[No.L9637.

April30,1957]
AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY, plaintiff and appellant, vs. CITY OF
MANILA,defendantandappellee.
1. 1.
STATUTES;SIMULTANEOUSREPEALANDREENACTMENT;EFFECTOF
REPEALUPONRIGHTSANDLIABILITIESWHICHACCRUEDUNDER
THEORIGINALSTATUTE.Wheretheoldstatuteisrepealedinitsentirety
andbythesameenactmentreenactsallorcertainportionsofthepreexisting
law,themajorityviewholdsthattherightsandliabilitieswhich.haveaccrued
undertheoriginalstatutearepreservedandmaybeenforced,sincethere
enactmentneutralizestherepeal,thereforecontinuingthelawinforcewithout
interruption.(Crawford,StatutoryConstruction,Sec.322).Inthecaseatbar,
OrdinancesNos.2529and3000oftheCityofManilawereenactedbythe
MunicipalBoardoftheCityofManilabyvirtueofthepowergrantedtoitby
section2444,Subsection(m2)oftheRevisedAdministrativeCode,
supersededonJune18,1949,bysection18,Subsection(o)ofRepublicAct
No.409,knownastheRevisedCharteroftheCityofManila.Theonly
essentialdifferencebetweenthesetwoprovisionsisthatwhileSubsection(m
2)prescribesthatthecombinedtotaltaxofanydealerormanufacturer,orboth,
enumeratedunderSubsections(m1)and(m2),whetherdealinginoneorall
ofthearticlesmentionedtherein,shallnotbeinexcessofP500perannum,the
correspondingSection18,subsection(o)ofRepublicActNo.409,doesnot
containanylimitationastotheamountoftaxorlicensefeethattheretail
dealerhastopayperannum.Hence,andinaccordancewiththeweightof
authoritiesaforementioned,CityordinancesNos.2529and3000arestillin
forceandeffect.
2. 2.
MUNICIPALTAX;RETAILDEALERSINGENERALMERCHANDISE;
ORDINANCEPRESCRIBINGTAXNEEDNOTBEAPPROVEDBYTHE'
PRESIDENTTOBEEFFECTIVE.Thebusinessof"retaildealersin
VOL.101,APRIL30,1957

387

387
AmericanBibleSocietyvs.CityofManila

1. generalmerchandise"isexpresslyenumeratedinsubsection(o),section18of
RepublicActNo.409:hence.anordinanceprescribingamunicipaltaxonsaid
businessdoesnothavetobeapprovedbythePresidenttobeeffective,asitis

notamongthosebusinessesreferredtoinsubsection (ii) Section18ofthe

sameActsubjecttotheapprovalofthePresident.
2. 3.
CONSTITUTIONALLAW;RELIGIOUSFREEDOM;DlSSEMINATIONOF
RELIGIOUSINFORMATION,WHENMAYBERESTRAINED;
PAYMENTOFLlCENSEFEE,IMPAIRSFREEEXERCISEOFRELIGION.
Theconstitutionalguarantyofthefreeexerciseandenjoymentofreligious
professionandworshipcarrieswithittherighttodisseminatereligious
information.Anyrestraintofsuchrightcanonlybejustifiedlikeother
restraintsoffreedomofexpressiononthegroundsthatthereisaclearand
presentdangerofanysubstantiveevilwhichtheStatehastherighttoprevent."
(TaadaandFernandoontheConstitutionofthePhilippines,Vol.I,4thed.,p.
297).Inthecaseatbar,plaintiffisengagedinthedistributionandsalesof
biblesandreligiousarticles.TheCityTreasurerofManilainformedthe
plaintiffthatitwasconductingthebusinessofgeneralmerchandisewithout
providingitselfwiththenecessaryMayor'spermitandmunicipallicense,in
violationofOrdinanceNo.3000,asamended,andOrdinanceNo.2529,as
amended,andrequiredplaintifftosecurethecorrespondingpermitandlicense.
Plaintiffprotestedagainstthisrequirementandclaimedthatitnevermadeany
profitfromthesaleofitsbibles.Held:Itistruethepriceaskedforthe
religiousarticleswasinsomeinstancesalittlebithigherthantheactualcostof
thesame,butthiscannotmeanthatplaintiffwasengagedinthebusinessor
occupationofsellingsaid"merchandise"forprofit.Forthisreasons,the
provisionsofCityOrdinanceNo.2529,asamended,whichrequiresthe
paymentoflicensefeeforconductingthebusinessofgeneralmerchandise,
cannotbeappliedtoplaintiffsociety,forindoingso,itwouldimpairitsfree
exerciseandenjoymentofitsreligiousprofessionandworship,aswellasits
rightsofdisseminationofreligiousbeliefs.Upontheotherhand,City
OrdinanceNo.3000,asamended,whichrequirestheobtentionoftheMayor's
permitbeforeanypersoncanengageinanyofthebusinesses,tradesor
occupationsenumeratedtherein,doesnotimposeanychargeuponthe
enjoymentofarightgrantedbytheConstitution,nortaxtheexerciseof
religiouspractices.Hence,itcannotbeconsideredunconstitutional,evenif
appliedtoplaintiffSociety.ButasOrdinanceNo.2529isnotapplicableto
plain
388

