PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT

Lim, Jr. v. Lazaro

Ligon v. RTC Makati 56
Torres v. Satsatin
Mangila v. CA
Chuidan v. SB
Luzon Dev. Bank v.
Krishman
Northern Luzon Island Co.
v. Garcia

Excellent Quality Apparel

v. Visayan Surety

Watercraft Venture Corp

v. Wolfe
Phil Airconditioning
Center v. RCJ Lines
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Idolor v. CA
Gustilo v. Real

Lagrosas v. Bristo-Myers
Jenosa v. Delariarte
Solid Builders Inc, v. China
Bank
Plaza v. Lustiva
OMB v. De Chavez
Novecio v. Lim
Liberty Broadcasting Net
v. Atlocom
Rep v. Cortez
RECEIVERSHIP
Larrobis v. Phil Veterans
Bank

Tantano v. Espina-
Caboverde
Koruga v. Arcenas
Chavez v. CA
REPLEVIN
Orosa v. CA

Smart Comm. v. Astorga

Hao v. Andres
Navarro v. Escobido
Agner v. BPI Family
Savings Bank
SUPPORT
De Asis v. CA
People v. Manahan
Lim v. Lim
Gotardo v. Buling
Lim-Lua v. Lua
Rep. v. Yahon
Salas v. Matusalem

Del Socorro v. Van Wilsem

1
2
PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT
Lim, Jr. v. Lazaro
Ligon v. RTC Makati 56
Torres v. Satsatin
Mangila v. CA
Chuidan v. SB
Luzon Dev. Bank v.
Krishman
Northern Luzon Island Co.
v. Garcia

Excellent Quality Apparel

v. Visayan Surety

Watercraft Venture Corp

v. Wolfe
Phil Airconditioning
Center v. RCJ Lines
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Idolor v. CA
Gustilo v. Real

Lagrosas v. Bristo-Myers
Jenosa v. Delariarte
Solid Builders Inc, v. China
Bank
Plaza v. Lustiva
OMB v. De Chavez
Novecio v. Lim
Liberty Broadcasting Net
v. Atlocom
Rep v. Cortez
RECEIVERSHIP
Larrobis v. Phil Veterans
Bank

Tantano v. Espina-
Caboverde
Koruga v. Arcenas
Chavez v. CA
REPLEVIN
Orosa v. CA

Smart Comm. v. Astorga

Hao v. Andres
Navarro v. Escobido
Agner v. BPI Family
Savings Bank
SUPPORT
De Asis v. CA
People v. Manahan
Lim v. Lim
Gotardo v. Buling
Lim-Lua v. Lua
Rep. v. Yahon
Salas v. Matusalem

Del Socorro v. Van Wilsem

3
4
 PRELIMINARY MATTERS

Pepsi Cola Bottling v. Mun. Local Ordinance in Tanauan providing for Municipal Production Tax - 1/16 centavo per soda
Tanauan bottle corked and 1 centavo on each gallon of volume capacity, validity challenged

Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA) was created by virtue of Republic Act
No. 6958 for supervision of Mactan Airport
Sec 14 of Charter -> shall be exempt from realty taxes imposed by the National
Government or any of its political subdivisions, agencies and instrumentalities
Mactan Cebu Int'l Airport Levied MCIAA anyway,
Auth. v. Marcos MCIAA contended taxing powers of LGU do not extend to levy of taxes or fees on an
instrumentality of the national government.

Pet. Insisting that the MCIAA is a GOCC whose tax exemption privilege has been withdrawn
by virtue of Sections 193 and 234 of the LGC

MERALCO asked to pay franchise TX due to Prov. TX Ordinance

M contended PD 551 already included the franchise tax hence paid
MERALCO v.Prov. of
Laguna Sec 2.09 of Laguna Provincial Ordinance No. 01-92 imposition of franchise tax violative of
the non-impairment clause of the Constitution and Section 1 of Presidential Decree No.
551?

