G.R. No. 180651. July 30, 2014.* taxes are of the same kind or character.

Double taxation is
NURSERY CARE CORPORATION; SHOEMART, INC.; STAR obnoxious.
APPLIANCE CENTER, INC.; H&B, INC.; SUPPLIES The Case
STATION, INC.; and HARDWARE WORKSHOP, Under review are the resolution promulgated in C.A.-G.R.
INC., petitioners, vs. ANTHONY ACEVEDO, in his capacity as S.P. No. 72191 on June 18, 2007, [1] whereby the Court of Appeals
THE TREASURER OF MANILA; and THE CITY OF (CA) denied petitioners’ appeal for lack of jurisdiction; and the
MANILA, respondents. resolution promulgated on November 14, 2007,[2] whereby the CA
denied their motion for reconsideration for its lack of merit.
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Appeals; Modes of Appeal from Antecedents
the Decisions and Final Orders of the Regional Trial Court (RTC).—
The City of Manila assessed and collected taxes from the
The Rules of Court provides three modes of appeal from the decisions and
final orders of the RTC, namely: (1) ordinary appeal or appeal by writ of individual petitioners pursuant to Section 15 (Tax on Wholesalers,
error under Rule 41, where the decisions and final orders were rendered in Distributors, or Dealers) and Section 17 (Tax on Retailers) of the
civil or criminal actions by the RTC in the exercise of original Revenue Code of Manila.[3] At the same time, the City of Manila
jurisdiction; (2) petition for review under Rule 42, where the decisions and imposed additional taxes upon the petitioners pursuant to Section
final orders were rendered by the RTC in the exercise of appellate 21 of the Revenue Code of Manila, [4] as amended, as a condition
jurisdiction; and (3) petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court for the renewal of their respective
under Rule 45. The first mode of appeal is taken to the CA on questions of _______________
fact, or mixed questions of fact and law. The second mode of appeal is [1] Rollo, pp. 74-78; penned by Associate Justice Josefina Guevarra-Salonga,
brought to the CA on questions of fact, of law, or mixed questions of fact with Associate Justices Vicente Q. Roxas and Ramon R. Garcia, concurring.
and law. The third mode of appeal is elevated to the Supreme Court only [2] Id., at pp. 80-81.
[3] Id., at p. 19.
on questions of law.
[4] Id., at pp. 82, 86.
Same; “Questions of Law” and “Questions of Fact,”
Distinguished.—The distinction between a question of law and a question 283
of fact is well-established. On the one hand, a question of law arises when
there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts; on the other, VOL. 731, JULY 30, 2014 283
there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of
Nursery Care Corporation vs. Acevedo
the alleged facts. According to Leoncio v. De Vera, 546 SCRA 180 (2008):
x x x For a question to be one of law, the same must not involve an business licenses for the year 1999. Section 21 of the Revenue
examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the Code of Manila stated:
litigants or any of them. The resolution of the issue must rest solely on Section 21. Tax on Business Subject to the Excise, Value-Added or
what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. Once it is clear Percentage Taxes under the NIRC.—On any of the following businesses
that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the question and articles of commerce subject to the excise, value-added or percentage
posed is one of fact. Thus, the test of whether a question is one of law or of taxes under the National Internal Revenue Code, hereinafter referred to as
fact is not the appella- NIRC, as amended, a tax of FIFTY PERCENT (50%) OF ONE PERCENT
_______________ (1%) per annum on the gross sales or receipts of the preceding calendar
* FIRST DIVISION. year is hereby imposed:
281
A) On person who sells goods and services in the course of trade or
businesses; x x x
PROVIDED, that all registered businesses in the City of Manila
VOL. 731, JULY 30, 2014 281 already paying the aforementioned tax shall be exempted from payment
Nursery Care Corporation vs. Acevedo thereof.
