CARLOS PALANCA, plaintiff-appellee, vs. THE CITY OF MANILA and WENCESLAO TRINIDAD, defendants-appellants.
FACTS:
Carlos Palanca was a licensed distiller of spirituous liquors in Manila from July 1, 1914, to June 30, 1916. He maintained his distillery at No. 1925 Calle Anloague. During the same period, he operated a separate wholesale store at Nos. 538-540 Calle Pinpin, exclusively for selling the liquors produced at his distillery. No sales were made at the distillery itself. The City of Manila, through its City Assessor and Collector, demanded that Palanca secure and pay for a separate “First Class Wholesale Liquor License” for his store, at an annual rate of P1,200. Under protest, Palanca obtained the license and made quarterly payments totaling P2,400. After his written protests were overruled, he filed suit to recover the amount paid.
ISSUE:
Whether a holder of a distiller’s license under the then-existing Manila Liquor License Act (Act No. 59, as amended by Act No. 95) was required to obtain an additional wholesale liquor dealer’s license to sell the products of his distillery at a separate store, distinct from the place of production.
RULING:
No. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Palanca. Under the specific language of the Manila Liquor License Act in force from 1914 to 1916, a distiller’s license authorized the licensee not only to conduct the business of distilling but also “to sell, give away or otherwise dispose of the products of such distillery.” The subsequent section requiring a wholesale liquor dealer’s license explicitly stated that nothing therein should be construed as prohibiting a holder of a distiller’s license from disposing of the products of his distillery. The law did not contain any limitation restricting such sales to the distillery premises. To read such a limitation into the statute would be to amend it judicially.
The Court found further support in the subsequent legislative amendment. When the law was incorporated into the Administrative Code of 1916 and 1917, the legislature inserted the phrases “in the distillery” and “at the place of production” to limit where a distiller could sell without an additional license. This amendment demonstrated that, prior to its enactment, the statute had a different meaning and did not impose such a territorial restriction. Therefore, during the period in question, Palanca’s distiller’s license fully authorized him to sell his products at his separate store without the need for a wholesale dealer’s license.
The Court also held that the recovery of the illegally collected license fees with legal interest was proper, as the case involved a municipal tax and not an internal revenue tax covered by the interest prohibition in the Administrative Code. Costs were also correctly adjudged against the defendant City of Manila, as it is a municipal corporation and not the sovereign government immune from costs.
The decision of the Court of First Instance was affirmed.