GOCC made by CA 120 develop hydroelectric generation of power, assessed franchise tax

> Refused because "as a Non-Profit Org, exempted from all froms of TCF - RA 6395, Sec.
NPC v. City of Cabanatuan 137/ 151 of the LGC in relation to section 131, limit the taxing power of the respondent
city government to private entities that are engaged in trade or occupation for profit,
"Instrumentality of Natl Gov't must be exempt"
< "Exemption from local taxes repealed by section 193 of Rep. Act No. 7160"

Bayan - Legislative franchise holder under RA 3259

Sec. 14 thereof - grantee liable to pay real estate, exclusive of franchise
City of QC v. Bayan But LGC took effect after giving QC power to levy tax on RP
Telecom QC enacted Revenue Code withdrawing TX Exempt Privileges

Is Bayantel's RP subject to RP TX?

Cebu made a Revised Omnibus TX ordininance requiring to pay amusement TX equivalent

to concerts boxing halls, theatres (30% gross receipts from admission fees)
Film Development Council A decade later, or on June 7, 2002, Congress passed RA 9167, creating the Film
B v. Colon Heritage Realty Development Council qf the Philippines (FDCP) and abolishing the Film Development
Foundation of the Philippines, and provided for the tax treatment of certain graded films as
follows:

5
 Ordinance 1 (1956) was approved by the municipal council of Victorias by way of an
Victiorias Miling Co. v. amendment to 2 municipal ordinances separately imposing license taxes on operators of
Mun. of Victorias sugar centrals and sugar refineries.
Validity Questioned since it "is the only operator of sugar central in the territory"

GENERAL PROVISIONS

x Film Development Council

v. Colon Heritage Realty

Ordinance No. 13 as amended imposing inspection fees (export tax) for every livestock
shipped between April and Dec.
Panaligan v.City Tacloban >"Illegal under Sec. 2287 of the Admin Code"
<"Required purely as a regulatory measure, and you should only reduce when the court
finds it excessive"

Zamboanga City Milling company uses Municipal Port in Malangas, ZDS which now has a
service fee via Municipal Revenue Code 09
Palma Dev't Corp. v. Mun. >"Municipal govts do not have authority to tax goods/vehicles passing by"
of Malangas

City Cebu v. IAC

Pet. owns depot or bulk plant at the Navotas Fishport in Navotas engaged in selling deisel
fuel
Petron v. Tianco Assessed:
>"exempt from local business taxes via Art 232 IRR of the code + ruling of the Bureau of
Local Government Finance

Assessed Taxes on Republic Cement for extracting limestone, shale and silica from several
parcels of private land
-Lower Court favored Republic Cement-
Prov. Bulacan v. CA
>"VIOLATIVE OF CIRCULAR 2-90", "UNJUSTLY DEPRIVED PETITIONER THE POWER TO
CREATE ITS OWN SOURCES OF REVENUE", "COLLATERAL ATTACK ON PROVINCIAL
ORDINANCE NO. 3"

Shell assesed business taxes and Mayor's Permit Fee for its manufacture and distribution of
petroleum products.
<"imposition disallowed, limitation provided under Section 133(h) of the LGC, permit is
Batangas City v. Pilipinas excessive"
Shell Corp >"Any kind of manufacture/distribution can be taxed by the LGU broadly via 143(h)

Allowed to impose business tax on person engaged in manufacture/distribution of

petroleum products?

x Pepsi ColaTanauan
Bottling v. Mun. Per Gallon vs Per Bottle Corked

6
 MO 45-46 imposing police inspection fee 0.30 per sack of Cassava Starch
produced/shipped - violation thereof = fine of 100-1000 and/or 20 days imprisonment
Matalin Coconut v. Mun
Counsil of Malabang >"Violative of RA2264, Unreasonable, Oppresive, Confiscatory"
>Purakan Plantation crippled operations to transport goods
>RTC voided the MO

Pet. owns a resort in Benguet but Revenue code S59, levying 10% amusement tax on gross
receipts from admissions to "resorts, swimming pools, bath houses, hot springs, tourist
spots imposed
Pelizloy Realty v. Prov of >"Violation of limitation of taxing powers of LGU shall not extend to levy of % and VAT on
Benguet sales, barters, similar XAOP
>"Ultra Vires Act"
<"Other places of amusement" covers resorts, swimming pools, bath houses, hot springs,
tourist spots - because of Defi. of "Amusement"