tion given to such question by the party raising the same; rather, it
 To comply with the City of Manila’s assessment of taxes
is whether the appellate court can determine the issue raised without
reviewing or evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a question of law; under Section 21, supra, the petitioners paid under protest the
otherwise it is a question of fact. following amounts corresponding to the first quarter of 1999, [5] to
Taxation; Double Taxation; On the basis of the rulings in City of wit:
Manila v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc., 595 SCRA 299 (2009) and
Swedish Match Philippines, Inc. v. The Treasurer of the City of Manila,
700 SCRA 428 (2013), the Court now holds that all the elements of double
taxation concurred upon the City of Manila’s assessment on and collection
from the petitioners of taxes for the first quarter of 1999 pursuant to
Section 21 of the Revenue Code of Manila.—On the basis of the rulings
in City of Manila v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc., 595 SCRA 299
(2009) and Swedish Match Philippines, Inc. v. The Treasurer of the City
of Manila, 700 SCRA 428 (2013),  the Court now holds that all the
elements of double taxation concurred upon the City of Manila’s By letter dated March 1, 1999, the petitioners formally
assessment on and collection from the petitioners of taxes for the first requested the Office of the City Treasurer for the tax credit or
quarter of 1999 pursuant to Section 21 of the Revenue Code of
Manila. Firstly, because Section 21 of the Revenue Code of Manila
refund of the local business taxes paid under protest.[6] How-
_______________
imposed the tax on a person who sold goods and services in the course of [5] Id., at pp. 84, 98.
trade or business based on a certain percentage of his gross sales or [6] Id., at pp. 86-88.
receipts in the preceding calendar year, while Section 15 and Section 17
likewise imposed the tax on a person who sold goods and services in the 284
course of trade or business but only identified such person with
particularity, namely, the wholesaler, distributor or dealer (Section 15),
284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
and the retailer (Section 17), all the taxes — being imposed on the Nursery Care Corporation vs. Acevedo
privilege of doing business in the City of Manila in order to make the ever, then City Treasurer Anthony Acevedo (Acevedo) denied the
taxpayers contribute to the city’s revenues — were imposed on the same
request through his letter of March 10, 1999.[7]
subject matter and for the same purpose. Secondly, the taxes were imposed
by the same taxing authority (the City of Manila) and within the same On April 8, 1999, the petitioners, through their representative,
jurisdiction in the same taxing period (i.e., per calendar year). Thirdly, the Cecilia R. Patricio, sought the reconsideration of the denial of their
taxes were all in the nature of local business taxes. request.[8] Still, the City Treasurer did not reconsider.[9]
In the meanwhile, Liberty Toledo succeeded Acevedo as the
PETITION for review on certiorari of the resolutions of the City Treasurer of Manila.[10]
Court of Appeals. On April 29, 1999, the petitioners filed their respective
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. petitions for certiorari in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in
Chato & Vinzons-Chato for petitioners. Manila. The petitions, docketed as Civil Cases Nos. 99-93668 to
282 99-93673,[11] were initially raffled to different branches, but were
soon consolidated in Branch 34.[12] After the presiding judge of
282 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Branch 34 voluntarily inhibited himself, the consolidated cases
Nursery Care Corporation vs. Acevedo were transferred to Branch 23, [13] but were again re-raffled to
Office of the City Legal Officer for respondent. Branch 19 upon the designation of Branch 23 as a special drugs
court.[14]
BERSAMIN,  J.: The parties agreed on and jointly submitted the following
The issue here concerns double taxation. There is double issues for the consideration and resolution of the RTC, namely:
taxation when the same taxpayer is taxed twice when he should be (a)      Whether or not the collection of taxes under Section 21 of
taxed only once for the same purpose by the same taxing authority Ordinance No. 7794, as amended, constitutes double taxation.
(b)      Whether or not the failure of the petitioners to avail of the
within the same jurisdiction during the same taxing period, and the statutorily provided remedy for their tax protest on the
ground of unconstitutionality, il-
_______________ sections of the same ordinance is a violation of the provisions of Section
 [7] Id., at pp. 90-92.