388
PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATED
AmericanBibleSocietyvs.CityofManila,

1. tiffandtheCityofManilaispowerlesstolicenseortaxthebusinessofplaintiff
societyinvolvedherein,forthereasonsabovestated,OrdinanceNo.3000is
alsoinapplicabletosaidbusiness,tradeoroccupationoftheplaintiff.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila.

Bayona,J.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
CityFiscalEugenioAngelesandJuanNabongforappellant.
AssistantCityFiscalArsenioNaawaforappellee.
FLIX,J.:
Plaintiffappellantisaforeign,nonstock,nonprofit,religious,missionary
corporationdulyregisteredanddoingbusinessinthePhilippinesthrough
itsPhilippineagencyestablishedinManilainNovember,1898,withits
principalofficeat636IsaacPeralinsaidCity.Thedefendantappelleeisa
municipalcorporationwithpowersthataretobeexercisedinconformity
with the provisions of Republic Act No. 409, known as the Revised
CharteroftheCityofManila.
In the course of its ministry, plaintiff's Philippine agency has been
distributing and selling bibles and/or gospel portions thereof (except
duringtheJapaneseoccupation)throughoutthePhilippinesandtranslating
thesameintoseveralPhilippinedialects.OnMay29,1953,theactingCity
TreasureroftheCityofManilainformedplaintiffthatitwasconducting
the business of general merchandise since November, 1945, without
providingitselfwiththenecessaryMayor'spermitandmunicipallicense,
in violation ofOrdinanceNo.3000,asamended, andOrdinancesNos.
2529,3028and3364,andrequiredplaintifftosecure,withinthreedays,
the corresponding permit and license fees, together with compromise
coveringtheperiodfromthe4thquarterof1945tothe2ndquarterof
1953,inthetotalsumofP5,821.45(AnnexA).
VOL.101,APRIL30,1957

389
389

AmericanBibleSocietyvs.CityofManila

Plaintiff protested against this requirement, but the City Treasurer

demanded that plaintiff deposit and pay under protest the sum of
P5,891.45,ifsuitwastobetakenincourtregardingthesame(AnnexB).
Toavoidtheclosingofitsbusinessaswellasfurtherfinesandpenalties
inthepremises,onOctober24,1953,plaintiffpaidtothedefendantunder
protest the said permit and license fees in the aforementioned amount,
givingatthesametimenoticetotheCityTreasurerthatsuitwouldbe
takenincourttoquestionthelegalityoftheordinancesunderwhich,the
saidfeeswerebeingcollected(AnnexC),whichwasdoneonthesame
datebyfilingthecomplaintthatgaverisetothisaction.Initscomplaint
plaintiff prays that judgment be rendered declaring the said Municipal
OrdinanceNo.3000,asamended,andOrdinancesNos.2529,3028and
3364 illegal and unconstitutional, and that the defendant be ordered to
refundtotheplaintiffthesumofP5,891.45paidunderprotest,together
withlegalinterestthereon,andthecosts,plaintifffurtherprayingforsuch
otherreliefandremedyasthecourtmaydeemjustandequitable.
Defendant answered the complaint, maintaining in turn that said
ordinanceswereenactedbytheMunicipalBoardoftheCityofManilaby
virtueofthepowergrantedtoitbysection2444,subsection(m2)ofthe
RevisedAdministrativeCode,supersededonJune18,1949,bysection18,
subsection(1)ofRepublicActNo.409,knownastheRevisedCharterof
theCityofManila,andprayingthatthecomplaintbedismissed,withcosts
againstplaintiff.Thisanswerwasrepliedbytheplaintiffreiteratingthe
unconstitutionalityoftheoftenrepeatedordinances.
Beforetrialthepartiessubmittedthefollowingstipulationoffacts:
"COMENOWthepartiesintheaboveentitledcase,thrutheirundersignedattorneys
andrespectfullysubmitthefollowingstipulationoffacts:
1.Thattheplaintiffsoldfortheuseofthepurchasersatitsprincipalofficeat636
IsaacPeral,Manila,Bibles,NewTestaments,
390

390
PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATED
AmericanBibleSocietyvs.CityofManila

bibleportionsandbibleconcordanceinEnglishandotherforeignlanguagesimported
byitfromtheUnitedStatesaswellasBibles,NewTestamentsandbibleportionsin
thelocaldialectsimportedand/orpurchasedlocally;thatfromthefourthquarterof

