THE TREASURER OF THE CITY OF MANILA v. UNILIVER PHILS., INC.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION ************* THE TREASURER OF THE CITY C.T.A. AC NO. 47 OF MANILA, Members: Peti tioner, ACOSTA, Chairperson BAUTISTA, and -versus- CASANOVA, JJ. Promulgated: UNILEVER PHILIPPINES, INC., Responde nt. X - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~::. -- - - - - - - -x j DECISION CASANOVA, J.: Nature of the Case This is a Petition for Review of the Decision dated November 3, 2006, and Order dated July 12, 2007 of the Reg iona l Tria l Court of Manila, Branch 21. Statement of the Facts The facts, as cu lled from the records, follow: Petitioner is the Treasurer of the City of Mani la, Ms. Liberty M. Toledo, with office address at the Ground Floor, Manila City Hall, Taft Avenue, Mani la~ 1 Paragraph 2, Page 2, Petition for Review; Page 2, CTA Records

'DECISION C.T.A. AC NO. 47 Page 2 Whi le respondent, Unilever Philippines, Inc., is a domestic corporation duly registered and existing by virtue of the laws of the Philippines, with principal address at 1351 United Nations Avenue, Mani la. 2 Respondent, on October 17, 2003, filed a Petition for Refund3 before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 21, docketed as Civil Case No. 03-108165.4 Petitioner filed her Answer5 on December 3, 2003. 6 Respondent filed its Memorandum 7 on March 9, 2004. Petitioner's Memorandum8 was filed on March 11, 2004.9 On November 3, 2006, the Regional Jrial Court of Manila rendered as follows: 10 "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petitions are hereby GRANTED. The application to petitioner of Sec. 21 of the Tax Ordinance No. 7988 as amended by Ta x Ordinance No. 8011 is hereby declared VOID. Respondent is hereby ordered to REFUND/ CREDIT petitioner the taxes paid under Sec. 21 of the said ordinance. With cost against respondents. SO ORD ERED. " Petitioner then filed a Motion for Reco'nsideration 11 on November 27, 2006 Y The Regional Trial Court, on July 12, 2007, resolved as follows: 13 "Accordingly, the Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENI ED . SO ORDERED." Hence, petitioner filed an appeal, by way of Petition for Review, on October 25, 2007 ..e:r- 1 Paragraph 3, Ibid; Ibid 3 Annex A, Pages 25-33, CTA Records ' Paragraph 4, Page 2, Petition for Review; Page 2, CTA Records 5 Annex B, Pages 34-44, CTA Records 6 Paragraph 5, Page 2, Petition for Review; Page 2, CTA Records 7 Annex D, Pages 45-59, CTA Records 8 Annex E, Pages 60-70, CTA Records 9 Paragraph 8, Page 3, Petition for Review; Page 3, CTA Records 10 Annex F, Pages 72-78, CTA Records 11 Annex G, Pages 82 -91, CTA Records 11 Paragraph 10, Page 3, Petition for Review; Page 3, CTA Reco rds 13 Pages 80-81, CTA Records ' : ll '{

DECISION C.T.A. AC NO. 47 Page 3 In a Resolution dated November 14, 2\)07, this Court ordered respondent to file a Comment, not a Motion to Dismiss, within ten (10) days from receipt thereof.14 Respondent then, on December 21, 2007, filed its Manifestation with Motion (re: . Opposition to Petition for Review)15, with attached Opposition (re: Petition for Review dated October 25, 2007) 16. The Court, in a Resolution .dated JanuaJ>V 4, 2008, admitted respondent's Opposition, and ordered the parties to submit their respective Memoranda within fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof.17 This case was submitted for decision, in a Resolution dated February 27, 2008, taking into consideration the Memorandum filed by petitioner on January 25, 2008, 18 and the Memorandum posted by respondent on February 8, 2008 19 but received on February 19, 2008. 20 Hence, this decision. The Parties' Arguments Petitioner advances the following issues: 21 I. Whether or not the Honorable Regional Trial Court gravely erred in holding that there is double taxation in the imposition of Section 21 of the Manila Revenue Code, as amended; II. Whether or not the Honorable Regional Trial Court gravely erred in holding that Section 21 is expressly prohibited by Section 133 of the Local Government Code; and III. Whether or not the Honorable Regional Trial Court gravely erred in holding that Sections 195 and 187 of the Local Government Code do not apply in the instant case . ~ 14 Page 9'1, CTA Records 15 Pages 102- 104, CTA Records 16 Pages 105-140, CTA Records 17 Pages 144-14 6, CTA Records 18 Pag es 1'17-163, CTA Records 19 Pages 168-2 04, CTA Records 20 Page 287, CTA Records 21 Paragraph 11, Page 4, Petition for Review; Page 4, CTA Records