Grantee of Pipeline Concession applied for Mayor's Permit in Batangas

First PH Industrial Co. v. Assesed to pay Local Taxes however based on gross receipts.
CA >"Engaged in transportation business", tax refund case
<"Pipelines are not considered "common carrier" ordinarily for carriers or motor vehicles

10 Consolidated petitions of "transportation contractors"

B City Manila v. Colet
Manila Ord. 7807 Sec. 21(b) - business tax on "transportation contractors, persons who
transport passenger or freight for hire, common carriers by L/A/W 0.5% per annum
Compelled to pay before issued business permits
<"Contrary to Constitution and LGC"
>"Valid based on exempting clause S133 + S143 LGC

<"LGU allowed to collect reg. fees or charges, along with issuance of licenses/permits of
driving tricycle, then enacted
LTO v. City of Butuan <SP Ord. 916-42, Regulating Operation of Tricycles For Hire requiring payment of Franchise
Fees and permit for driving

PFDA liable for RPT on the Iloilo Fishing Port Complex owned by the PH, but governed by
the PFDA
EO 772 attached the PFDA to the Ministry of Natl Resources
MPWH reclaimed several resources and turned over to the IFPC
Philippine Fisheries Dev't Iloilo City Assessed the entire IFPC for RPT
v. CA later, DOF said: "The PFDA is liable for RPT for the BENEFICIAL USE of the IFPC, in satisfying
the amount, the property of the PFDA shall be auctioned

(1) PFDA liable?

(2) Can the IFPC be sold at a public auction?

Mactan Cebu Int'l Airport ra 6958, s1, MCIAA exempt from RPT of the Nat'l Gov't
x Auth. v. Marcos Treasurer: "LGC withdrew the tax exemption granted to GOCCs"

MIAA assessed
MIAA v. CA >"The gov't cannot tax itself"

X NPC v. City of Cabanatuan

Does the “in lieu of all taxes” provision in ABS-CBN's franchise exempt it from payment of
QC v. ABS-CBN the local franchise tax?
City Iriga v. Camarines Sur
III Elec. Inc.
Smart Comms v. City
Davao

7
 Pelizloy Realty v. Prov of
x Benguet
o PBA v. CA

Alta Vista Golf v. City Cebu

Ericsson Telco v. Pasig

Yamane v. BA Lepanto
City Manila v. Coca Cola
Bottlers
Alabang Supermaket Co.
v. Muntinlupa
Cagayan Elec. Power and
Light v. Cagayan
Mobil PH v. City Treasurer
Makati
Michigan Holdings v. City
Treasurer Makati
Pelizloy Realty v. Prov of
x Benguet
o PBA v. CA

Alta Vista Golf v. City Cebu

Ericsson Telco v. Pasig

Yamane v. BA Lepanto
City Manila v. Coca Cola
Bottlers

Mindanao Shopping
! Destination Corp. v.
Duterte
PLDT v. City Davao
REMEDIES
Drilon v. Lim
Cagayan Elec. Power and
x Light v. Cagayan
Smart Comms v. Mun.
Malvar
Coca-Cola Bottlers v.
Manila
San Juan v. Castro
PLDT v. Balanga City
China Banking v. City
Treasurer Manila

Mindanao Shopping
x Destination Corp. v. Davao
City

Angeles City v. Angeles

Electric Corp

8
Under the New Constitution, local governments are granted the autonomous authority to create their Source of LGU Taxing
own sources of revenue and to levy taxes. Section 5, Article XI provides
Authority
Hence, it widens the tax base of LGUs to cover forest and mineral tax rates

MCIAA Found to be taxable person due to the legislative intent behind the law

The power to tax is primarily vested in the Congress; however, in our jurisdiction, it may be exercised by
local legislative bodies Under the latter, the exercise of the power may be subject to such guidelines and
limitations as the Congress may provide which, however, must be consistent with the basic policy of local Limits of LGU Taxing
autonomy. The LGC, enacted pursuant to Section 3, Article X of the Constitution, provides for the exercise Powers
by local government units of their power to tax, the scope thereof or its limitations, and the exemptions
from taxation. Section 133 of the LGC prescribes the common limitations on the taxing powers of local
government units