1945tothefirstquarterof1953inclusivethesalesmadebytheplaintiffwereas
follows:

Amount
ofSales
4thquarter1945
............................................................
P1,244.21
1stquarter1946
............................................................
2,206.85
2ndquarter1946
............................................................
1,950.38
3rdquarter1946
.............................................................
2,235.99
4thquarter1946
............................................................
3,256.04
1stquarter1947
............................................................
13,241.07
2ndquarter1947
............................................................
15,774.55
3rdquarter1947
.............................................................
14,654.13
4thquarter1947
.............................................................
12,590.94
1stquarter1948
.............................................................
11,143.90
2ndquarter1948
.............................................................
14,715.26
3rdquarter1948
.............................................................
38,333.83
4thquarter1948
.............................................................
16,179.90

Quarter

1stquarter1949
.............................................................
23,975.10
2ndquarter1949
.............................................................
17,802.08
3rdquarter1949
.............................................................
16,640.79
4thquarter1949
.............................................................
15,961.38
1stquarter1950
.............................................................
18,562.46
2ndquarter1950
.............................................................
21,816.32
3rdquarter1950
.............................................................
25,004.55
4thquarter1950
.............................................................
45,287.92
1stquarter1951
.............................................................
37,841.21
2ndquarter1951
.............................................................
29,103.98
3rdquarter1951
.............................................................
20181.10
4thquarter1951
.............................................................
22,968.91
1stquarter1952
.............................................................
23,002.65
2ndquarter1952
.............................................................
17,626.96
3rdquarter1952
............................................................
17,921.01
4thquarter1952

.............................................................
2418072
1stquarter1953
.............................................................
s29,516.21

2.Thatthepartiesherebyreservetherighttopresentevidenceofother
factsnothereinstipulated.
WHEREFORE,itisrespectfullyprayedthatthiscasebesetforbehalf.
sothepartiesmaypresentfurtherevidenceontheirbehalf.(Recordon
Appeal,pp.1516)"
VOL.101,APRIL30,1957

391
391

AmericanBibleSocietyvs.CityofManila,

Whenthecasewassetforhearing,plaintiffproved,amongotherthings,
thatithasbeeninexistenceinthePhilippinessince1899,andthatits
parent society is in New York, United States of America; that its
contiguous real properties located at Isaac Peral are exempt from real
estatetaxes;andthatitwasneverrequiredtopayanymunicipallicense
feeortaxbeforethewar,nordoestheAmericanBibleSocietyinthe
UnitedStatespayanylicensefeeorsalestaxforthesaleofbibletherein.
Plaintifffurthertriedtoestablishthatitnevermadeanyprofitfromthe
saleofitsbibles,whicharedisposedofforaslowasonethirdofthecost,
and that in order to maintain its operating cost it obtains substantial
remittancesfromitsNewYorkofficeandvoluntarycontributionsandgifts
fromcertainchurches,bothintheUnitedStatesandinthePhilippines,
which are interested in its missionary work. Regarding plaintiff's
contentionoflackofprofitinthesaleofbibles,defendantretortsthatthe
admissions of plaintiffappellant's lone witness who testified on cross
examinationthatbiblesbearingthepriceof70centseachfromplaintiff
appellant'sNewYorkofficearesoldherebyplaintiffappellantatP1.30
each;thosebearingthepriceof$4.50eacharesoldhereatP10each;those
bearingthepriceof$7eacharesoldhereatP15each;andthosebearing
thepriceof$11eacharesoldhereatP22each,clearlyshowthatplaintiff's
contention that it never makes any profit from the sale of its bible, is
evidentlyuntenable.
AfterhearingtheCourtrenderedjudgment,thelastpartofwhichisas
follows:

"Asmaybeseenfromtherepealedsection(m2)oftheRevisedAdministrativeCode
andtherepealingportions(o)ofsection18ofRepublicActNo.409,althoughthey
seeminglydifferinthewaythelegislativeintentisexpressed,yettheirmeaningis
practicallythesameforthepurposeoftaxingthemerchandisementionedinsaid
legalprovisions,andthatthetaxestobeleviedbysaidordinancesisinthenatureof
percentagegraduatedtaxes(Sec.3ofOrdinanceNo.3000,asamended,andSec.1,
Group2,ofOrdinanceNo.2529,asamendedbyOrdinanceNo.3364).
392

