Nin Bay Mining Company v. Municipality of Roxas
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The plaintiff, Nin Bay Mining Company, had been engaged in mining and disposing of silica sand and other minerals from claims in Roxas, Palawan, pursuant to mining lease contracts with the government since 1949 and 1950. The Municipality of Roxas enacted Ordinance No. 12, series of 1960, which imposed a P0.10 per ton inspection and verification fee on silica sand excavated and shipped out from the municipality. The ordinance stipulated that the excavation, mining, hauling, and loading of silica sand would be inspected by the Municipal Treasurer and Chief of Police to verify permits from the Bureau of Mines and ensure no encroachment on other claims. Plaintiff paid the fees under protest, aggregating P3,042.40 by May 1961, and its subsequent representations for suspension and refund were unsuccessful. Procedural History: Plaintiff filed an ordinary action in the Court of First Instance of Manila seeking the annulment of Ordinance No. 12 and the refund of fees paid. Plaintiff argued that the ordinance's fees were not a police power measure, that the fee was an export tax violating Sections 2287 and 2629 of the Revised Administrative Code, and that the business was not inherently subject to police regulation. The Appeal: The Court of First Instance of Manila rendered a decision annulling the ordinance and ordering the refund. The Municipality of Roxas appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, contending that it had the authority to impose the fees.
Issue(s)
Whether the Municipality of Roxas has the authority to impose an inspection and verification fee on silica sand excavated within its jurisdiction, notwithstanding Sections 2287 and 2629 of the Revised Administrative Code. Whether the fee imposed by Ordinance No. 12, series of 1960, constitutes a valid exercise of police power.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of First Instance, dismissing the case and upholding the validity of Ordinance No. 12. The Court ruled that the municipality had the authority to impose the fee under Republic Act No. 2264, which grants broad taxing powers to local government units, and that this power superseded the limitations found in the Revised Administrative Code.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that the Municipality of Roxas had the authority to impose the inspection and verification fee under Section 2 of Republic Act No. 2264 (The Local Autonomy Act). This Act grants chartered cities, municipalities, and municipal districts the general power to impose municipal license taxes or fees, collect fees for services rendered, and levy just and uniform taxes, licenses, or fees for public purposes, notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary. The Court found that the fee imposed by Ordinance No. 12, series of 1960, did not fall under any of the exceptions explicitly enumerated in Republic Act No. 2264. Therefore, the general grant of authority prevailed, and the conflicting provisions of Sections 2287 and 2629 of the Revised Administrative Code, which prohibited municipalities from imposing taxes on goods carried out of the municipality, were deemed repealed by Republic Act No. 2264. The principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius was applied, meaning that the specific enumeration of exceptions implied that anything not excepted was within the LGU's power to tax. On Issue 2: The Court found that the matter of inspecting and verifying excavations from mining claims fell within the legitimate province of police power. The services rendered by the Municipal Treasurer and Chief of Police, such as verifying permits from the Bureau of Mines and ensuring that excavations did not encroach upon other claims, were actual services performed by the municipality. Public interest demands that such excavations be undertaken only by authorized entities and that activities do not extend beyond permitted claims, thus justifying the exercise of police power to maintain public peace and order. Furthermore, the fee of P0.10 per ton was not assailed as excessive or unreasonable, and the fact that it applied only to silica sand shipped out did not affect its validity, as it was presumed that this was the only activity requiring regulation by the municipality concerning silica sand excavation.
Main Doctrine
The Court held that under Section 2 of Republic Act No. 2264, municipalities are granted broad authority to impose municipal license taxes or fees, collect fees and charges for services rendered, and levy just and uniform taxes, licenses, or fees for public purposes. This general grant of authority, explicitly stating 'Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding,' supersedes prior laws, such as Sections 2287 and 2629 of the Revised Administrative Code, which restricted the power of municipal councils to impose taxes on goods or merchandise carried out of the municipality. The ordinance in question, imposing an inspection and verification fee on silica sand excavated within the municipality, was deemed a valid exercise of this power, as the services rendered (inspection and verification) fell within the legitimate scope of police power and the fee was not assailed as excessive.