DECISION C.T.A. AC NO. 47 Page 4 While respondent opposes on the following grounds Y I. The imposition of both Sections 14 and 21 on respondent [Unil ever] constitutes direct duplicate ta xation; II. The Honorable Court of Tax Appeals has already ruled with finality that the imposition of the Section 21 tax on respondent [Unilever] constitutes double taxation, in view of the ta xes paid under Section 14. Hence, such ru ling is now the "law of the case"; III. Petitioner City Treasurer herself admitted that respondent [Unilever] is entitled to a refund of the Section 21 taxes it has paid; IV. The Petition for Refund was filed under Section 196 of the Local Government Code, and not Uflder Section 195; hence, the latter is not applicable; V. Respondent [Unilever] is not questioning the validity or constitutionality of Section 21; hence, Section 187 is not applicable; VI. Respondent [Unilever] is not guilty of forum -shopping as each Petition for Refund it had filed seeks a refund of a different payment made; and VII. Contrary to petitioner's bare assertion, and consistent with the ruling of the Trial Court, Atty. Danilo Cruz was authorized to file the Petition for Refund; respondent [Unilever] has capacity to sue and be sued, and this was stated in the Petition for Refund. In fact, petitioner City Treasurer admitted the existence of such capacity. The Court's Ruling This Court will resolve the issues in seriatim. Authority of the Local Government Unit The power to tax is the most effective instrument to raise needed revenues to _ finance and support the myriad of activities of local government units for the delivery of . @.... 22 Pa ragraphs I -VII, Pages 2-3, Opposition (re: Petition for Review da ted October 25, 2007); Pages 106-107, CTA Records

DECISION C.T.A. AC NO. 47 Page 5 basic services essential to the promotion of the general welfare and enhancement of peace, progress, and prosperity of the people. 23 Under the regime of the 1935 Constitution, no delegation of tax powers was provided, and the local government units instead derived their tax powers under a limited statutory authority. 24 During the 1973 Constitution, the revenue making power was delegated to local governments by Article XI. At present, under the 1987 Constitution, a general delegation of that power has been given to local government units. Thus, Article X provides: "SECTION 3. The Congress shall enact a loca l government code which shall provide for a more responsive and accountable local government structure instituted through a system of decentralization with effective mechanisms of recall, initiative, and referendum, allocate among the different local government units their powers, responsibilities, and resources, and provide for the qualifications, election, appointment and removal, term, salaries, powers and functions, and duties of local officials, and all other matters relating to the organization and operation of the local units. XXX XXX XXX SECTION 5. Each local government unit shall have the power to create its sources of revenues and to levy taxes, fees, and charges subject to such guidelines and limitations as the Congress may provide, consistent with the basic policy of local autonomy. Such fees, taxes, and charges shall accrue exclusively to the loca l governments. " These guidelines and limitations as provided by Congress are contained in the Local Government Code of 1991 (LGC), which provides for comprehensive instances when and how local government units may impose taxes. 25 Among the limitations contained in the LGC on loca l government units is specified in Section 143 (h) thereof, which reads as follows:~ . 23 Reyes vs. Cou rt of Appeals, 320 SCRA 486 2< Manila Electric Company vs. Province of Laguna, G.R. No. 131359, May 5, 1999 15 Yamane vs. BA Lepanto Condomin ium Corporation, G.R. No. 154993, October 25, 2005