392
PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATED
AmericanBibleSocietyvs.CityofManila

INVIEWOFTHEFOREGOINGCONSIDERATIONS,thisCourtisof
theopinionandsoholdsthatthiscaseshouldbedismissed,asitishereby
dismissed,forlackofmerits,withcostsagainsttheplaintiff."
NotsatisfiedwiththisverdictplaintifftookupthemattertotheCourt
ofAppealswhichcertifiedthecasetoUsforthereasonthattheerrors
assignedtothelowerCourtinvolvedonlyquestionsoflaw.
AppellantcontendsthatthelowerCourterred:
1. 1.
InholdingthatOrdinancesNos.2529and3000,asrespectively
amended,arenotunconstitutional;
2. 2.
Inholdingthatsubsectionm2ofSection2444oftheRevised
AdministrativeCodeunderwhichOrdinancesNos.2529and3000
werepromulgated,wasnotrepealedbySection18ofRepublicAct
No.409;
3. 3.
Innotholdingthatanordinanceprovidingforpercentagetaxesbasedon
grosssalesorreceipts,inordertobevalidunderthenewCharterof
theCityofManila,mustfirstbeapprovedbythePresidentofthe
Philippines;and
4. 4.
Inholdingthat,asthesalesmadebytheplaintiffappellanthaveassumed
commercialproportions,itcannotescapefromtheoperationofsaid
municipalordinancesunderthecloakofreligiousprivilege.
Theissues.Asmaybeseenfromtheprecedingstatementofthecase,the
issues involved in the present controversy may be reduced to the

following:(1)whetherornottheordinancesoftheCityofManila,Nos.
3000,asamended,and2529,3028and3364,areconstitutionalandvalid;
and(2)whethertheprovisionsofsaidordinancesareapplicableornotto
thecaseatbar.
Section 1, subsection (7) of Article III of the Constitution of the
RepublicofthePhilippines,providesthat:
"(7)Nolawshallbemaderespectinganestablishmentofreligion,orprohibitingthe
freeexercisethereof,andthefreeexerciseandenjoymentofreligiousprofessionand
worship,withoutdiscriminationorpreference,shallforeverbeallowed.Noreligion
testshallberequiredfortheexerciseofcivilorpoliticalrights."
VOL.101,APRIL30,1957

393
393

AmericanBibleSocietyvs.CityofManila

Predicatedonthisconstitutionalmandate,plaintiffappellantcontendsthat
Ordinances Nos. 2529 and 3000, as respectively amended, are
unconstitutionalandillegalinsofarasitssocietyisconcerned,because
theyprovideforreligiouscensorshipandrestrainthefreeexerciseand
enjoymentofitsreligiousprofession,towit:thedistributionandsaleof
biblesandotherreligiousliteraturetothepeopleofthePhilippines.
Before entering into a discussion of the constitutional aspect of the
case,Weshallfirstconsidertheprovisionsofthequestionedordinancesin
relationtotheirapplicationtothesaleofbibles,etc.byappellant.The
recordsshowthatbyletterofMay29,1953(AnnexA),theCityTreasurer
required plaintiff to secure a Mayor's permit in connection with the
society'sallegedbusinessofdistributingandsellingbibles,etc.andtopay
permitduesinthesumofP35fortheperiodcoveredinthislitigation,plus
thesumofP35forcompromiseonaccountofplaintiffsfailuretosecure
the permit required by Ordinance No.. 3000 of the City of Manila, as
amended. This Ordinance is of general application andnot particularly
directedagainstinstitutionsliketheplaintiff,anditdoesnotcontainany
provisionswhatsoeverprescribingreligiouscensorshipnorrestrainingthe
free exercise and enjoyment of any religious profession. Section 1 of
OrdinanceNo.3000readsasfollows:
"SEC.1.PERMITSNECESSARY.Itshallbeunlawfulforanypersonorentityto
conduct or engage in anyof the businesses, trades, or occupationsenumerated in
Section3ofthisOrdinanceorotherbusinesses,trades,oroccupationsforwhicha

permitisrequiredforthepropersupervisionandenforcementofexistinglawsand
ordinances governing the sanitation, security, and welfare of the public and the
healthoftheemployeesengagedinthebusinessspecifiedinsaidsection3hereof,
WITHOUT FIRST HAVING OBTAINED APERMIT THEREFOR FROM THE
MAYORANDTHENECESSARYLICENSEFROMTHECITYTREASURER."

Thebusiness,tradeoroccupationoftheplaintiffinvolvedinthiscaseis
notparticularlymentionedinSection
394

394
PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATED
AmericanBibleSocietyvs.CityofManila

3oftheOrdinance,andtherecorddoesnotshowthatapermitisrequired
thereforunderexistinglawsandordinancesforthepropersupervisionand
enforcement of their provisions governing the sanitation, security and
welfare of the public and the health of the employees engaged in the
businessoftheplaintiff.However,section3ofOrdinance3000contains
itemNo.79,whichreadsasfollows:
"79.Allotherbusinesses,tradesoroccupationsnotmentionedinthisOrdinance,
exceptthoseuponwhichtheCityisnotempoweredtolicenseortotax....P5.00"