Local governments do not have inherent power to tax

XPN: To the extent that such power might be delegated to them by basic law or by statute. Presently,
Article X of the 1987 Constitution -> a general delegation of that power has been given in favor of LGUs Effect of Transition to
1987 Constitution
The 1991 Code explicitly authorizes provincial governments, notwithstanding any exemption granted by
any law or other special law, x x x (to) impose a tax on businesses enjoying a franchise, The Code, in
addition, contains a general repealing clause in its Section 534

SC favors City:
to determine whether the petitioner is covered by the franchise tax in question, the following requisites
should concur: (1) that petitioner has a "franchise" in the sense of a secondary or special franchise; and (2)
that it is exercising its rights or privileges under this franchise within the territory of the respondent city
government.

GR: LGUs cannot impose taxes, fees or charges of any kind on the National Government, its agencies and
instrumentalities, this rule now admits an exception,
XPN When specific provisions of the LGC authorize the LGUs to impose taxes, fees or charges on the
aforementioned entities,

YES. In interpreting statutory provisions on municipal taxing powers, doubts must be resolved in favor of
municipal corporations.

"exclusive of this franchise” refers to those actually directly used in Telecom Business
and is the basis for Bayantel’s exemption from realty taxes prior to the LGC.
The Court views subsequent piece of legislation as an express real intention on the part of Congress to
once again remove from the LGC’s delegated taxing power, all of the franchisee’s (Bayantel’s) properties
that are actually, directly and exclusively used in the pursuit of its franchise.

Violative of Fiscal
Autonomy, power to The FDCP
budget/allocate
Unconstitutional >9167
impliedly
The authority of provinces, cities, and municipalities to create their own sources of revenue and to levy Shall innure solely to repealed
taxes, therefore, is not inherent and may be exercised only to the extent that such power might be Nenny
the benefit of the
delegated to them... either by the basic law or by statute. Pimentel,
LGU Coco Pimentel
Shall accrue
exclusively

9
Ordinance was NOT discriminatory since its made to apply o any sugar mill which Victria Milling happens WON SALE OF
to be the only one CINEMA
TICKETS VAT?
THERE WAS NO PREEMPTION SC: DC
Section 4(1) of Commonwealth Act 472 clearly and specifically allows municipal councils to tax persons Bawal because of Based on
engaged in "the same businesses or occupation" on which "fixed internal revenue privilege taxes" are Congress Intention, Congress
"regularly imposed by the National Government." With certain exceptions specified in Section 3 of the too burdensome for Intention, not
same statute. This case does not fall within the exceptions. It would therefore be futile to argue that the taxpayer subject to VAT
Congress exclusively reserved to the national government the right to impose the disputed taxes. because
subject to
Plaintiff has however not sufficiently proven that, taking these factors together, the license taxes are Amusement
unreasonable. The presumption of validity subsists. Taxdev

While it is true that Section 14 (e) of Republic Act No. 760 confers on the Municipal Board the power
(e) To fix the tariff of fees and charges for all services rendered by the city, or any of its department,
branches or officials,
Revealed that fees therein imposed are not by reason of the services performed by the Mayor or the
Veterinary Officer, but as an imposition on every head of the specified animals to be transported. The
ordinances in question make no reference to the purpose for which they were enacted, and that such
purpose was to preserve the public health or welfare of the residents.and people of the City of Tacloban
is a clear indication that leads Us to believe that the fees exacted were not as "a regulatory measure in
the: exercise of its police power, but for the purpose of raising revenue under the guise of license or
inspection fees.

Service Fee on vehicles using roads leading to wharf VALID

Service Fee on Goods NOT VALID, prohibited by section 133 (e) of RA 7160 (under the guise of wharfage
fees)

Toll Fee - Valid can be service fee, 153, as long as it is constructed by LGU
Police Surveilance Fee

Pet = NO MERIT
NIRC levies on all quarry resources, regardless of origin, whethe from public or private land.
A province may not ordinarily impose taxes on stones, sand, gravel, earth and other quarry resources, as
the same are already taxed under NIRC. But they can tax on stones, sand, gravel, earth and other quarry
resources extracted from public land because it is expressly empowered under LGC. IF extracted from
private land, however, it may not do so, because of the limitation provided by Section 133 of the Code in
relation to Section 151 of the National Internal Revenue Code.

