G.R. Nos.

24116-17 August 22, 1968

CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
MUNCPALTY O! NAGA, CEBU, ET AL., defendants-appellees.
Tomas P. Matic, Jr. and Lorenzo R. Mosqueda for plaintiff-appellant.
Fernan, Osmea and Bellaflor for defendants-appellees.
!ERNANDO, J.:
In two separate actions, plaintiff-appellant Cebu Portland Cement Company sought to test
the validity of the distraint and thereafter the sale at public auction by the principal
defendant-appellee, Municipality of Naga, Cebu, of 1, bags of cement for the purpose
of satisfying its alleged deficiency in the payment of the municipal license ta! for 1"#,
municipal license ta! for 1"#1 as well as the penalty, all in the total sum of P$%,&..
'he lower court rendered a (oint decision sustaining the validity of the action ta)en by
defendant-appellee Municipality of Naga. 'he case is now before us on appeal. *e affirm.
+ccording to the appealed decision, -.rom all the evidence, mostly documentary, adduced
during the hearing the following facts have been established. 'he efforts of the defendant
'reasurer to collect from the plaintiff the municipal license ta! imposed by +mended
/rdinance No. $1. 0eries of 1"1" on cement factories located within the Municipality of
Naga, Cebu, have met with rebuff time and again. 'he demands made on the ta!payer ...
have not been entirely successful. .inally, the defendant 'reasurer decided on 2une $#,
1"#1 to avail of the Civil remedies provided for under 0ection $&% of the 3evised
+dministrative Code and gave the plaintiff a period of ten days from receipt thereof within
which to settle the account, computed as follows ..., 4eficiency Municipal 5icense 'a! for
1"# 6 P7,$1.8 Municipal 5icense 'a! for 1"#1 6 P",.8 and $9 Penalty 6
P&%,1., stating in e!asperation, -'his is our last recourse as we had e!hausted all
efforts for an amicable solution of our problem.- -
1
It was further shown, -/n 2uly #, 1"#1, at 11, +.M., the defendant 'reasurer notified the
Plant Manager of the plaintiff that he was -distraining 1, bags of +po cement in
satisfaction of your delin:uency in municipal license ta!es in the total amount of
P$%,&.- ... 'his notice was received by the acting officer in charge of the plaintiff;s
plant, <icente '. =araygay, according to his own admission. +t first, he was not in accord
with the said letter, as)ing the defendant 'reasurer for time to study the same, but in the
afternoon he >ac)nowledged the? distraint ...-
$
+s was noted in the decision, the defendant 'reasurer in turn -signed the receipt for goods,
articles or effects sei@ed under authority of 0ection $&% of the 3evised +dministrative
Code, certifying that he has constructively distrained on 2uly #, 1"#1 from the Cebu
Portland Cement Company at its plant at 'ina-an, Naga, Cebu, 1, bags of +po
cement in tan)s, and that -the said articles or goods will be sold at public auction to the
highest bidder on 2uly $A, 1"#1, and the proceeds thereof will be utili@ed in part satisfaction
of the account of the said company in municipal licenses and penalties in the total amount
of P$%,&. due the Municipality of Naga Province of Cebu- ...-
&
'he lower court li)ewise found as a fact that on the same day, 2uly #, 1"#1, the municipal
treasurer posted the notice of sale to the effect that pursuant to the provisions of 0ection
$&1 of the 3evised +dministrative Code, he would sell at public auction for cash to the
highest bidder at the main entrance of the municipal building of the Municipality of Naga,
Province of Cebu, Philippines on the $Ath day of 2uly, 1"#1, at " o;cloc) in the morning, the
property sei@ed and distrained or levied upon from the Cebu Portland Cement Company in
satisfaction of the municipal license ta!es and penalties in the amount of P$%,&.,
specifying that what was to be sold was 1, bags of +po cement.