Therefore,thenecessityofthepermitismadetodependuponthepowerof
theCitytolicenseortaxsaidbusiness,tradeoroccupation.
AstothelicensefeesthattheTreasureroftheCityofManilarequired
thesocietytopayfromthe4thquarterof1945tothe1stquarterof1953in
thesumofP5,821.45,includingthesumofP50ascompromise,Ordinance
No.2529,asamendedbyOrdinancesNos.2779,2821and3028prescribes
thefollowing:
"SEC.1.FEES.Subjecttotheprovisionsofsection578oftheRevisedOrdinances
of theCityof Manila,asamended, thereshallbepaidtotheCityTreasurer for
engaging in any of the businesses or occupations below enumerated, quarterly,
licensefeesbasedongrosssalesorreceiptsrealizedduringtheprecedingquarterin
accordancewiththerateshereinprescribed:PROVIDED,HOWEVER,Thataperson
engagedinanybusinessoroccupationforthefirsttimeshallpaytheinitiallicense
feebasedontheprobablegrosssalesorreceiptsforthefirstquarterbeginningfrom
thedateoftheopeningofthebusinessasindicatedhereinforthecorresponding
businessoroccupation.
*******

GROUP2.Retaildealersinnew(notyetused)merchandise,whichdealersare
notyetsubjecttothepaymentofanymunicipaltax,suchas(1)retaildealersin
general merchandise; (2) retail dealers exclusively engaged in the sale of * * *
books,includingstationery.
*******
VOL.101,APRIL30,1957

395
395

AmericanBibleSocietyvs.CityofManila,

Asmaybeseen,thelicensefeesrequiredtobepaidquarterlyinSection1
ofsaidOrdinanceNo.2529,asamended,arenotimposeddirectlyupon
anyreligiousinstitutionbutuponthoseengagedinanyofthebusinessor
occupations therein enumerated, such as retail "dealers in general
merchandise" which, it is alleged, cover the business or occupation of
sellingbibles,books,etc.
Chapter60oftheRevisedAdministrativeCodewhichincludessection
2444,subsection(m2)ofsaidlegalbody,asamendedbyActNo.3659,
approvedonDecember8,1929, empowerstheMunicipalBoardofthe
CityofManila:
"(M2)Totaxandfixthelicensefeeon(a)dealersinnewautomobilesoraccessories
orboth,and(b)retaildealersinnew(notyetused)merchandise,whichdealersare
notyetsubjecttothepaymentofanymunicipaltax.
"Forthepurposeoftaxation,theseretaildealersshallbeclassifiedas(1)retail
dealersingeneralmerchandise,and(2)retaildealersexclusivelyengagedinthesale
of(a)textiles***(e)books,includingstationery,paperandofficesupplies,***:
PROVIDED, HOWEVER, That the combined total tax of any debtor or
manufacturer,orboth,enumeratedunderthesesubsections(m1)and(m2),whether
dealinginoneorallofthearticlesmentionedherein,SHALLNOTBEINEXCESS
OFFIVEHUNDREDPESOSPERANNUM."

and appellee's counsel maintains that City Ordinances Nos. 2529 and
3000,asamended,wereenactedinvirtueofthepowerthatsaidActNo.
3669conferredupontheCityofManila.Appellant,however,contends
thatsaidordinancesarenolongerinforceandeffectasthelawunder
whichtheywerepromulgatedhasbeenexpresslyrepealedbySection102
ofRepublicActNo.409passedonJune18,1949,knownastheRevised
ManilaCharter.

Passing upon this point the lower Court categorically stated that
RepublicActNo.409expresslyrepealedtheprovisionsofChapter60of
the Revised Administrative Codebut in the opinion ofthe trial Judge,
althoughSection2444(m2)oftheformerManilaCharterandsection18
(o) of the new seemingly differ in the way the legislative intent was
expressed,yettheirmeaningispractically
396

396
PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATED
AmericanBibleSocietyvs.CityofManila

thesameforthepurposeoftaxingthemerchandisementionedinboth
legalprovisionsand,consequently,OrdinancesNos.2529and3000,as
amended, are to be considered as still in full force and effect
uninterruptedlyuptothepresent.
"Oftenthelegislature,insteadofsimplyamendingthepreexistingstatute,willrepeal
the old statute in its entirety and by the same enactment reenact all or certain
portions of the preexisting law. Of course, the problem created by this sort of
legislativeactioninvolvesmainlytheeffectoftherepealuponrightsandliabilities
whichaccruedundertheoriginalstatute.Arethoserightsandliabilitiesdestroyedor
preserved?Theauthoritiesaredividedastotheeffectofsimultaneousrepealsandre
enactments.Someadheretotheviewthattherightsandliabilitiesaccruedunderthe
repealedactaredestroyed,sincethestatutesfromwhichtheysprangareactually
terminated,eventhoughforonlyaveryshortperiodoftime.Others,andtheyseem
tobeinthemajority,refusetoacceptthisviewofthesituation,andconsequently
maintainthatallrightsandliabilitieswhichhaveaccruedundertheoriginalstatute
arepreservedandmaybeenforced,sincethereenactmentneutralizestherepeal,
therefore continuing the law in force without interruption". (CrawfordStatutory
Construction,Sec.322).

