Home of ChanRobles Virtual Law Library

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 14205. September 30, 1919. ]

THE MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JAMES J. RAFFERTY, as Collector of Internal Revenue, Defendant-Appellant.

Attorney-General Paredes for Appellant.

Orense & Vera for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. TAXES; EXEMPTION; SPECIAL LAWS, REPEAL OF, BY GENERAL LAWS. — Special laws or charters may not be amended, altered, or repealed by a general law, by mere implication

2. ID.; ID.; ID. — Repeal of laws by implication is not favored. The mere repugnancy between two statutes should be very clear in order to warrant the court in holding that the later in time repeals the former, when it does not in terms purport to do so.

3. ID.; ID.; ID. — It is well settled that a special and local statute is not repealed by a subsequent statute unless the intent to repeal or alter it is manifest, although the terms of the general act are broad enough to include the cases in the special law.

4. ID.; ID.; ID. — Where there are two statutes, the earlier special and the later general — the terms of the general broad enough to include the matter provided for in the special — the fact that one is special and the other is general creates a presumption that the special is to be considered as remaining an exception to the general — one as a general law of the land, the other as the law of a particular case.

5. ID.; ID.; ID. — Charters or special laws granted and enacted by the Legislature are in the nature of private contracts. They do not constitute a part of the machinery of the general government. They are usually adopted after careful consideration of the private rights in relation with resultant benefits to the State. They stand upon a different footing from general laws.

6. ID.; ID.; ID. — The reason why a general law will not repeal a special law or charter is because in passing a special charter the attention of the Legislature is directed to the facts and circumstances which the act or charter is intended to meet. The Legislature consider and make provision for all the circumstances of a particular case. The Legislature having specially considered all of the facts and circumstances in a particular case in granting a special charter, it will not be considered that the Legislature, by adopting a general law without any mention of its intention to amend or modify the charter, intended to amend, repeal, or modify the special act or charter.


D E C I S I O N


JOHNSON, J.:


This action was commenced in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila on the 20th day of December, 1916. Its purpose was to recover of the defendant the sum of P83,159.63 which the plaintiff had paid to the defendant as internal-revenue tax, under protest.

The plaintiff alleged that the said sum had been illegally assessed and collected by the defendant as internal-revenue tax during the years 1915 and 1916; that by virtue of its charter, subsection 12 of section 1, in relation with subsection 10 of Act NO. 1510, it was relieved from all taxes of every name and nature — municipal, provincial or central — upon its capital stock, franchise, right of way, earnings, or other property owned or operated by it, except those mentioned in said charter (Act No. 1510); that the amount which the defendant collected and for which the present action was brought was not included as a part of the taxes which the plaintiff was required to pay under its charter. The defendant admitted that the amount collected was collected as internal-revenue tax upon certain oil and coal which the plaintiff had imported into the Philippine Islands, for its use.

All of the facts alleged by the plaintiff were, by stipulation of the parties, admitted to be true. The defendant, however, alleged as a special defense, in justification of his collection of said sum, that "during the period covered by the complaint the plaintiff imported into the Philippine Islands at various times, various quantities of coal and oil, which, by virtue of the provisions of subdivision C of section 4 of the Act of Congress of October 3, 1913, became subject, upon importation into the Philippine Islands, to the payment of the internal-revenue tax imposed by the Philippine Government upon like articles manufactured and consumed in the Philippine Islands."cralaw virtua1aw library

Upon the issue thus presented the Honorable James A Ostrand, judge, in a carefully prepared opinion, held that; notwithstanding the provisions of said Act of Congress invoked by the defendant, subsection 12 of section 1 of Act No. 1510 of the Philippine Legislature is in full force and effect, and, upon that theory, rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant for the sum of P83,159.63, without any finding as to costs. From that judgment the defendant appealed.

The appellant alleges that the lower court committed an error in holding that subsection 12 of section 1 of Act No. 1510 of the Philippine Legislature is still in full force and effect and in not holding that section 4, subdivision C, of the Act of Congress of October 3, 1913, did apply to coal and oil imported into the Philippine Islands by the plaintiff for the use in the operation of its lines

On the 7th day of July, 1906, by an Act of the Philippine Legislature, a special charter was granted to the Manila Railroad Company. Subsection 12 of section 1 of said Act (No. 1510) provides that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In consideration of the premises and of the granting of this concession or franchise, there shall be paid by the grantee to the Philippine Government, annually, for the period of thirty (30) years from the date hereof, an amount equal to one-half (2) of one per cent of the gross earnings of the grantee in respect of the lines covered hereby for the preceding year; after said period of thirty (30) years, and for the fifty (50) years thereafter, the amount so to be paid annually shall be an amount equal to one and one-half (1
Top of Page