Inherent Limitation on the Power of Taxation is Public

Purpose

Subject: TAX 1

HON. RAMON D. BAGATSING, as Mayor of the City of Manila; ROMAN G.

GARGANTIEL, as Secretary to the Mayor THE MARKET ADMINISTRATOR; and
THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF MANILA, petitioners
VS. HON. PEDRO A. RAMIREZ, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Court of
First Instance of Manila, Branch XXX and the FEDERATION OF MANILA MARKET
VENDORS, INC., respondents

L-41631
December 17, 1976

Ponente: Martin, J.
Principles/Doctrines: Inherent limitation on the Power of Taxation
Nature of the Case: PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI of the decision of the CFI of Manila

FACTS:
Municipal Board of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 7522, "AN ORDINANCE REGULATING
THEOPERATION OF PUBLIC MARKETS AND PRESCRIBING FEES FOR THE RENTALS OF STALLSAND
PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION THEREOF AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES." The petitioner
City Mayor, Ramon D. Bagatsing, approved the ordinance.

Respondent Federation of Manila Market Vendors, Inc. commenced a Civil Case before
the CFI by respondent Judge, seeking the declaration of nullity of Ordinance No. 7522 for the
reason that (a)the publication requirement under the Revised Charter of the City of Manila has
not been complied with; (b) the Market Committee was not given any participation in the
enactment of the ordinance, as envisioned by Republic Act 6039; (c) Section 3 (e) of the Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act has been violated; and (d) the ordinance would violate
Presidential Decree No. 7 of September 30, 1972 prescribing the collection of fees and charges
on livestock and animal products.

(This paragraph contains the ultimate facts related to the doctrine):

Private respondent also bewails that the market stall fees imposed in the disputed ordinance
are diverted to the exclusive private use of the Asiatic Integrated Corporation since the
collection of said fees had been let by the City of Manila to the said corporation in a
"Management and Operating Contract."
 Respondent Judge issued an order denying the plea for failure of the respondent
Federation of Manila Market Vendors, Inc. to exhaust the administrative remedies outlined in
the Local Tax Code.

Ruling of the CFI: Respondent Judge declared the nullity of Ordinance No. 7522 of the City of
Manila on the primary ground of non-compliance with the requirement of publication under
the Revised City Charter.

Petitioners moved for reconsideration of the adverse decision.

Respondent Judge denied the motion. Hence petitioners brought the matter to the
Supreme Court through the a petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE:

Can there be a delegation of the collection of market stall fees to a private corporation?

HELD:

Yes. The fees collected do not go direct to the private coffers of the corporation.
Ordinance No. 7522 was not made for the corporation but for the purpose of raising revenues
for the city. That is the object that it serves.

The entrusting of the collection of the fees does not destroy the public purpose of the
ordinance. So long as the purpose is public, it does not matter whether the agency through
which the money is dispensed is public or private. The right to tax depends upon the ultimate
use, purpose and object for which the fund is raised. It is not dependent on the nature or
character of the person or corporation whose intermediate agency is to be used in applying it.
The people may be taxed for a public purpose, although it be under the direction of an
individual or private corporation.