NO. Though the power to tax is inherent in the State, the same is not true for LGUs , the same is not all
encompassing as it is subject to limitations as explicitly stated in Section 5, Article X of the 1987 Consti

a municipal corporation not clothed with inherent power of taxation. The charter or statute must plainly
show an intent to confer that power or the municipality, cannot assume it. And the power when granted is
to be construed in strictissimi juris.

Such TX on Petroleum Products are already provided for in the NIRC even as excise

10
MO is VOID, Tax should be based on sales, not in the quantity of goods yet to be sold.

Tax Levied, should be for public purposes, just and uniform

Prov. Benguet can impose BUT the resort is NOT COVERED

Amusement TX are Percentage TX, by the principle of Ejusdem Generis
Resorts, swimming pools, bath houses, hot springs and tourist spots cannot be considered venues
primarily "where one seeks admission to entertain oneself by seeing or viewing the show or
performances". While it is true that they may be venues where people are visually engaged, they are not
primarily venues for their proprietors or operators to actively display, stage or present shows and/or
performances.

Is a Pipeline Business a "Common Carrier"?

YES Franchise Tax,
Enjoying Local
1732 CC, any person (1) engaged in the business of carrying goods for others as a public employment, hold Exception to 137 Transfer Tax
himself out as ready to engage therein as a business S 137 of the
(2) Undertake to carry goods which he is confined in business (3) Undertake to carry by the method by LGC
which his business is conducted (4) Transportation must be for hire

UNCONSTITUTIONAL, Sanggunian was specifically prohibited from doing so

Power to Tax must be delegated by Congress and exercised within such guidelines
In Pilipinas
Sec. 130 of the LGC provides for the fundamental principles Shell Case
Sec. 133 (j) - UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED taxing power shall not extend to "taxes on gross receipts of 133h v. 143h
transportation contractors and persons engaged in the transportation of passengers or freight by hire and
common carriers by L/A/W U Rare case of
LGU losing
133 prevails over 143 in the LGC
143 is merely the general power of municipality to tax businesses

Baka pwede i register ang munisipyo an

Registration
Driver's License - LTO
Butuan may NOT issue license and permit and collect fees for the operation of tricycle
Franchising -> Tricycles only
LTFRB
Aim - curb accidents in national highways concerning tricycles
It is toprevent accidnets in the highway
Police Power different from Taxation, the grant of one does not necessarily grant with it the other
The power over tricycles granted under section 458 (8) (3) (VI) of the local government code to LGUs is the
power to regulate their operation and to grant franchises for the operation thereof. LTFRB, better at loca level
Cannot devolve LTO Register
-Doubt as to ownership
-Registered in Makati, Licensed in Quiap

(1) Qualified, the PFDA is an Instrumentality, NOT a GOCC, generally exempt from RPT
BUT it does not apply to portions of IFPC which the PFDA leased to private entities - in such way, the PFDA
is liable to pay RPT

(2) The IFPC, a property of public dominion cannot be sold at a public auction to satisfy tax delinquency

Cebu can impose taxes. Exemption is the Exception, the exemption may be withdrawn at the pleasure of
the taxing auhority.

The MIAA is not a GOCC, it is a Instrumentality

RPT assessments to MIAA are VOID EXCEPT those pertaining to portions of the airport leased to private
parties

11
12
Notes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LOCK

Each localThere is n The power

Legislativ The diffe The intention of the Municipal Council of TaSanctioned by Immemmorial Practice, t

Section 2 Local govexemptionsExemptedxempted

f frAll other all machi Government
From Section 133, in relation to Section 234, of the LGC that the legislature meant to

