 1972)?

An additional one-half percent (1/2%) annually

6

Who filed the first case?

Esso Philippines Inc.

7

Where did Esso file the first case?

The Court of First Instance of Manila

8

What does Esso want?

Esso wants its money back. It paid P16,000++ on the 3rd quarter of 1972 in compliance with the City Ordinance.

9

Why does Esso want its money back?

Esso thinks that the Ordinance is void because it is not authorized by the city charter nor by any law.

10

What was the decision of the City of First Instance?

Esso won.

The City Ordinance was declared void.

The city treasurer was ordered to refund the tax Esso paid.

11

What did the City of Manila do after losing its case at the City of Fist Instance?

It filed an appeal to the Supreme Court.

12

What is the ISSUE?

Whether or not the tax ordinance is valid

13

What is the Court's decision?

The City of Manila won.

The decision of the Court of First Instance was reversed and set aside.

14

What was the reason for the Court's decision?

The 1974 Real Property Tax Code confirms the intention of the lawmaker to impose two percent as the realty tax proper.

Section 4 of the Special Education Fund Law also supports the three percent (3%) maximum limit.