People v. Carreon
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The defendant, Felipe C. Carreon, was charged in the justice of the peace court of Santa Maria, Ilocos Sur, with violating municipal ordinance No. 6, series of 1935, for practicing as a notary public without paying the required license fee. Procedural History: The justice of the peace court found the defendant guilty. Upon appeal to the Court of First Instance, the provincial fiscal filed an information. The defendant demurred to the information, arguing it did not allege facts constituting an offense. The court sustained the demurrer and directed the fiscal to amend the information. The fiscal refused to amend, and the court dismissed the case. The Petition: The fiscal appealed the dismissal orders, arguing they violated the Constitution by not stating the facts and law upon which they were based and were erroneous for implicitly declaring the ordinance void.
Issue(s)
Whether the municipal council of Santa Maria had the authority to impose a municipal license tax on notaries public under Act No. 3422, as amended. Whether the information filed against the defendant was sufficient to constitute an offense.
Ruling
The appeal is dismissed. The orders of the Court of First Instance sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the case are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the authority to impose municipal license taxes on notaries public: The Court held that municipal councils derive their authority to impose license taxes from Act No. 3422, as amended by Act No. 3790, which limits such authority to persons engaged in any occupation or business, or exercising privileges in the municipality. A notary public is classified as a public officer, appointed to perform duties of a public nature, as defined by the Revised Administrative Code. The Court reasoned that a notary public does not engage in an occupation or business, nor exercise a privilege in the sense contemplated by Act No. 3422. Therefore, the municipality exceeded its authority in imposing a license tax on notaries public. The Court cited legal authorities and jurisprudence to support the classification of a notary public as a public officer. The authority to tax industries, occupations, and professions cannot be construed to include the power to tax notaries public, as their role is distinct from that of a private business or occupation. Consequently, Section 6 of Municipal Ordinance No. 6 of Santa Maria, insofar as it requires notaries public to pay a municipal license tax, is null and void. On the sufficiency of the information: Given the conclusion that the ordinance is void with respect to imposing a license tax on notaries public, the Court found that the information, which charged the defendant with violating this void provision, was insufficient and fatally defective. The facts alleged did not constitute a violation of any valid law. Therefore, the defendant could not be prosecuted for the alleged offense, rendering the dismissal of the case by the lower court proper.
Main Doctrine
A municipal council's authority to impose license taxes under Act No. 3422, as amended, is limited to persons engaged in an occupation or business, or exercising privileges within the municipality. A notary public, being a public officer whose duties are of a public nature, is not included within this scope, rendering any municipal ordinance imposing a license tax on notaries public null and void.