Sec. 137. s, the Loc Section 19(f)All general and special laws, acts, city charters, decrees, executive orders, proclamations and administrative regulations, or
It is still delegated. = Indirect Authority

respondent city government has the authority to issue Ordinance No. 165-92 and impose an annual tax on "businesses enjoying a franchise,"
Sec. 193. Basco CasThis para section 1a franchisursuant to this mandate, petitioner generates power and sells electricity in bulk. Certainly, these
Notwithstanding any exemption granted by any law or other special law, the province may impose a tax on businesses enjoying a franchise,

7633 was enacted subsequent to the LGC

13
We rule that there is no preemption.
Preemption in the matter of taxation simply refers to an instance where the national government elects to tax a particular area, impliedly withholding from

Treating the amounts collected in the case at bar as license fees, assert that in the determination of the reasonableness, of a license f
it must be remembered that there are 3 classes of licenses, each with distinct characteristics: (1) licenses for the regulation of usef
constitut IMPOSIN (2) licenses for the regulation or restriction of non-useful occupations or enterprises (PP); and
(3) licenses for revenue (purposes) only.

They tried to mask it na parang, hindi

kailganan maningil yan
We are trying to protect our
constituents

Sec. 134. Scope of Taxing Powers. - Except as otherwise provided in this Code, the province may levy only the taxes, fees, and charges a
petitioners cannot claim thatTax
theon
appellate courtand
unjustly
Otherdeprived them of the- The
power to create
maytheir
levysources of revenue, their assessment of(10%)
taxes agains
Section 21Sec. 138. Sand, Gravel Quarry Resources. province and collect not more than ten percent of fair

The specific exemption

Second, Articlein232(h)
Sec 133ofprevails
the Implementing
over sec 143.
Rules
Strictly
and speaking,
Regulations
as (IRR)
long as
of the LGC
subject
of 1991defines
matter of thewith
taxing
more
powers
particularity
of the LGUs
the capacity
is the petroleum
of a mun

14
 Section 131 (c) of the LGC already provides a clear definition: "Amusement Places" include theaters, cinemas, concert halls, circuses and other places of am

SEC. 133. Common Limitations on the Taxing Powers of Local Government Units. –
Unless otherwise provided herein, the exercise of the taxing powers of provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays shall not extend to the levy of the fo

xxxx

(j) Taxes on the gross receipts of transportation contractors and persons engaged in the transportation of passengers or freight by hire and common carrie

SEC. 143. Gives

Tax oneffect that –it The
shallmunicipality
be construed in favor of the taxpayer and strictly against the LGY enacting it
Business. may impose taxes on the following businesses:

xxxx

(h) On any business, not otherwise specified in the preceding paragraphs, which the sanggunian concerned may deem proper to tax: Provided, That on an

The sanggunian
Baka pwede i register ang munisipyo concerned may prescribe a schedule of graduated tax rates but in no case to exceed the rates prescribed herein. (Emphases supplied by th
ang tricycles

Registration
Driver's License - LTO
Franchising -> Tricycles only
LTFRB "Regulate" means fix,establish, control,
It is toprevent accidnets in the "Franchise" - special privilege to do certain things conferred by government on an individual/corp, and does not belong to citizens generally
highways - record
"Register" formally/exactly
LTFRB, better at loca level
Cannot devolve LTO Register
-Doubt as to ownership
-Registered in Makati, Licensed in Quiapo

In the MIAA case, petitioner Philippine Fisheries Development Authority was cited as among the instrumentalities of the national government. Thus
it has no agency of the Autho unlike GOCCs, instrumentalities of the national government, like MIAA,
Sentralare
ngexempt from local taxes
Ricepursuant
ResearchtoInsti
Se
Some of the national government instrumentalities vested by law with juridical personalities are: Bangko Pilipinas, Philippine

SEC. 133. The

Common
savingLimitations
clause in Section
on the 133
Taxing
refers
Powers
to the
of exception
Local Government
to the exemption
Units. Unless
in Section
otherwise
234(a)
provided
of the Code,
herein,
which
the exercise
makes the
of the
national
taxinggovernment
powers of prs

xxxx SEC. 234. In Chavez v. Public

Exemptions Estates
from Real Authority
Property it was
Tax The held that
following arereclaimed
exemptedlands
from are lands of the public
payment domaintax:
real property and cannot, without Congressiona

(o) Taxes, (a)

feesReal
or charges
propertyofowned
any kinds
by the
on the
Republic
National
of the
Government,
Philippinesits
or agencies
any of itsand
political
instrumentalities,
subdivisions except
and local
when
government
the beneficial
unitsuse thereof has been gra

15
16
 Congress cannot enact a law taking away

the LGC that the legislature meant to exclude instrumentalities of the national government from the taxing powers of the local government units.

