Procter & Gamble Co. vs. Municipality of Jagna, Bohol (1!

, Melencio"
#errera$

%&C'() The Municipality enacted Ordinance No. 4 Series of 1957 which imposed
storage fees on all eporta!le copra deposited in the !odega within its "urisdiction.
#$% paid the Municipality storage fees amounting to # 1&14'&'(5.1) allegedly under
protest for ( years.
*N O+,-N*N./ -M#OS-N% STO+*%/ 0//S O0 *11 /2#O+T*31/ .O#+* ,/#OS-T/, -N
T4/ 3O,/%* 5-T4-N T4/ 67+-S,l.T-8N O0 T4/ M7N-.-#*1-T9 O0 6*%N* 3O4O1.
3e it ordained !y the Municipal .ouncil of 6agna 3ohol& that:
S/.T-ON 1. *ny person& ;rm or corporation ha<ing a deposit of eporta!le copra in the
!odega& within the "urisdiction of the Municipality of 6agna 3ohol& shall pay to the
Municipal Treasury a storage fee of T/N =#8.18> ./NT*?OS 0O+ /?/+9 47N,+/, =188>
@ilosA
S/.T-ON '. *ll eporta!le copra deposited in the !odega within the Municipality of 6agna
3ohol& is part of the sur<eillance and loo@out of the Municipal *uthoritiesA
.0- upheld the MunicipalityBs power to enact the Ordinance.
*((+,(s$) 5ON the Ordinance& assuming it is <alid& is applica!le to #$% considering
it is not engaged in the !usiness or occupation of !uying or selling of copra !ut is
only storing copra in connection with its main !usiness of manufacturing soap and
other similar products& and that to !e compelled to pay the storage fees would
amount to dou!le taation.
P&G-s &rguments) The ordinance is inapplica!le to it !ecause it is not engaged in
the !usiness or trade of storing copra for others for compensation or pro;t and that
the only copra it stores is for its eclusi<e use in connection with its !usiness as
manufacturer of soap& edi!le oil& margarine and other similar products. The le<y is
intended as an Ceport taC as it is collected on Ceporta!le copraB& and& therefore&
!eyond the power of the Municipality to enactA and that the fee of #8.18 for e<ery
188 @ilos of copra stored in the !odega is ecessi<e& unreasona!le and oppressi<e
and is imposed more for re<enue than as a regulatory fee.
#,./01&'*2) The Duestion of whether appellant is engaged in that !usiness or not is
irrele<ant !ecause the storage fee is an imposition on the pri<ilege of storing copra in
a !odega within the municipality !y persons& ;rms or corporations. Section 1 of the
Ordinance does not state that said persons& ;rms or corporations should !e engaged
in the !usiness or occupation of !uying or selling copra. Moreo<er& !y #$%Es own
admission& it is a consolidated corporation with its trading companyA it will !e hard to
segregate the copra it uses for trading from that it utiliFes for manufacturing.
Thus& plaintiGEs payment of storage fees imposed !y the Ordinance does not amount
to dou!le taation. 0or dou!le taation to eist& the same property must !e taed
twice& when it should !e taed only once. ,ou!le taation has also !een de;ned as
taing the same person twice !y the same "urisdiction for the same thing. * ta on
plaintiGEs products is diGerent from a ta on the pri<ilege of storing copra in a !odega
situated within the territorial !oundary of defendant municipality.
The contention that the storage fee imposed !y the Ordinance is actually intended to
!e an eport ta& epressly prohi!ited !y section ''H7 of the +e<ised *dministrati<e
.ode& is without merit.
Section ''H7 ...-t shall not !e in the power of the municipal council to impose a ta in
any form whate<er upon goods and merchandise carried into the municipality& or out of
the same& and any attempt to impose an import or eport ta upon such goods in the
guise of an unreasona!le charge for wharfage use of !ridges or otherwise& shall !e <oid.
The court has held that the prohi!ition would only come into play where there is a
clear showing that what is !eing taed is an eport to any foreign country. 5hen the
Ordinance itself spea@s of Ceporta!leC copra& the meaning con<eyed is not
eclusi<ely eport to a foreign country !ut shipment out of the municipality. The
storage fee impugned is not a ta on eport !ecause it is imposed not only upon
copra to !e eported !ut also upon copra sold and to !e used for domestic purposes
if stored in any warehouse in the Municipality and the weight thereof is 188 @ilos or
more.
/*(P2(*'*3,) The court sustains the <alidity of Ordinance No. 4& Series of 1957& of
defendant Municipality of 6agna 3ohol and its applica!ility to #$%.