 [8] Id.,  at pp. 93-98. 143 of the Local Government Code.
 [9] Id.,  at p. 99. Clearly, the disposition of the present appeal in these consolidated
[10] Id.,  at p. 333. cases does not necessitate the calibration of the whole evidence as there is
[11] Id., at pp. 100-241.
[12]  Id., at p. 255. no question or doubt as to the truth or the falsehood of the facts obtaining
[13] Id., at pp. 26, 266. herein, as both parties agree thereon. The present case involves a question
[14] Id., at p. 24. of law that would not lend itself to an examination or evaluation by this
Court of the probative value of the evidence presented.
  Thus the Court is constrained to dismiss the instant petition for lack of
285
jurisdiction under Section 2, Rule 50 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure
which states:
VOL. 731, JULY 30, 2014 285 Sec. 2. Dismissal of improper appeal to the Court of Appeals.—
An appeal under Rule 41 taken from the Regional Trial Court to the Court
Nursery Care Corporation vs. Acevedo
of Appeals raising only questions of law shall be dismissed, issues purely
legality and oppressiveness under Section 187 of the Local of law not being reviewable by said court. Similarly, an appeal by notice of
Government Code renders the present action dismissible for appeal instead of by petition for review from the appellate judgment of a
non-exhaustion of administrative remedy.[15] Regional Trial Court shall be dismissed.
An appeal erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals shall not be
Decision of the RTC transferred to the appropriate court but shall be dismissed outright.
On April 26, 2002, the RTC rendered its decision, holding 288
thusly:
The Court perceives of no instance of the constitutionally proscribed 288 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
double taxation, in the strict, narrow or obnoxious sense, imposed upon the
petitioners under Sections 15 and 17, on the one hand, and under Section Nursery Care Corporation vs. Acevedo
21, on the other, of the questioned Ordinance. The tax imposed under WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, the appeal is DISMISSED.
Sections 15 and 17, as against that imposed under Section 21, are levied SO ORDERED.[18]
against different tax objects or subject matter. The tax under Section 15 is
imposed upon wholesalers, distributors or dealers, while that under Section      The petitioners moved for reconsideration, but the CA
17 is imposed upon retailers. In short, taxes imposed under Sections 15 and denied their motion through the resolution promulgated on
17 is a tax on the business of wholesalers, distributors, dealers and November 14, 2007.[19]
retailers. On the other hand, the tax imposed upon herein petitioners under
Issues
Section 21 is not a tax against the business of the petitioners (as
wholesalers, distributors, dealers or retailers) but is rather a tax against The petitioners now appeal, raising the following grounds, to
consumers or end-users of the articles sold by petitioners. This is plain wit:
from a reading of the modifying paragraph of Section 21 which says: A.
THE COURT OF APPEALS, IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF
“The tax shall be payable by the person paying for the services THE PETITIONERS AND DENYING THEIR MOTION FOR
rendered and shall be paid to the person rendering the services who is RECONSIDERATION, ERRED IN RULING THAT THE ISSUE
required to collect and pay the tax within twenty (20) days after the end of INVOLVED IS A PURELY LEGAL QUESTION.
each quarter.” (Underscoring supplied) B.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT REVERSING THE
In effect, the petitioners only act as the collection or withholding
DECISION OF BRANCH 19 OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF
agent of the City while the ones actually
_______________
MANILA DATED 26 APRIL 2002 DENYING PETITIONERS’ PRAYER
[15] Id.,  at p. 333. FOR REFUND OF THE AMOUNTS PAID BY THEM UNDER
PROTEST AND DISMISSING THE PETITION
286 FOR CERTIORARI FILED BY THE PETITIONERS.
C.