DECISION C.T.A. AC NO . 47 Page 6 "SECTION 14 3. Tax on Business- The municipality may impose taxes on the following businesses: XXX (h) On any business, not otherwise specified in the preceding paragraphs, which the sanggunian concerned mC!Y deem proper to tax: Provided, that on any business subject to the excise, value-added or percentage tax under the National Internet Revenue Code, as amended, the rate of tax shall not exceed two percent (2%) of gross sa les or receipts of the preceding calendar year. The sanggunian concerned may prescribe a schedule of graduated tax rates but in no case to exceed the rates prescribed herein." Paragraph (h) explicitly provides that the taxes therein may no longer be imposed on ; ..) , businesses subjected to tax under paragraphs (a) to (g) of the same section, which reads as fo ll ows: "SECTION 14 3. Tax on Business. - The municipality may impose taxes on the following businesses: (a) On manufacturers, assemblers, repackers, processors, brewers, disti llers, rectifiers, and compounders of liquors, disti lled spirits, and wines or manufacturers of any article of commerce of whatever kind or nature, in accordance with the following schedule: With gross sa les or receipts for the Amount of Tax preceding calendar year in the amount of: XXX XXX XXX (b) On wholesalers, distributors, or dealers in any article of commerce of whatever kind or nature in accordance with the following schedule: With gross sales or receipts for the Amount of Tax preceding calendar year in the amount of: XXX XXX XXX (c) On exporters, and on manufacturers, millers, producers, wholesalers, distributors, dealers or retailers of, essential commodities enumerated hereunder at a rate not exceeding dne-half (1/2) of the rates prescribed under subsections (a), (b) and (d) of this Section: (1) Rice and corn; (2) Wheat or cassava flour, meat, dairy products, locally manufactured, processed or preserved food, sugar, salt and other agricultural, marine, and fresh water products, whether in their original state or not;~

DECISION C.T.A. AC NO. 47 Page 7 (3) Cooking oil and cooking gas; (4) Laundry soap, detergents, and medicine; (5) Agricultural implements, equipmer.Jt and post- harvest facilities, fertilizers, pesticides, insecticides, herbicides and other farm inputs; (6) Poultry feeds and other animal feeds; (7) School supplies; and (8) Cement. (d) On retailers, with gross sales or receipts Rate of tax for the preceding ca lendar year of: XXX XXX XXX Provided, however, That barangays shall have the exclusive power to levy taxes, as provided under Section 152 hereof, on gross sales or receipts of the preceding calendar year of Fifty thousand pesos (PSO,OOO.OO) or less, in the case of cities, and Thirty thousand pesos (P30,000.00) or less, in the case of municipalities. (e) On contractors and other independent contractors, in accordance with the following schedule: With gross receipts for the preceding calendar year in the amount of: XXX XXX XXX (f) On banks and other financial institutions, at a rate not exceeding fifty percent (50%) of one percent (1 %) on the gross receipts of the preceding calendar year derived from interest, commissions and discounts from lending activities, income from financial leasing, dividends, rentals on property and profit from exchange or sa le of property, insurance premium. (g) On peddlers engaged in the sa le of any merchandise or article of commerce, at a rate not exceeding Fifty pesos (PSO.OO) per peddler annually." Section 143 of the Code specifically enumerates several types of business on which municipalities and cities may impose taxes. � Moreover, the local sanggunian is also authorized to impose taxes "on any other businesses not otherwise specified'; which the sanggunian concerned may deem proper to ta x~ , , f"'\

DECISION C.T.A. AC NO. 47 Page 8 This clearly indicates the intention of the framers of LGC to include in subsection (h) those businesses or persons not covered in subsections (a) to (g). Sections 14 and 21 of the Manila Revenue Code The City of Manila through Tax Ordinance No. 7988, as amended by Ordinance No. 8011, otherwise known as the Revised Revenue Code of the City of Manila, imposes and collects taxes on people, transactions, and businesses found within its jurisdiction. Included therein are Sections 14 and 21 of the Manila Revenue Code (MRC) which states: "SECTION 14. Tax on Manufacturers/ Assemblers and Other Processors - There is hereby imposed a graduated tax on manufacturers, assemblers, repackers, processors, brewers, distillers, rectifiers and I compounders of liquors, distilled spirits, and wines or manufacturers of any article of commerce of whatever kind or nature, in accordance with the following schedule xxx" XXX XXX XXX "SECTION 21. Tax on Businesses Subject to the Excise/ Value-Added or Percentage Taxes Under the NIRC - On any of the fo llowing businesses and articles of commerce subject to the excise, value- added or percentage taxes under the National Internal Revenue Code hereinafter referred to as NIRC, as amended, a tax of fifty percent (50%) of one percent (1 %) per annum on the gross sales or receipts of the preceding ca lendar year is hereby imposed: A) On persons who sell goods and services in the course of trade or business; and those who import goods whether for business or otherwise, as provided for in Sections 100 to 103 of the NIRC as administered and determined by the Bureau of Internal Revenue pursuant to the pertinent provisions of the said code. xxx" Section 14 imposes a percentage tax on manufacturers, assemblers, repackers, processors, brewers, distillers, rectifiers and compounders of liquors, distilled spirits, and wines, or manufacturers of any article of commerce of whatever kind or with the gross sales or rece ipts for the preceding calendar year in accordance with the schedule provided � therein. ~