Appellant'scounselstates that section 18(o)of RepublicActNo.409

introducesanewandwiderconceptoftaxationandissodifferentfromthe
provisionsofSection2444(m2)thattheformercannotbeconsideredasa
substantialreenactmentoftheprovisionsofthelatter.Wehavequoted
abovetheprovisionsofsection2444(m2)oftheRevisedAdministrative
Code and We shall now copy hereunder the provisions of Section 18,
subdivision(o)ofRepublicActNo.409,whichreadsasfollows:

"(o) To tax and fix the license fee on dealers in general merchandise, including
importersandindentors,exceptthosedealerswhomaybeexpresslysubjecttothe
paymentofsomeothermunicipaltaxundertheprovisionsofthissection.
Dealersingeneralmerchandiseshallbeclassifiedas(a)wholesaledealersand(b)
retaildealers.Forpurposesofthetaxonretaildealers,generalmerchandiseshallbe
classifiedintofourmainclasses:namely(1)luxuryarticles,(2)semiluxuryarticles,
(3)essentialcommodities,and(4)miscellaneousarticles.Aseparate
VOL.101,APRIL30,1957

397
397

AmericanBibleSocietyvs.CityofManila

licenseshallbeprescribedforeachclassbutwherecommoditiesofdifferentclasses
aresoldinthesameestablishment,itshallnotbecompulsoryfortheownertosecure
morethan one license if he pays thehigher or highest rate of tax prescribedby
ordinance.Wholesaledealersshallpaythelicensetaxassuch,asmaybeprovidedby
ordinance.
Forpurposesofthissection,theterm'Generalmerchandise'shallincludepoultry
andlivestock,agriculturalproducts,fishandotheralliedproducts."

TheonlyessentialdifferencethatWefindbetweenthesetwoprovisions
thatmayhaveanybearingonthecaseatbar,isthatwhilesubsection(m
2)prescribesthatthecombinedtotaltaxofanydealerormanufacturer,or
both,enumeratedundersubsections(m1)and(m2),whetherdealingin
oneorallofthearticlesmentionedtherein,shallnotbeinexcessofP500
perannum,thecorrespondingsection18,subsection(o)ofRepublicAct
No.409,doesnotcontainanylimitationastotheamountoftaxorlicense
feethattheretaildealerhastopayperannum.Hence,andinaccordance
withtheweightoftheauthoritiesabovereferredtothatmaintainthat"all
rights and liabilities which have accrued under the original statute are
preserved and may be enforced,, since the reenactment neutralizes the
repeal, therefore continuing the law in force without interruption", We
holdthatthequestionedordinancesoftheCityofManilaarestillinforce
andeffect.
Plaintiff,however,arguesthatthequestionedordinances,tobevalid,
mustfirstbeapprovedbythePresidentofthePhilippinesaspersection
18,subsection(ii)ofRepublicActNo.409,whichreadsasfollows:
"(ii)Totax,licenseandregulateanybusiness,tradeoroccupationbeingconducted
withintheCityofManila, nototherwiseenumeratedintheprecedingsubsections,

includingpercentagetaxesbasedongrosssalesorreceipts,subjecttotheapprovalof
thePRESIDENT,exceptamusementtaxes"

but this requirement of the President's approval was not contained in

section2444oftheformerCharterofthe
398

398
PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATED
AmericanBibleSocietyvs.CityofManila

City of Manila under which Ordinance No. 2529 was promulgated.

Anyway,asstatedbyappellee'scounsel,thebusinessof"retaildealersin
generalmerchandise"isexpresslyenumeratedinsubsection(o),section18
ofRepublicActNo.409;hence,anordinanceprescribingamunicipaltax
on said business does not have to be approved by the President to be
effective, as it is not among those referred to in said subsection (ii).
Moreover, the questioned ordinances are still in force, having been
promulgated by the Municipal Board of the City of Manila under the
authoritygrantedtoitbylaw.
The question that now remains to be determined is whether said
ordinancesareinapplicable,invalidorunconstitutionalifappliedtothe
alleged business ofdistribution andsale ofbibles to the people of the
PhilippinesbyareligiouscorporationliketheAmericanBibleSociety,
plaintiffherein.
WithregardtoOrdinanceNo.2529,asamendedbyOrdinancesNos.
2779,2821and3028,appellantcontendsthatitisunconstitutionaland
illegalbecauseitrestrainsthefreeexerciseandenjoymentofthereligious
professionandworshipofappellant.
ArticleIII,section1,clause(7)oftheConstitutionofthePhilippines
aforequoted,guaranteesthefreedomofreligiousprofessionandworship.
"Religionhasbeenspokenofas'aprofessionoffaithtoanactivepower
thatbindsandelevatesmantoitsCreator'(Aglipay vs. Ruiz,64Phil.,
201).Ithasreferencetoone'sviewsofhisrelationstoHisCreatorandto
theobligationstheyimposeofreverencetoHisbeingandcharacter,and
obedience to His Will (Davis vs. Beason, 133 U.S., 342). The
constitutional guaranty of the free exercise and enjoyment of religious
professionandworshipcarrieswithittherighttodisseminatereligious
information.Anyrestraintofsuchrightcanonlybejustifiedlikeother
restraintsoffreedomofexpressiononthegroundsthatthereisaclearand