286 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT RULING THAT THE
ACT OF THE CITY TREASURER OF MANILA IN IMPOSING,
Nursery Care Corporation vs. Acevedo ASSESSING AND COLLECTING THE ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
paying the tax are the consumers or end-users of the articles being sold by TAX UNDER SECTION 21 OF ORDINANCE NO. 7794, AS
petitioners. The taxes imposed under Sec. 21 represent additional amounts AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NO. 7807, ALSO KNOWN AS THE
added by the business establishment to the basic prices of its goods and REVE-
services which are paid by the end-users to the businesses. It is actually not _______________
[18] Id., at pp. 77-78.
taxes on the business of petitioners but on the consumers. Hence, there is [19] Id.,  at p. 81.
no double taxation in the narrow, strict or obnoxious sense, involved in the
imposition of taxes by the City of Manila under Sections 15, 17 and 21 of 289
the questioned Ordinance. This in effect resolves in favor of the
constitutionality of the assailed sections of Ordinance No. 7807 of the City VOL. 731, JULY 30, 2014 289
of Manila.
Nursery Care Corporation vs. Acevedo
Petitioners, likewise, pray the Court to direct respondents to cease and
NUE CODE OF THE CITY OF MANILA, IS CONSTITUTIVE OF
desist from implementing Section 21 of the questioned Ordinance. That the
DOUBLE TAXATION AND VIOLATIVE OF THE LOCAL
Court cannot do, without doing away with the mandatory provisions of
GOVERNMENT CODE OF 1991.[20]
Section 187 of the Local Government Code which distinctly commands
that an appeal questioning the constitutionality or legality of a tax
     The main issues for resolution are, therefore, (1) whether
ordinance shall not have the effect of suspending the effectivity of the
ordinance and the accrual and payment of the tax, fee or charge levied or not the CA properly denied due course to the appeal for raising
therein. This is so because an ordinance carries with it the presumption of pure questions of law; and (2) whether or not the petitioners were
validity. entitled to the tax credit or tax refund for the taxes paid under
Section 21, supra.
xxx
Ruling
With the foregoing findings, petitioners’ prayer for the refund of the
amounts paid by them under protest must, likewise, fail. The appeal is meritorious.
Wherefore, the petitions are dismissed. Without pronouncement as to 1.
costs. The CA did not err in dismissing the appeal; but
 SO ORDERED.[16] the rules should be liberally applied
for the sake of justice and equity
     The petitioners appealed to the CA.[17] The Rules of Court provides three modes of appeal from the
  decisions and final orders of the RTC, namely: (1) ordinary appeal
_______________
[16] Id., at pp. 335-337.
or appeal by writ of error under Rule 41, where the decisions and
[17] Id., at pp. 418-419. final orders were rendered in civil or criminal actions by the RTC
in the exercise of original jurisdiction; (2) petition for review
287
under Rule 42, where the decisions and final orders were rendered
VOL. 731, JULY 30, 2014 287 by the RTC in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction; and (3)
Nursery Care Corporation vs. Acevedo petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court under Rule
Ruling of the CA 45.[21] The first mode of appeal is taken to the CA on questions of
On June 18, 2007, the CA denied the petitioners’ appeal, fact, or mixed questions of fact and law. The second mode of
ruling as follows: appeal is brought to the CA on questions of fact, of law, or mixed
The six (6) cases were consolidated on a common question of fact and questions of fact and
_______________
law, that is, whether the act of the City Treasurer of Manila of assessing
[20] Id., at p. 27.
and collecting business taxes under Section 21 of Ordinance 7807, on top [21] RULES OF COURT , Section 2, Rule 41 (1997).
of other business taxes also assessed and collected under the previous
290 we resolve, bearing in mind the following pronouncement in Go v.
