GR L 47725; (April, 1941) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-47725; April 8, 1941
JOSE GAVINO, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EL MUNICIPIO DE CALAPAN, MINDORO, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
The plaintiff, Jose Gavino, owner of the “Halcon Hotel” in Calapan, Mindoro, filed a case in the Court of First Instance of Mindoro. He sought reimbursement from the defendant municipality for the amount of P25 and any sum exceeding that, which he had been paying as an annual tax for his hotel business for the year 1939. Gavino had been regularly paying an annual tax of at least P30 until June 1938. On December 1, 1933, the Municipality of Calapan approved and promulgated Ordinance No. 177, which fixed the municipal tax for hotel owners at P30 annually. However, the municipality failed to seek and obtain approval for this ordinance from the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Finance. Upon discovering this omission later, Gavino promptly filed the suit, basing his claim on the provisions of Act No. 3422 , which took effect on December 8, 1927. The lower court decided in favor of Gavino. The municipality appealed, arguing that when Gavino made each tax payment, he did so absolutely freely, voluntarily, and without any protest.
ISSUE
The main issue is whether Ordinance No. 177 of the Municipality of Calapan, which fixed a P30 annual license tax on hotels, is valid despite the municipality’s failure to secure approval from the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Finance as required by Act No. 3422 .
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court and declared Ordinance No. 177 valid. The Court held that Act No. 3422 , specifically its Article 2, does not require ordinances fixing taxes on hotels to be previously approved by the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Finance. The law explicitly excepts taxes on hotels (among other specified businesses) from this approval requirement when the tax exceeds P25 per year. The Court stated that even if the case were as the appellee (Gavino) claimed—which it clearly was not—he would have no right to seek reimbursement because he made all his payments voluntarily and without protest. This ruling is supported by established jurisprudence in the jurisdiction (Fernandez vs. Shearer, 19 Phil. 78) and is generally accepted elsewhere. The appealed judgment was contrary to law, and the ordinance was valid as it contravened no legal provision. Costs were imposed on the appellee.