presentdangerofanysubstantiveevilwhichtheStatehastherightto
prevent".(TaadaandFernandoonthe
VOL.101,APRIL30,1957

399
399

AmericanBibleSocietyvs.CityofManila

ConstitutionofthePhilippines,Vol.I,4thed.,p.297).Inthecaseatbar
the license fee herein involved is imposed upon appellant for its
distributionandsaleofbiblesandotherreligiousliterature:
"InthecaseofMurdockvs.Pennsylvania,itwasheldthatanordinancerequiringthat
a license be obtained before a person could canvass or solicit orders for goods,
paintings,pictures,waresormerchandisecannotbemadetoapplytomembersof
Jehovah'sWitnesseswhowentaboutfromdoortodoordistributingliteratureand
solicitingpeopleto'purchase'certainreligiousbooksandpamphlets,allpublishedby
theWatchTowerBible&TractSociety.The'price'ofthebookswastwentyfive
centseach,the'price'ofthepamphletsfivecentseach.Itwasshownthatinmaking
thesolicitationstherewasarequestforadditional'contribution'oftwentyfivecents
eachforthebooksandfivecentseachforthepamphlets.Lessersumwereaccepted,
however, and books were even donated in case interested persons were without
funds. Onthe above facts theSupremeCourt heldthat itcould notbe said that
petitioners were engaged in commercial rather than a religious venture. Their
activitiescouldnotbedescribedasembracedintheoccupationofsellingbooksand
pamphlets.ThentheCourtcontinued:
'We do not mean tosay that religious groups and thepress are free from all
financialburdensofgovernment.SeeGrosjean vs. AmericanPressCo.,297U.S.,
233,250,80L.ed.660,668,56S.Ct.444.Wehaveheresomethingquitedifferent,
forexample,fromataxontheincomeofonewhoengagesinreligiousactivitiesora
taxonpropertyusedoremployedinconnectionwiththoseactivities.Itisonething
toimposeataxontheincomeorpropertyofapreacher.Itisquiteanotherthingto
exactataxfromhimfortheprivilegeofdeliveringasermon.Thetaximposedbythe
CityofJeannetteisaflatlicensetax,paymentofwhichisaconditionoftheexercise
oftheseconstitutionalprivileges.Thepowertotaxtheexerciseofaprivilegeisthe
powertocontrolorsuppressitsenjoyment.***Thosewhocantaxtheexerciseof
thisreligiouspracticecanmakeitsexercisesocostlyastodepriveitoftheresources
necessaryforitsmaintenance.Thosewhocantaxtheprivilegeofengaginginthis
formofmissionaryevangelismcancloseallitsdoorstoallthosewhodonothavea
fullpurse.Spreadingreligiousbeliefsinthisancientandhonorablemannerwould

thusbedeniedtheneedy.***Itiscontendedhoweverthatthefactthatthelicense
taxcansuppressorcontrolthisactivityisunimportantifitdoesnotdoso.Butthatis
todisregardthenatureofthistax.It
400

400
PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATED
AmericanBibleSocietyvs.CityofManila,

isalicensetaxaflattaximposedontheexerciseofaprivilegegrantedbytheBill
ofRights***Thepowertoimposealicensetaxontheexerciseofthesefreedomsis
indeedaspotentasthepowerofcensorshipwhichthisCourthasrepeatedlystruck
down.***Itisnotanominalfeeimposedasaregulatorymeasuretodefraythe
expensesofpolicingtheactivitiesinquestion.Itisinnowayapportioned.Itisflat
license tax levied and collected as a condition to the pursuit of activities whose
'enjoyment is guaranted by the constitutional liberties of press and religion and
inevitablytendstosuppresstheirexercise.Thatisalmostuniformlyrecognizedasthe
inherentviceandevilofthisflatlicensetax.'
Nor could dissemination of religious information be conditioned upon the
approvalofanofficialormanagerevenifthetownwereownedbyacorporationas
heldinthecaseofMarsh vs. StateofAlabama(326U.S.501),orbytheUnited
StatesitselfasheldinthecaseofTuckervs.Texas(326U.S.517).Intheformercase
theSupremeCourtexpressedtheopinionthattherighttoenjoyfreedomofthepress
and religion occupies a preferred position as against the constitutional right of
propertyowners.
'Whenwebalancetheconstitutionalrightsofownersofpropertyagainstthoseof
the people to enjoy freedom of press and religion, as we must here, we remain
mindfulofthefactthatthelatteroccupyapreferredposition.***Inourviewthe
circumstance that the property rights to the premises where the deprivation of
property here involved, took place, were held by others than the public, is not
sufficienttojustifytheState'spermittingacorporationtogovernacommunityof
citizens so as to restrict their fundamental liberties and the enforcement of such
restraint by the application of a State statute.'" (Taada and Fernando on the
ConstitutionofthePhilippines,Vol.I,4thed.,p.304306).