290 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Chaves:[30]
Our rules of procedure are designed to facilitate the orderly
Nursery Care Corporation vs. Acevedo disposition of cases and permit the prompt disposition of unmeritorious
law.[22] The third mode of appeal is elevated to the Supreme Court cases which clog the court dockets and do little more than waste the
only on questions of law.[23] courts’ time. These technical and procedural rules, however, are intended
The distinction between a question of law and a question of to ensure, rather than suppress, substantial justice. A deviation from their
rigid enforcement may thus be allowed, as petitioners should be given the
fact is well-established. On the one hand, a question of law arises
fullest opportunity to establish the merits of their case, rather than lose
when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts; their property on mere technicalities. We held in Ong Lim Sing, Jr. v. FEB
on the other, there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to Leasing and Finance Corporation that:
the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. [24] According to Leoncio v. Courts have the prerogative to relax procedural rules of even the most
De Vera:[25] mandatory character, mindful of the duty to reconcile both the need to
x x x For a question to be one of law, the same must not involve an speedily put an end to litigation and the parties’ right to due process. In
examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the numerous cases, this Court has allowed liberal construction of the rules
litigants or any of them. The resolution of the issue must rest solely on when to do so
what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. Once it is clear _______________
[29] Sevilleno v. Carilo, G.R. No. 146454, September 14, 2007, 533 SCRA 385, 389.
that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the question [30] G.R. No. 182341, April 23, 2010, 619 SCRA 333, 342-343.
posed is one of fact. Thus, the test of whether a question is one of law or of
fact is not the appellation given to such question by the party raising the 293
same; rather, it is whether the appellate court can determine the issue
raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a VOL. 731, JULY 30, 2014 293
question of law; otherwise it is a question of fact.[26]
Nursery Care Corporation vs. Acevedo
_______________ would serve the demands of substantial justice and equity.
[22] RULES OF COURT , Section 2, Rule 42 (1997).
[23] RULES OF COURT , Section 1, Rule 45 (1997); Republic v. Malabanan, G.R.
No. 169067, October 6, 2010, 632 SCRA 338, 344-345.     The petitioners point out that although Section 21 of the
[24] Latorre v. Latorre, G.R. No. 183926, March 29, 2010, 617 SCRA 88, 99. Revenue Code of Manila was not itself unconstitutional or invalid,
[25] G.R. No. 176842, February 18, 2008, 546 SCRA 180, 184. its enforcement against the petitioners constituted double taxation
[26] See also First Bancorp, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 151132, June 22,
2006, 492 SCRA 221, 238, where the Court issued a similar explanation, to wit:
because the local business taxes under Section 15 and Section 17
A question of fact exists when a doubt or difference arises as to the truth or of the Revenue Code of Manila were already being paid by them.
falsity of alleged facts. If the query requires a reevaluation of the credibility of [31] They contend that the proviso in Section 21 exempted all
witnesses or the existence or relevance of surrounding circumstances and their registered businesses in the City of Manila from paying the tax
relation to each other, the issue in that query is factual. On the other hand, there is a
question of law when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on certain imposed under Section 21;[32] and that the exemption was more in
accord with Section 143 of the Local Government Code, [33] the
291 law that vested in the mu-
_______________
VOL. 731, JULY 30, 2014 291 [31] Rollo, pp. 43-44.
Nursery Care Corporation vs. Acevedo [32] Id., at p. 49.