%
No sale, as thus
announced, was held on 2uly $A, 1"#1. It was li)ewise stated in the appealed decision that
there was stipulation by the parties to this effect, -1. 'he auction sale too) place on 2anuary
&, 1"#$, ...-
1
In this appeal from the above (oint decision, plaintiff-appellant Cebu Portland Cement
Company upholds the view that the distraint of the 1, bags of cement as well as the
sale at public auction thereafter made ran counter to the law. +s earlier noted, we do not
see it that way.
1. On te !alidit" of te distraint 6 In the first two errors assigned, plaintiff-appellant
submits as illegal the distraint of 1, bags of cement made on 2uly #, 1"#1. Its
contention is premised on the fact that in the letter of defendant-appellee dated 2une $#,
1"#1, re:uiring plaintiff-appellant to settle its account of P$%,&., it was given a period
of 1 days from receipt within which it could pay, failure to do so being the occasion for the
distraint of its property. It is now alleged that the 1-day period of grace was not allowed to
lapse, the distraint having ta)en place on 2uly #, 1"#1.
It suffices to answer such a contention by referring to the e!plicit language of the law.
+ccording to the 3evised +dministrative Code, -'he remedy by distraint shall proceed as
follows, Bpon the failure of the person owing any municipal ta! or revenue to pay the same,
at the time re:uired, the municipal treasurer may sei@e and distrain any personal property
belonging to such person or any property sub(ect to the ta! lien, in sufficient :uantity to
satisfy the ta! or charge in :uestion, together with any increment thereto incident to
delin:uency, and the e!penses of the distraint.-
#
'he clear and e!plicit language of the law leaves no room for doubt. 'he municipal
treasurer -may sei@e and distrain any personal property- of the individual or entity sub(ect to
the ta! upon failure -to pay the same, at the time re:uired ...- 'here was such a failure on
the part of plaintiff-appellant to pay the municipal ta! at the time re:uired. 'he power of the
municipal treasurer in accordance with the above provision therefore came into play.#$%p&#.'t
*hatever might have been set forth in the letter of the municipal treasurer could not change
or amend the law it has to be enforced as written. 'hat was what the lower court did. *hat
was done then cannot be rightfully loo)ed upon as a failure to abide by what the statutory
provision re:uires. 'ime and time again, it has been repeatedly declared by this Court that
where the law spea)s in clear and categorical language, there is no room for interpretation.
'here is only room for application. 'hat was what occurred in this case.
A
$. On te !alidit" of te auction sale 6 'he validity of the auction sale held on 2anuary &,
1"#$ is challenged in the ne!t two errors assigned as allegedly committed by the lower
court. Plaintiff-appellant;s argument is predicated on the fact that it was not until 2anuary 1#,
1"#$ that it was notified that the public auction sale was to ta)e place on 2anuary $", 1"#$.
It is its view that under the 3evised +dministrative Code
7
the sale of the distrained property
cannot ta)e place -less than twenty days after notice to the owner or possessor of the
property >distrained? ... and the publication or posting of such notice.-
*hy such a contention could not prosper is e!plained clearly by the lower court in the
appealed decision. 'hus, -*ith respect to the claim that the auction sale held on 2anuary
&, 1"#$ pursuant to the distraint was null and void for being contrary to law because not
more than twenty days have elapsed from the date of notice, it is believed that the
defendant Municipality of Naga and Municipal 'reasurer of Naga have substantially
complied with the re:uirements provided for by 0ection $&1 of the 3evised +dministrative
Code. .rom the time that the plaintiff was first notified of the distraint on 2uly #, 1"#1 up to
the date of the sale on 2anuary &, 1"#$, certainly, more than twenty days have elapsed. If
the sale did not ta)e place, as advertised, on 2uly $A, 1"#1, but only on 2anuary &, 1"#$, it
was due to the re:uests for deferment made by the plaintiff which unduly delayed the
proceedings for collection of the ta!, and the said ta!payer should not be allowed now to
complain that the re:uired period has not yet elapsed when the intention of the ta! collector
was already well-publici@ed for many months.-
"
'he reasonableness of the above
observation of the lower court cannot be disputed. Bnder the circumstances, the allegation
that there was no observance of the twenty-day period hardly carries conviction.
