Digest - American Bible V City of Manila 2

G.R. No.
L-9637 April 30, 1957
AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY v CITY OF MANILA

FACTS:
 American Bible Society is a foreign , non-stock, non-profit, religious, missionary
corporation duly registered and doing business in the Philippines, with its
principal office located in Isaac Peral or is now known as UN Avenue, in Manila
City.
 In the course of its ministry, American Bible Society has been distributing and
selling bibles and/or gospel portions throughout the Philippines and translating
them into several Philippine dialects.
 On 1953, the acting City Treasurer of the City of Manila informed American Bible
Society that it was considered as conducting business of general merchandise
without the necessary Mayor’s permit and municipal license in violation of
ordinance 3000 as amended,
 Section 1 of Ordinance No. 3000 states:
 SEC. 1. PERMITS NECESSARY. — It shall be unlawful for any person or entity

to conduct or engage in any of the businesses, trades, or occupations xxx
WITHOUT FIRST HAVING OBTAINED A PERMIT FROM THE MAYOR
AND THE NECESSARY LICENSE FROM THE CITY TREASURER.
 The defendant required American Bible Society to secure the necessary permit
and license fees with compromise covering 4Q 1945 to 2Q 1953, amounting
P5821.45.
 Plaintiff protested against this requirement.

 But to avoid the closing of its business as well as further fines and penalties in the
premises, American Bible Society paid to the defendant under protest the said
permit and license fees, and on the same day, filed a complaint before the trial
court.
 American Bible prayed that judgment be rendered declaring the said Municipal
Ordinance No. 3000, as amended illegal and unconstitutional, and that the
defendant be ordered to refund ABS the amount it paid under protest, with legal
interest.
 Defendant (CITY OF MANILA) answered the complaint, maintaining that said
ordinances were enacted by the Municipal Board of the City of Manila by virtue
of the power granted to it by the Revised Charter of the City of Manila, and
praying that the complaint be dismissed, with costs against American Bible.
DURING TRIAL:
 American Bible established, among other things:

- that its real properties are exempt from real estate taxes;
- that it was never required to pay any municipal license fee or tax before the
war
- that it never made any profit from the sale of its bibles, which are disposed of
for as low as one third of the cost
- that in order to maintain its operating cost it obtains substantial remittances
from its New York office and voluntary contributions and gifts from certain
churches, both in the United States and in the Philippines
 Defendant retorted that based on the testimony of the plaintiff, American Bible
sells the bible at a price a bit higher than its price in NY office, this proves that
American is operating for profit, contrary to its claim.
 The TRIAL CORT decided in favor of the City of Manila
 Hence the appeal to CA.
But since the assigned error of the case only a question of law, the matter was
raised to the SC.
ISSUE: Whether or not municipal license tax on the sale of bibles and religious articles
by a non-stock, non-profit missionary organization at minimal profits is valid?
RULING:
Such imposition of license tax constitutes curtailment of religious freedom and worship
which is guaranteed by the Constitution.
Section 1, subsection (7) of Article III of the Constitution of the Republic of the
Philippines, provides that: - in 1987 Constitution this is under Article III, Sec 5
(7) No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting

the free exercise thereof, and the free exercise and enjoyment of religious
profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be
allowed. No religion test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political
rights.
This constitutional guaranty of the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession
and worship carries with it the right to disseminate religious information. Any restraint
of such right can only be justified like other restraints of freedom of expression on the
grounds that there is a clear and present danger of any substantive evil which the State
has the right to prevent".
According to SC, it may be true that in this case the price asked for the bibles and other
religious pamphlets was in some instances a little bit higher than the actual cost of the
same but this cannot mean that American Bible was engaged in the business or
occupation of selling said "merchandise" for profit. For this reason the SC believes that
the provisions of City of Manila Ordinance No. 2529, as amended, cannot be applied to
American Bible, for in doing so it would impair its free exercise and enjoyment of its
religious profession and worship as well as its rights of dissemination of religious beliefs.
With respect to Ordinance No. 3000, as amended, which requires obtaining Mayor's
permit before any person can engage in any of the businesses, trades or occupations
enumerated therein, We do not find that it imposes any charge upon the enjoyment of
a right granted by the Constitution, nor tax the exercise of religious practices.
NOTE: the income of such organizations from any activity conducted for profit or from any of their
property, real or personal, regardless of the disposition made of such income, is taxabale.
3000
. This Ordinance is of general application and not particularly directed against

institutions like the plaintiff, and it does not contain any provisions whatever prescribing
religious censorship nor restraining the free exercise and enjoyment of any religious
profession.
Double taxation in the strict sense is when all the elements of a doubles taxations such
as imposing the same tax on the same subject matter, for the same purpose, by the
same authority, within the same jurisdiction and of the same kind, are present. This is
what is prohibited and violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

On the other hand, Indirect double taxation, is permissible by the law, and this occurs
when at least one of the elements of double taxation is not present.

Example of Direct Double Taxation is if a Local Government Unit would required
payment of Professional Tax in the practice of the profession within its jurisdiction, and
charges the same tax, with just a different name. In this case double taxation is
present.

On the other hand, if an LGU requires payment of Professional Tax to those practicing
their profession within their jurisdiction, and later on the Congress passes a law which
would require a professional tax fee in the practice of the profession, regardless of
location, in this case, there is an indirect double taxation and this is allowed by law.

Digest - American Bible V City of Manila 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digest - American Bible V City of Manila 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digest - American Bible V City of Manila 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

L-9637 April 30, 1957

AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY v CITY OF MANILA

 SEC. 1. PERMITS NECESSARY. — It shall be unlawful for any person or entity

 Plaintiff protested against this requirement.

 American Bible established, among other things:

(7) No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting

. This Ordinance is of general application and not particularly directed against

You might also like