Can it be
direct, and
indirect at the
same time?
General
Delegation,
not direct
Importance?

sells electricity in bulk. Certainly, these activities do not partake of the sovereign functions of the government. They are purely private and commercial undertakings, albeit imbued with p

17
ticular area, impliedly withholding from the local government the delegated power to tax the same field. This doctrine primarily rests upon the intention of Congress. 35 Conversely, shou

n of the reasonableness, of a license fee,

(1) licenses for the regulation of useful occupations or enterprises (PP);

What is the
technique?
Tax on
vehicle?
VALID
Tax on goods?
BAWAL S133

evy only the taxes, fees, and charges as provided in this Article.

ot more than ten percent (10%) of fair market value in the locality per cubic meter of ordinary stones, sand, gravel, earth, and other quarry resources, as defined under the National Inter

more particularity the capacity of a municipality to impose taxes on businesses. However, it admits of certain exceptions, specifically, that businesses engaged in the production, manufactu

18
rt halls, circuses and other places of amusement where one seeks admission to entertain oneself by seeing or viewing the show or performances.

ong to citizens generally

xempt from local taxes pursuant to Section 133(o) of the Local Government Code. This exemption, however, admits of an exception with respect to real property taxes. Applying Section 2

ain and cannot, without Congressional fiat, be subject of a sale

19
al undertakings, albeit imbued with public interest.

20
tion of Congress. 35 Conversely, should Congress allow municipal corporations to cover fields of taxation it already occupies, then the doctrine of preemption will not apply.

, as defined under the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended, extracted from public lands or from the beds of seas, lakes, rivers, streams, creeks, and other public waters within its

ngaged in the production, manufacture, refining, distribution or sale of oil, gasoline, and other petroleum products, shall not be subject to any local tax imposed by Article 232

21
eal property taxes. Applying Section 234(a) of the Local Government Code, the Court ruled that when an instrumentality of the national government grants to a taxable person the benefi

22
mption will not apply.

ks, and other public waters within its territorial jurisdiction.

ax imposed by Article 232

23
grants to a taxable person the beneficial use of a real property owned by the Republic, said instrumentality becomes liable to pay real property tax.

24
PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT
Lim, Jr. v. Lazaro
Ligon v. RTC Makati 56
Torres v. Satsatin
Mangila v. CA
Chuidan v. SB
Luzon Dev. Bank v.
Krishman
Northern Luzon Island Co.
v. Garcia

Excellent Quality Apparel

v. Visayan Surety

Watercraft Venture Corp

v. Wolfe
Phil Airconditioning
Center v. RCJ Lines
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Idolor v. CA
Gustilo v. Real

Lagrosas v. Bristo-Myers
Jenosa v. Delariarte
Solid Builders Inc, v. China
Bank
Plaza v. Lustiva
OMB v. De Chavez
Novecio v. Lim
Liberty Broadcasting Net
v. Atlocom
Rep v. Cortez
RECEIVERSHIP
Larrobis v. Phil Veterans
Bank

Tantano v. Espina-
Caboverde
Koruga v. Arcenas
Chavez v. CA
REPLEVIN
Orosa v. CA

Smart Comm. v. Astorga

Hao v. Andres
Navarro v. Escobido
Agner v. BPI Family
Savings Bank
SUPPORT
De Asis v. CA
People v. Manahan
Lim v. Lim
Gotardo v. Buling
Lim-Lua v. Lua
Rep. v. Yahon
Salas v. Matusalem

Del Socorro v. Van Wilsem

25
26
PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT
Lim, Jr. v. Lazaro
Ligon v. RTC Makati 56
Torres v. Satsatin
Mangila v. CA
Chuidan v. SB
Luzon Dev. Bank v.
Krishman
Northern Luzon Island Co.
v. Garcia