'he point is further made that the auction sale too) place not on 2anuary $", 1"#$, as
stated in the notice of sale, but on the ne!t day, 2anuary &, 1"#$. +ccording to plaintiff-
appellant, -/n this score alone, the sale ..., was illegal as it was not made on the time
stated in the notice.-
1
'here is no basis to sustain such a plea as the finding of the lower court is otherwise. 'hus,
-/n 2anuary 1#, 1"#$, the defendant 'reasurer informed =araygay that he would cause the
readvertisement for sale at public auction of the 1, bags of +po cement which were
under constructive distraint ... /n 2anuary 1", 1"#$, the said defendant issued the
corresponding notice of sale, which fi!ed 2anuary &, 1"#$, at 1, +.M., as the date of
sale, posting the said notice in public places and delivering copies thereof to the interested
parties in the previous notice, ... Bltimately, the bidding was conducted on that day, 2anuary
&, 1"#$, with the representatives of the Provincial +uditor and Provincial 'reasurer
present. /nly two bidders submitted sealed bids. +fter the bidding, the defendant-treasurer
informed the plaintiff that an award was given to the winning bidder, ...-
11
'his being a direct appeal to us, plaintiff-appellant must be deemed to have accepted as
conclusive what the lower court found as established by the evidence, only :uestions of law
being brought to us for review. It is the established rule that when a party appeals directly to
this Court, he is deemed to have waived the right to dispute any finding of fact made by the
court below.
1$
*CD3D./3D, the decision of the lower court dated $&, 1"#%, is affirmed in toto. *ith costs
against plaintiff-appellant.#$%p&#.'t
(oncepcion, (.J., Re"es, J.B.L., )izon, Ma*alintal, +aldi!ar, ,ancez, (astro and -n.eles,
JJ., concur.
!oot"ot#s
1
4ecision of 2uly $&, 1"#% of the lower court, 3ecord on +ppeal, pp. 1##- 1#A.
$
/0id, pp. 1#A-1#7.
&
/0id, pp. 1#"-1A.
%
/0id, pp. 1A-1A1.
1
/0id, p. 1A$.
#
0ection $&%, +ct No. $A11 as amended.
A
Cf. 5i@arraga Cermanos v. Eap 'ico, $% Phil. 1% F1"1&G8 People v. Mapa, 5-$$&1,
+ugust &, 1"#A8 Pacific /!ygen and +cytelene Co. v. Central Han), 5-$1771, March
1, 1"#78 4e:uito v. 5ope@, 5-$AA1A, March $7, 1"#7.
7
-0ee. $&1. Proceedin.s su0sequent to seizure. 6 'he officer levying the distraint
shall ma)e or cause to be made an account of the goods or effects distrained, a
copy of which signed by himself shall be left either with the owner or person from
whose possession such goods or effects were ta)en, or at the dwelling or place of
business of such person and with some one of suitable age and discretion, to which
list shall be added a statement of the sum demanded and note of the time and place
of sale8 and the said officer shall forthwith cause a notification to be e!hibited in not
less than two public places in the municipality where the distraint was made,
specifying the time and place of sale and the articles distrained. 'he time of sale
shall not be less than twenty days after notice to the owner or possessor of the
property as above specified and the publication or posting of such notice. /ne place
for the posting of such notice shall be at the office of the mayor of the municipality in
which the property is distrained. +t the time and place fi!ed in such notice the said
officer shall sell the goods, or effects, so distrained, at public auction, to the highest
bidder for cash...- .
"
4ecision of the lower court, 3ecord on +ppeal, p. 17.
1
Hrief for Plaintiff-+ppellant, p. &A.
11
4ecision of 2uly $&, 1"#% of the lower court, p. 1A1.
1$
3epublic v. 5u@on 0tevedoring Corp., 5-$1A%", 0eptember $", 1"#A. 0ee also
Pere@ v. +raneta, 5-17%1%, 2uly 11, 1"#7 and the cases cited therein.