.DECISION CT.A. AC NO. 47 Page 9 While Section 21, on the other hand, entitled "Tax on Businesses Subject to the Excise, Value Added or Percentage Taxes under the NIRC", provides for the imposition of a tax of fifty percent (50%) of one percent (1%) per annum on the gross sa les or rece ipts on the business and articl es of commerce subj ect to excise, value added or percentage taxes under the National I nternal Revenue Code (NIRC). Upon peru sa ls thereof, Sections 14 and 21 of Ordinance No. 7988 has a semblance 'I with Section 143(a) and (h), respective ly, of the LGC. To ill ustrate: LGC Ordinance No. 7988 "Section. 143 . Tax on Business. -The Secti on 14. "Tax on Manufacturers, Assemblers, muni cipality may impose taxes on the and Other Processors - fo ll owing bu sinesses : (a) On m a nufactu rers, asse m b lers, There is hereby imposed a graduated tax o n r ep ackers, processors, brewe rs, m an ufact ut�et�s, asse mblet�s, re packet�s, distiller s, rec tifiers, a nd co mp oun ders of pt�ocessors, b t�ewet�s, distillers, rectifiers , a nd Iiquot�s, distilled spi r its, a nd wines or co mpoun de rs of liqu ors, distill ed sp ir its, a nd m a nufac tut�e rs of a ny a rti cle of win es or ma nu fact urers of any a r ticle of co mm er ce of w hatever ld nd or n a tu re, comm erce of wh a teve r kind o r n ature, in in acco rd a n ce w ith th e follow ing a,ccor da nce w ith th e follow in g schedul e: sch edul e: Section 143. Tax o n Business - The Secti on 2 1. Tax on Businesses Subject to Excise, muni cipality may impose taxes on the following Va lue-Added or Percentage Taxes Under the bu s ine sses: N IRC. - XXX (h) On any business, not oth erwise specified in O n any of th e following b us in esses a nd a r ticles the preceding paragraphs, which the sangguni an of co mm e r ce s u bj ect to the excise, va lu e-a dd ed concerned may deem proper to lax: Provided, or pe r centage taxes und e r th e Na ti on al In ter na l T h a t on a n y busin ess subj ect to th e exc ise, Reven ue Cod e h CJ'eaftet� r efe r red to as NIRC, va lue-a dd ed or p e r centage tax und et� t he as a m end ed, a ta x of fifty percent (50%) of one Na tio na l lntet�n a l R eve nu e Code, as ame n ded , percent ( I%) per annum on th e gross sa les or the rate of tax shall not exceed two percent (2%) receipts of the precedi ng ca lendar yea r is he reby of gross sales or receipts of th e preceding imposed : ca lendar year. (A)' On persons who sell goods and serv ices in the The sanggunian concerned may prescribe a course of trade or business or otherwise, as schedu le of gradu a ted tax rates bu t in no case to provided for in Secti ons I00 lo I03 of th e N IRC exceed the rates prescribed herein. as adm ini stered and de termin ed by th e Burea u of Internal Revenue pursuant to th e pertinent (Emphasis supplied) or provisions sa id code. ~------------------------~(E~ mph~ asis~ sup~ plied~ ) ------------~~ ~00

