Nos. 24116-17August 22, 1968Cebu Portland Cement Company, vs. Mun. of Naga, Cebu, et. al.

plaintiff-appellant defendants-appellees Facts: 1. The Treasurer of the Mun. of Naga, Cebu collected from Cebu Portland CementCompany (CPCC) municipal license tax imposed by the Amended Ordinance No. 21 oncement factories located in the same municipality. 2. The demands made by the Treasurer were not entirely successful and resulted to theremedies provided under Section 2304 of the Revised Administrative Code. TheTreasurer gave CPCC 10 days to settle the account. 3. The Treasurer also notified the Plant Manager of CPCC that he was distraining 100,000bags of Apo cement in satisfaction of their municipal license tax in the total amount of Php 204,300.00. At first the Plant Manager did not agree with the letter butacknowledged the distraint in the afternoon of the same day he was notified. 4. The Treasurer signed the receipt of the goods under the authority of 2304 of the RevisedAdministrative Code & shall sell the same at a public auction to the highest bidder. Theproceeds thereof shall be utilized in part of the satisfaction of the municipal license tax &penalties CPCC owes to the municipality of Naga, Cebu. 5. The Notice of Sale was posted by the Treasurer & stated that the public sale shall be onJuly 27, 1962. However, no sale was held on the date specified & in the appealeddecision, that there was a stipulation by the parties where the auction took place onJanuary 30, 1962. WHO WHAT WHERE DECISION Cebu PortlandCement CompanyPetition (2 separateactions: Validity of thedistraint & the sale ata public auction of thebags of cement)RTCDeniedCebu PortlandCement CompanyMotion for ReconsiderationSupreme CourtDeniedIssue1.Whether the distraint was valid.2.Whether the auction sale was validDecision

Even if the salewas made only in January 1962. The auction sale is also valid. ‘the municipal treasurer may seize & distrain anypersonal property belonging to such person or any property subject to the tax lien. 1. Under the Revised Administrative Code. 1961 & the sale wason January 30. insufficient quantity to satisfy the tax or charge in question xxx”. the distrain is invalid. Withthis. the requisite for the notification was more than complied with. 2. the lawgives an authority to the municipal treasurer to seize & distrain properties regardlessof the provisions or conditions stated in the letter.The sale was only delayed due to the deferment made by the CPCC. With this. the Treasurer informed the CPCC’s acting officer that he would again advertise for the public sale of the said bags of cement. This is not true.Alexandra Gerardine S. According to theRevised Administrative Code.School of LawSTATCON Decision of the lower court was affirmed in toto . EscuchaSan Beda College Alabang. 1962. Since the first notification for distrait was in July 6. There is only room for applicationand not for interpretation and what is stated in the letter cannot amend the law. With costs against the plaintiff-appellant. CPCC alleged that the 10-day grace period in the letter of the Municipal Treasurer did not lapse and therefore. the salecannot take place ‘less than 20 days after notice to the owner or possessor of theproperty xxx’. . the validity of the date of the said auction sale cannot be contested.