[33] Section 143. Tax on Business.—The municipality may impose taxes on
The nature of the issues to be raised on appeal can be gleaned the following businesses:
from the appellant’s notice of appeal filed in the trial court, and (a)  On manufacturers, assemblers, repackers, processors, brewers, distillers,
from the appellant’s brief submitted to the appellate court. [27] In rectifiers, and compounders of liquors, distilled spirits, and wines or manufacturers of
any article of commerce of whatever kind or nature, in accordance with the following
this case, the petitioners filed a notice of appeal in which they schedule: x x x
contended that the April 26, 2002 decision and the order of July (b)  On wholesalers, distributors, or dealers in any article of commerce of
17, 2002 issued by the RTC denying their consolidated motion for whatever kind or nature in accordance with the following schedule: x x x
(c)  On exporters, and on manufacturers, millers, producers, wholesalers,
reconsideration were contrary to the facts and law obtaining in the distributors, dealers or retailers of essential commodities enumerated hereunder at a
consolidated cases.[28] In their consolidated memorandum filed in rate not exceeding one-half (1/2) of the rates prescribed under subsections (a), (b) and
the CA, they essentially assailed the RTC’s ruling that the taxes (d) of this Section: x x x
imposed on and collected from the petitioners under Section 21 of (d) Provided, however, That barangays shall have the exclusive power to levy
taxes, as provided under Section 152 hereof, on gross sales or receipts of the
the Revenue Code of Manila constituted double taxation in the preceding calendar year of Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) or less, in the case of
strict, narrow or obnoxious sense. Considered together, therefore, cities, and Thirty thousand pesos (P30,000) or less, in the case of municipalities.
the notice of appeal and consolidated memorandum evidently did (e) On contractors and other independent contractors, in accordance with the
following schedule: x x x
not raise issues that required the reevaluation of evidence or the (f)  On banks and other financial institutions, at a rate not exceeding fifty percent
relevance of surrounding circumstances. (50%) of one percent (1%) on the gross receipts

The CA rightly concluded that the petitioners thereby raised 294

only a question of law. The dismissal of their appeal was proper,
294 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
strictly speaking, because Section 2, Rule 50 of the Rules of
Court provides that an appeal from the RTC to the CA raising only Nursery Care Corporation vs. Acevedo
questions of law shall be dismissed; and nicipal and city governments the power to impose business taxes.
_______________ The respondents counter, however, that double taxation did
 state of facts and which does not call for an existence of the
probative value of the evidence presented by the parties-litigants. In a not occur from the imposition and collection of the tax pursuant to
case involving a question of law, the resolution of the issue rests solely Section 21 of the Revenue Code of Manila; [34] that the taxes
on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. Ordinarily, imposed pursuant to Section 21 were in the concept of indirect
the determination of whether an appeal involves only questions of law or
both questions of law and fact is best left to the appellate court.  All
taxes upon the consumers of the goods and services sold by a
doubts as to the correctness of the conclusions of the appellate court will business establishment;[35] and that the petitioners did not exhaust
be resolved in favor of the CA unless it commits an error or commits a their administrative remedies by first appealing to the Secretary of
grave abuse of discretion. Justice to challenge the constitutionality or legality of the tax
[27] Tamondong v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 158397, November 26, 2004,
444 SCRA 509, 517. ordinance.[36]
[28] Rollo, p. 418. In resolving the issue of double taxation involving Section 21
of the Revenue Code of Manila, the Court is mindful of the ruling
292 in City of Manila v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc.,
292 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED [37] which has been reiterated in Swedish Match Philippines, Inc.
v. The Treasurer of the City of Manila.[38] In the latter, the Court
Nursery Care Corporation vs. Acevedo
has held:
that an appeal erroneously taken to the CA shall be outrightly _______________
dismissed.[29] of the preceding calendar year derived from interest, commissions and discounts
from lending activities, income from financial leasing, dividends, rentals on property
2. and profit from exchange or sale of property, insurance premium.
Collection of taxes pursuant to Section 21 of the Revenue (g)  On peddlers engaged in the sale of any merchandise or article of
commerce, at a rate not exceeding Fifty pesos (P50.00) per peddler annually.
Code of Manila constituted double taxation (h) On any business, not otherwise specified in the preceding paragraphs,
The foregoing notwithstanding, the Court, given the which the sanggunian concerned may deem proper to tax: Provided, That on any
circumstances obtaining herein and in light of jurisprudence business subject to the excise, value-added or percentage tax under the National
promulgated subsequent to the filing of the petition, deems it Internal Revenue Code, as amended, the rate of tax shall not exceed two percent (2%)
of gross sales or receipts of the preceding calendar year.
fitting and proper to adopt a liberal approach in order to render a [34] Rollo, p. 485.
just and speedy disposition of the substantive issue at hand. Hence, [35] Id., at p. 484.