Section 27 of Commonwealth Act No. 466, otherwise known as the

NationalInternalRevenueCode,provides:
"SEC. 27. EXEMPTIONS FROM TAX ON CORPORATIONS.The following
organizationsshallnotbetaxedunderthisTitleinrespecttoincomereceivedby
themassuch

"(e)Corporationsorassociationsorganizedandoperatedexclusivelyforreligious,
charitable,***oreducationalpurposes,***:Provided,however,Thattheincome
ofwhateverkindandcharacterfromanyofitsproperties,realorpersonal,orfrom
anyactivityconductedforprofit,regardlessofthedispositionmadeofsuchincome,
shallbeliabletothetaximposedunderthisCode;".
VOL.101,APRIL30,1957

401
401

AmericanBibleSocietyvs.CityofManila

Appellant's counsel claims that the Collector of Internal Revenue has

exemptedtheplaintifffromthistaxandsaysthatsuchexemptionclearly
indicates that the act of distributing and selling bibles, etc. is purely
religiousanddoesnotfallundertheabovelegalprovisions.
Itmaybetruethatinthecaseatbarthepriceaskedforthebiblesand
otherreligiouspamphletswasinsomeinstancesalittlebithigherthanthe
actualcostofthesame,butthiscannotmeanthatappellantwasengagedin
thebusinessoroccupationofsellingsaid"merchandise"forprofit.Forthis
reasonWebelievethattheprovisionsofCityofManilaOrdinanceNo.
2529,asamended,cannotbeappliedtoappellant,forindoingsoitwould
impair its free exercise and enjoyment of its religious profession and
worshipaswellasitsrightsofdisseminationofreligiousbeliefs.
WithrespecttoOrdinanceNo.3000,asamended,whichrequiresthe
obtentionoftheMayor'spermitbeforeanypersoncanengageinanyofthe
businesses,tradesoroccupationsenumeratedtherein,Wedonotfindthat
it imposes any charge upon the enjoyment of a right granted by the
Constitution, nor tax the exercise of religious practices. In the case of
Coleman vs. CityofGriffin,189S.E.427,thispointwaselucidatedas
follows:
"AnordinancebytheCityofGriffin,declaringthatthepracticeofdistributingeither
byhandorotherwise,circulars,handbooks,advertising,orliteratureofanykind,
whethersaidarticlesarebeingdeliveredfree,orwhethersamearebeingsoldwithin
thecitylimitsoftheCityofGriffin,withoutfirstobtainingwrittenpermissionfrom
thecitymanageroftheCityofGriffin,shallbedeemedanuisanceandpunishableas
anoffenseagainsttheCityofGriffin,doesnotdeprivedefendantofhisconstitutional
rightofthefreeexerciseandenjoymentofreligiousprofessionandworship,even
though it prohibits him from introducing and carrying out a scheme or purpose
whichheseesfittoclaimasapartofhisreligioussystem."

Itseemsclear,therefore,thatOrdinanceNo.3000cannotbeconsidered
unconstitutional,evenifappliedtoplaintiffSociety.ButasOrdinanceNo.
2529oftheCityof
402

402
PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Nabaluna,etal.

Manila,asamended,isnotapplicabletoplaintiffappellantanddefendant
appelleeispowerlesstolicenseortaxthebusinessofplaintiffSociety
involvedhereinfor,asstatedbefore,itwouldimpairplaintiff'srighttothe
freeexerciseandenjoymentofitsreligiousprofessionandworship,as
well as its rights of dissemination of religious beliefs, We find that
OrdinanceNo.3000,asamended,isalsoinapplicabletosaidbusiness,
tradeoroccupationoftheplaintiff.
Wherefore, andon the strength ofthe foregoing considerations, We
herebyreversethedecisionappealedfrom,sentencingdefendanttoreturn
to plaintiff the sum of P5,891.45 unduly collected from it. Without
pronouncementastocosts.Itissoordered.
Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo,
Labrador,Concepcion,andEndencia,JJ.,concur.
Reyes,A.,J.,concursintheresult.
Judgmentreversed.

Copyright 2014 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.