1e cost of necessary to include the expense of issuing a license and the cost of ‘here are thre dase of ioseamhich ae recogni, hey A sO ieee for the regulation oF restriction of ful occupations or businesses, and (c) Licenses for revenue ae yr businesses ans for usefl and nonssefal occupation or busines a fr > the police power and the accepted rule is to the fect ; at is conferred to regulate and to ae ices mee eee ower and the origins ro th thatthe power includes the right to fix the amount dena ron-uefl eccapations are also based onthe police power and the epaciona fee ay be uted by th ower to izense and role aa in the fixing of the amount of the license fee, m eat vrowevatons are allowed «wider Intude. Consequently, icense weer ethich are inthe nature of privilege taxes have been Up in the case of the sale of liquors. ET AL., CITY COUNCIL OF CEBU CITY v. CUIZON, ETC., BT Al 1-28972, OCT. 81, 1972 ae PACTS: ‘The seven plaintiffs, majority members of the City Council of Cebu City, filed an action against Carlos Cuizon, Mason of Cebu City; Jesus Zabate, Acting Cebu Cy Treasurer; the PNB or are. pcb 8, 1800, between Caan in behalf ofthe city, and Maple Commercial Co, for the purchase of road construction rarpment rm the letter fr 86,7670 ona fveseardfered Dae annulled because the contract was ent ; eet eieaear wal of the City Council essary authority and appro Tntnermore, the City Treasurer hed not cortifed to the City Mayor ts ratte by See 697 ofthe Revised Adminitrative Code that the fis had boon appropriated forthe purpose; and that the City Treasurer did not certify the availability of funds for the purp : he lower court, however, ruled thaton the basis of Art, roo of thay are not the real parties in interest. 30 Pe ee eee HELD: The ruling of the lower court is erroneous since the complaint of the plaintiffs is not a personal suit but a representative {uit by the city councilors on behalf and for the benefit of the City of Cebu and as taxpayers, ‘The lower court's interpretation ‘empowered to sue for the city is unte! Would be the last person to file such the legality of his act. ‘The suit is like a derival Stockholder on behalf of a co: that only the City Mayor is nable because here, the Mayor suit since he himself maintains tive suit or a representative suit of a poration, GASCON, ET AL, v. ARROYO, ETC., ET AL, OCT. 16, 1989 BE Commis » G.R. NO. 78389, TS: Following the 1986 EDSA Revolution, the Philippine on on Good Government (PCGG) sequestered the Lopes family’s ‘TV stations, Channels 2 and 4, and the Office of Media Affairs took over its operation. The Lopes. family, through counsel, requested the Aquino Government for the return of TV Channels 3 und 4. The PCGG approved the return of TV Channel 2 to the [opexes. As regards TV Channel 4, respondent executive secretary by authority of the President and representing the Government, entered into an “Agreement to Arbitrate” with ABS-CBN. represented by its president, Eugenio Lopez, Jr., pursuant to which an arbitration committee was created Petitioners, as taxpayers, filed a petition for certiorari and injunction, seeking to annul and set aside said agreement, HELD: As to whether or personality or standin that in sev: not petitioners have the legal g to file the instant petition, the Court ruled ‘eral cases, the right of a taxpayer to fil uestioning the validity or constitutionalit been recognized, on the theory that the expenditure of publie funds py an officer of the Government for the purpose of administering or implementing an unconstitutional or invalid law, constitutes « misapplication of such funds. le an action ty of a statute or law has The present case, however, is not an action to question the constitutionality or validity of a statute or law. It is an action to. annul and set aside the “Agreement to Arbitrate,” which, as between the parties, is contractual in character. Petitioners have not ahewn that they have a legal interest in TV Station Channel 4 and thet they will be adversely affected if and when the said television station 31