Excellent Quality Apparel

v. Visayan Surety

Watercraft Venture Corp

v. Wolfe
Phil Airconditioning
Center v. RCJ Lines
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Idolor v. CA
Gustilo v. Real

Lagrosas v. Bristo-Myers
Jenosa v. Delariarte
Solid Builders Inc, v. China
Bank
Plaza v. Lustiva
OMB v. De Chavez
Novecio v. Lim
Liberty Broadcasting Net
v. Atlocom
Rep v. Cortez
RECEIVERSHIP
Larrobis v. Phil Veterans
Bank

Tantano v. Espina-
Caboverde
Koruga v. Arcenas
Chavez v. CA
REPLEVIN
Orosa v. CA

Smart Comm. v. Astorga

Hao v. Andres
Navarro v. Escobido
Agner v. BPI Family
Savings Bank
SUPPORT
De Asis v. CA
People v. Manahan
Lim v. Lim
Gotardo v. Buling
Lim-Lua v. Lua
Rep. v. Yahon
Salas v. Matusalem

Del Socorro v. Van Wilsem

27
28
PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT
Lim, Jr. v. Lazaro
Ligon v. RTC Makati 56
Torres v. Satsatin
Mangila v. CA
Chuidan v. SB
Luzon Dev. Bank v.
Krishman
Northern Luzon Island Co.
v. Garcia

Excellent Quality Apparel

v. Visayan Surety

Watercraft Venture Corp

v. Wolfe
Phil Airconditioning
Center v. RCJ Lines
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Idolor v. CA
Gustilo v. Real

Lagrosas v. Bristo-Myers
Jenosa v. Delariarte
Solid Builders Inc, v. China
Bank
Plaza v. Lustiva
OMB v. De Chavez
Novecio v. Lim
Liberty Broadcasting Net
v. Atlocom
Rep v. Cortez
RECEIVERSHIP
Larrobis v. Phil Veterans
Bank

Tantano v. Espina-
Caboverde
Koruga v. Arcenas
Chavez v. CA
REPLEVIN
Orosa v. CA

Smart Comm. v. Astorga

Hao v. Andres
Navarro v. Escobido
Agner v. BPI Family
Savings Bank
SUPPORT
De Asis v. CA
People v. Manahan
Lim v. Lim
Gotardo v. Buling
Lim-Lua v. Lua
Rep. v. Yahon
Salas v. Matusalem

Del Socorro v. Van Wilsem

29
30
LGU Power to Tax Not inherent in
Constitution Each LG shall have the power to create own resourcessources of revenues and to
Even if there is a law allowin
### Such taxes, fees, and charges shall accrue exclusively to the local governments
### Similar 1987

Before LGU can exercise

the power to tax, wait
for enabling law
They lobby 1935 No similar
Each delegation
LG shall exercise of
itstax powers
power was provided,
to create and local
its own sources of government
revenue andunits inst
to levy t
LGC 129 Such taxes, fees, charges shall accrue exclusively to the LGU

Direct Authority or Delegated?

Doctrine of Pre-Emption or Exclusionary Rule

130 Fundamental Principles

Common Limitations
143 Income Tax
Doc Stamp Tax
135 Transfer Tax
Customs Duties
155 T/F/C on Goods Passing Through Territory
T/F/C on products sold by marginal farmers of fishermen
Taxes on BOI-Registered Enterprises
Excise Taxes under the NIRC/TFC on Petroleum Products
 DIRECT Need not an enabling law
esourcessources of revenues and to levy taxes, fees, charges subject toINDIRECT Inherently
such guidelines legislative
as Congress may provide, consistent with the basic p
usively to the local governments

ded, and local

wn sources of government
revenue and units instead
to levy taxes,derived their tax
fees, charges powers
subject under
to the a limitedherein,
provisions statutory authority
consistent with the basic policy of local autonomy.
ely to the LGU

Inure solely to the benefit of the LGU

As far as Practicable, evolve a Progressive System
Levied und Under TCC ContravenesSpecial Laws
consistent with the basic policy of local autonomy.

policy of local autonomy.