[36] Id., at pp. 486-487.
 [37] G.R. No. 181845, August 4, 2009, 595 SCRA 299 and G.R. No. 167283, only identified such person with particularity, namely, the
February 10, 2010.
[38] G.R. No. 181277, July 3, 2013, 700 SCRA 428, 439-442.
wholesaler, distributor or dealer (Section 15), and the retailer
(Section 17), all the taxes — being imposed on the privilege of
295 doing business in the City of Manila in order to make the
VOL. 731, JULY 30, 2014 295 taxpayers contribute to the city’s revenues — were imposed on the
same subject matter and for the same purpose.
Nursery Care Corporation vs. Acevedo Secondly, the taxes were imposed by the same taxing
x x x [T]he issue of double taxation is not novel, as it has already been authority (the City of Manila) and within the same jurisdiction in
settled by this Court in The City of Manila v. Coca-Cola Bottlers the same taxing period (i.e., per calendar year).
Philippines, Inc., in this wise:
Thirdly, the taxes were all in the nature of local business
Petitioners obstinately ignore the exempting proviso in Section 21 of
Tax Ordinance No. 7794, to their own detriment. Said taxes.
exempting proviso was precisely included in said section so as to avoid We note that although Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines,
double taxation. Inc. and Swedish Match Philippines, Inc.  involved Section
Double taxation means taxing the same property twice when it should 21 vis-à-vis Section 14 (Tax on Manufacturers, Assemblers and
be taxed only once; that is, “taxing the same person twice by the same 298
jurisdiction for the same thing.” It is obnoxious when the taxpayer is taxed
twice, when it should be but once. Otherwise described as “direct duplicate
298 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
taxation,” the two taxes must be imposed on the same subject matter, Nursery Care Corporation vs. Acevedo
for the same purpose, by the same taxing authority, within the same Other Processors)[39] of the Revenue Code of Manila, the legal
jurisdiction, during the same taxing period; and the taxes must be of the
principles enunciated therein should similarly apply because
same kind or character.
Using the aforementioned test, the Court finds that there is indeed Section 15 (Tax on Wholesalers, Distributors, or Dealers) and
double taxation if respondent is subjected to the taxes under both Sections Section 17 (Tax on Retailers) of the Revenue Code of Manila
14 and 21 of Tax Ordinance No. 7794, since these are being imposed: (1) imposed the same nature of tax as that imposed under Section
on the same subject matter — the privilege of doing business in the City of 14, i.e., local business tax, albeit on a different subject matter or
Manila; (2) for the same purpose — to make persons conducting business group of taxpayers.
within the City of Manila contribute to city revenues; (3) by the same In fine, the imposition of the tax under Section 21 of the
taxing authority — petitioner City of Manila; (4) within the same taxing Revenue Code of Manila constituted double taxation, and the taxes
jurisdiction — within the territorial jurisdiction of the City of Manila; (5)
collected pursuant thereto must be refunded.
for the same taxing periods — per calendar year; and (6) of the same kind
or character — a local business tax imposed on gross sales or receipts of WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition for review
the business. on certiorari; REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the resolutions
296 promulgated on June 18, 2007 and November 14, 2007 in C.A.-
G.R. S.P. No. 72191; and DIRECTS the City of Manila to refund
296 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED the payments made by the petitioners of the taxes assessed and
collected for the first quarter of 1999 pursuant to Section 21 of the
Nursery Care Corporation vs. Acevedo Revenue Code of Manila.