DECISION C.T.A. AC NO. 47 Page 10 I Clearly, the provisions in the LGC and the MRC are the same. In the present case, while respo ndent is being ta xed as a manufacturer of goods in Section 14 of the Ordinance, it is also being taxed under Section 21 (a) on its business of selling manufactured goods. Both Sections 14 and 21 of the MRC are business ta xes based on respondent's sales as a manufacturer. Thus, subjecting respond~nt to both provisions is an apparent violation of Section 143 (h) of the LGC. It is tantamount to double taxation. The Supreme Court defines double taxation as: "Taxing the same property twice when it shou ld be taxed only once; that is, "x x x ta xing the same person twice by the same jurisdiction for the same thing ." It is obnoxious when the taxpayer is taxed twice, when it should be but once. Otherwise described as "direct duplicate taxation/' the two taxes must be imposed on the same subject matter, for the same purpose, by the same taxing authority, within the same jurisdiction, during the same taxing period; and they must be of the same kind or character." 26 Moreover, in the Pepsi-Cola case, the Supreme Court likewise said: "Double taxation, in general, is not forbidden by our fundam ental law, since We have not adopted as part thereof the injunction against double taxation found in the Constitution of the United States and some states of the Union. Double taxation becomes obnoxious only where the taxpayer is taxed twice for the benefit of the same governmental entity or by the same jurisdiction for the same purpose, but not in a case where one tax is imposed by the State and the other by'the city or municipality."27 The Court consistently held that the imposition of Sections 14 and 21 of the MRC, as amended, constitutes double taxation .28 There was taxation twice, for the same activity (i.e., manufacturing), by the same public authority within the same ta xing jurisdiction (City of Manila), for the same purpose (i.e., to generate revenue for the City of Manila), for the~ 26 Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Solidbank Corporation, G.R. No. 1'18191, November 25, 2003. 27 Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of the Philippines, Inc. vs. Municipality of Tanauan, Leyte, No. L-31156, February 27, 1976, 69 SCRA '166-'167. 28 Unilever Phil ippines, Inc. vs. The Treasurer of Manila, CTA AC No. 25, June 18, 2007; Liberty M. Toledo, in her capacity as the Treasurer of the City of Manila vs. Unilever Ph-ilippines, Inc. , CTA A. C. No. 21, May 10, 2007; Al ca n Packaging Starpack Corporation (formerly Starpack Philippines Corporation) vs. The Treasurer of the City of Manila, CTA AC No. 17, September 11, 2006; Swedish Match Philippines, Inc. vs. The Treasurer of the City of Manila, CTA AC No. 15, July 21, 2006

. DECISION C.T.A. AC NO. 47 Page 11 same taxable period. It is obnoxious when the taxpayer is taxed twice, when it shou ld be but once. 29 Even if we disregard the limitation set by Section 133 of the LGC, petitioner may not impose the taxes under Sections 14 and 21. In Coca Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. vs. City of Manila, et. al./ 0 the Highest Tribunal declared null and void Tax Ordinance 7988, as amended by Tax Ordinance No. 8011 of the City of Mani la, for failure to comply with the publication requirements of ordinances as prescribed by the LGC, to wit: "SECTION 188. Publication of Tax Ordinances and Revenue Measures. -Within ten (10) days after their approval, certified true copies of all provincial, city and municipal tax ordinances or revenue measures shall be published in full for three (3) consecutive days in a newspaper of local circulation; Provided, however, that in provinces, cities, and municipalities where there are no newspapers or local circulations the same may be posted in at least two (2) conspicuous and publicly accessible places." The subjects are the same. The Coca Cola case is a stare decisis in the case at bench. Thus, defined as: ''Stare decisis et non quieta movere. Stand by the decision and disturb not what is settled. Stare decisis simply means that for the sake of certainty, a conclusion reached in one case should be applied to those that follow if the facts are substantia lly the same, even though the parties may be different. It proceeds from the first principle of justice that, absent any powerful countervailing considerations, like cases ought to be decided alike. Thus, where the same questions relating to the same event have been put forward by parties simi larly situated as in a previous case litigated and decided by a competent court, the rule of stare decisis is a bar to any attempt to relitigate the same issue. 31" "Under the doctrine of stare decisis, once a point of law has been established by the court, that point of law will, genera lly, be followed by the same court and by all courts of lower rank in subsequent cases where the same legal issue is raised. ;Stare decisis proceeds from the first principle of justice that, absent powerful countervailing considerations, like cases ought to be decided alike.~ 29 San Miguel Brewery, Inc. vs . City of Cebu, 43 SCRA 27 5, Feb ruary 26, 1972 30 G.R. No. 156252, June 27, 2006 31 Grand Placement and General Services Corporaton vs. Court of Appeals, et. al., G.R. NO. 142358, January 31, 2006 32 Ayala Corporation vs . Rosa -Di ana Rea lty and Development Co rporati on, G. R. No . 134284, Dece mber 1, 2000 '-0 2

