Iloilo Bottlers v. City of Iloilo (1988)

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 8/9/2019 Iloilo Bottlers v. City of Iloilo (1988)

    1/2

    Iloilo Bottlers v City of Iloilo | G.R. No. L-52019 (August 19, 19 !

    "AC#$

    Iloilo Bottlers Inc., a company in the business of bottling and selling soft drinks, wasdemanded by the City of Iloilo to pay an amount of 59,505 in the form of an licensetax the city claims were due to it under rdinance !o. 5, "eries of #9$0. It pro%idesthat manufacturers, bottlers, and distributers of soft drinks in Iloilo are sub&ect to amunicipal license tax of #0 centa%os per case of '( bottles. Iloilo Bottling Inc.asserted howe%er that since their plant base has mo%ed to municipality of )a%iashortly after the aforementioned ordinance was enacted, they are not liable for anytaxes. *he city howe%er, still demanded taxes and also demanded back taxes underthe claim that Iloilo Bottlers is still distributing in the city of Iloilo since its transfer.

    Iloilo Bottlers paid the demanded license tax and back taxes under protest.

    I$$%&

    +o! Iloilo Bottlers Inc. is free from liability and is thus entitled to a tax refund.

    ' L)ING

    N . "itus of taxation place of taxation- depends on %arious factors including thenature of the tax and sub&ect matter thereof both of which must be scrutini ed toreach a fair decision. *he tax ordinance enacted by the City of Iloilo imposes a taxon persons, /rms, and corporations engaged in the business of distribution of softdrinks, manufacture of soft drinks, and bottling of soft drinks within the territorial

    &urisdiction of the City of Iloilo. *here is no 1uestion that Iloilo Bottlers has mo%edout of Iloilo City2s &urisdiction and into the municipality of )a%ia where its plant nowstands3 therefore, the latter two conditions for taxation are no longer applicable.

    *he ruling now depends upon whether or not Iloilo Bottlers can be considered asdistributing its products within Iloilo city. Iloilo Bottlers disclaims liability, saying thatit does not independently distribute but rather acti%ely sells directly to its

    consumers. 4istribution is therefore only incidental to its business. Iloilo Bottlers isindeed considered as distributing within the city since while the manufacturing andbottling occurs outside of Iloilo City, the drinks are sold in Iloilo city to consumers ina mo%ing store6 fashion. *he transactions are considered to occur within the city.

    *he tax imposed under rdinance !o. 5 is an excise tax. By its nature, the power tole%y an excise tax depends upon the place where the business is done, or theoccupation is engaged in, or where the transaction took place. In this case, it is a

  • 8/9/2019 Iloilo Bottlers v. City of Iloilo (1988)

    2/2

    tax on the pri%ilege of distributing, manufacturing or bottling soft drinks. 7%enthough the base of operations is at )a%ia, the areas of transactions where itconducts its business are within Iloilo City limits. *he situs for excise tax is the areaof transaction, not necessarily base of operation. "ince Iloilo Bottlers does distributewithin city limits, it is therefore sub&ect to the ordinance and therefore should pay

    the pertinent amounts to the city of Iloilo.