The distinction petitioners attempt to make between the taxes under
Sections 14 and 21 of Tax Ordinance No. 7794 is specious. The Court
No pronouncement on costs of suit.
revisits Section 143 of the LGC, the very source of the power of SO ORDERED.
municipalities and cities to impose a local business tax, and to which any Sereno (CJ., Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro,
local business tax imposed by petitioner City of Manila must conform. It is Villarama, Jr. and Reyes, JJ., concur.
apparent from a perusal thereof that when a municipality or city has
already imposed a business tax on manufacturers, etc. of liquors, distilled Petition granted, resolutions reversed and set aside.
spirits, wines, and any other article of commerce, pursuant to Section
143(a) of the LGC, said municipality or city may no longer subject the     Notes.—Properties owned by the Republic of the Philippines
same manufacturers, etc. to a business tax under Section 143(h) of the are exempt from real property tax “except when the beneficial use
same Code. Section 143(h) may be imposed only on businesses that are thereof has been granted, for consideration or otherwise, to a
subject to excise tax, VAT, or percentage tax under the NIRC, and that are taxable person” — the portions of the proper-
“not otherwise specified in preceding paragraphs.” In the same way, _______________
businesses such as respondent’s, already subject to a local business tax [39] Section 14. Tax on Manufacturers, Assemblers and Other Processors.—
under Section 14 of Tax Ordinance No. 7794 [which is based on Section There is hereby imposed a graduated tax on manufacturers, assemblers, repackers,
143(a) of the LGC], can no longer be made liable for local business tax processors, brewers, distillers, rectifiers, and compounders of liquors, distilled spirits,
under Section 21 of the same Tax Ordinance [which is based on Section and wines or manufacturers of any article of commerce of whatever kind or nature, in
accordance with any of the following schedule: x x x
143(h) of the LGC].
Based on the foregoing reasons, petitioner should not have been 299
subjected to taxes under Section 21 of the Manila Revenue Code for the
fourth quarter of 2001, considering that it had already been paying local
business tax under Section 14 of the same ordinance. VOL. 731, JULY 30, 2014 299
xxxx Nursery Care Corporation vs. Acevedo
Accordingly, respondent’s assessment under both Sections 14 and 21
had no basis. Petitioner is indeed liable to pay business taxes to the City of ties not leased to taxable entities are exempt from real estate tax
Manila; nevertheless, considering that the former has already paid these while the portions of the properties leased to taxable entities are
taxes under Section 14 of the Manila Revenue Code, it is exempt from the subject to real estate tax. (City of Pasig vs. Republic, 656
same payments under Sec- SCRA 271 [2011])
297 Double taxation means taxing the same property twice when it
should be taxed only once; that is, “taxing the same person twice
VOL. 731, JULY 30, 2014 297 by the same jurisdiction for the same thing.” (Swedish Match
Nursery Care Corporation vs. Acevedo Philippines, Inc. vs. The Treasurer of the City of Manila, 700
tion 21 of the same code. Hence, payments made under Section 21 must be SCRA 428 [2013])
refunded in favor of petitioner. ——o0o——
It is undisputed that petitioner paid business taxes based on Sections
14 and 21 for the fourth quarter of 2001 in the total amount of
P470,932.21. Therefore, it is entitled to a refund of P164,552.04
corresponding to the payment under Section 21 of the Manila Revenue
Code.

    On the basis of the rulings in Coca-Cola Bottlers

Philippines, Inc. and Swedish Match Philippines, Inc., the Court
now holds that all the elements of double taxation concurred upon
the City of Manila’s assessment on and collection from the
petitioners of taxes for the first quarter of 1999 pursuant to Section
21 of the Revenue Code of Manila.
Firstly, because Section 21 of the Revenue Code of Manila
imposed the tax on a person who sold goods and services in the
course of trade or business based on a certain percentage of his
gross sales or receipts in the preceding calendar year, while
Section 15 and Section 17 likewise imposed the tax on a person
who sold goods and services in the course of trade or business but