.' . DECISION C.T.A. AC NO. 47 Page 12 A municipal tax ordinance empowers a local government unit to impose taxes. However, Ordinance No. 7988, as amended by Ordinance 8011 is null and void. An invalid ordinance does not, in legal contemplation, exist. Sections 187 and 195 of the Local Government Code Petitioner avers that the .cause of action was already barred for failure to observe Section 187 of the LGC, which reads as follows: "SECTION 187. Procedure for Approval and Effectivity of Tax/ Ordinances and Revenue Measures/� Mandatory Public Hearings. - The procedure for approval of local tax ordinances and revenue measures shall be in accordance with the provisions of this Code: Provided, That the public hearings shall be conducted for the purpose prior to the enactment thereof: Provided further, That any question on the constitutionality or legality of tax ordinances or revenue measures may be raised on appeal within thirty (30) days from the effectivity thereof to the Secretary of Justice who shall render a decision within si xty (60) days from the date of receipt of the appeal: Provided, however, That such appeal shall not have the effect of suspending the effectivity of the ordinance and the accrual and payment of the tax, fee or charge levied therein: Provided, finally, That within thirty (30) days after the receipt of the decision or the lapse of the sixty dqy period without the Secretary of Justice acting upon the appeal, the aggrieved party may file appropriate proceedings with a court of competent jurisdiction." Petitioner asserts that for respondent's failure to appeal the Revenue Measure within thirty (30) days from its enactment, it is barred from seeking judicial intervention, since Section 187 is a condition sine qua non bef(')re resort to the court may be had. Moreover, I respondent is estopped to file a cla im for refund for its failure to appeal the assessment, in utter disregard of Section 195 of the LGC, which reads as follows: "SECTION 195. Protest of Assessment. - When the loca l treasurer or his duly authorized representative finds that correct taxes, fees, or charges have not been paid, he sha ll issue a notice of assessment stating the nature of the tax, fee, or charge, the amount of deficiency, the surcharges, interests and penalties. Within sixty (60) days from receipt of the notice of assessment, the taxpayer may file a written protest with the local treasurer contesting the assessment; otherwise the assessment shall become final and executory. The local treasurer shall decide the protest within sixty (60) days from the time of its filing. If the local treasurer finds the protest to be wholly or partly �meritorious, he shall issue a notice canceling wholly or partially the assessment. However, if the local treasurer finds the assessment to be wholly or partly correct, he shall deny the protest wholly or partly with notice to the taxpayer. The taxpayer sha~

lJ�C AC 11 have thirty (30) days from the receipt of the denial of the protest or from the lapse of sixty (60) day period prescribed herein within which to appeal with the court of competent jurisdiction otherwise the assessment becomes conclusive and unappealable." We are not persuaded. The foregoing provisions of the LGC cover the protest of assessment, and the procedure for approval and effectivity of ta x ordinances and revenue measures. The present case involves a claim for refund under th e MRC. A refund is not the same case as that of a disputed assessment which is referred to in Section 195 of the LGC. Respondent did not raise any issue regarding incorrect assessment. There was no notice of assessment issued by petitioner requiring respondent to pay its ta xes . There was no assessment to protest. Moreover, respondent did not question the legality of Sections 14 and 21. It only questions the enforcement thereof, as it already paid business taxes under Section 14 of the MRC, as well as, Section 21 of the same code . Section 187 has no application in the instant case. Epilogue The power to tax is the most effective instrument to raise needed revenues to finance and support the myriad of activities of local government units for the delivery of basic services essential to the promotion of the general welfare and enhancement of peace, progress, and prosperity of the people. 33 However, such authority is not absolute. The power of local government units to impose ta xes within its territorial jurisdiction ta... derives from the Constitution itself, which recognizes the power of these units "to create its 33 Reyes vs. Court of Appea ls, 320 SCRA 486

DECISION C.T.A. AC NO. 47 Page 14 own sources of revenue and to levy taxes, fees, and charges is subject to such guidelines and limitations as the Congress may provide, consistent with the basic policy of local autonomy."34 Petitioner is merely deriving its authority to tax respondent from an invalid ordina nce, such is a violation of the constitutional principle of uniformity and equal protection in taxation. WHEREFORE, with the foregoing disquisitions, the Petition for Review is hereby DENIED . SO ORDERED . $ CAESARA .CASANOVA Associate Justice WE CONCUR : CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division. Q_ ~ ~. \::c-.-\-- ERNESTO D. ACOSTA T'a a! s t r'! .) X ; . L1 p t; Presiding Justice � Chairman, First Division "-' 101 d. i ��)'' H Section 5, Article X, Constitution