G.R. No. L-2934 - NOVEMBER 1951 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-2934November 29, 1951 Sy Kiong vs. Marcelino Sarmiento G.R. No. L-2978November 29, 1951 Pacific Commercial Co. vs. Go Tian Gee, et al. G.R. Nos. L-3272-73November 29, 1951 Manuel Gonzales vs. Manolita Gonzales de Carungcong, et al. G.R. No. L-3648November 29, 1951 El Pueblo De Filipinas vs. Idris Amilhusin G.R. No. L-3677November 29, 1951 In Re: Basil Gordon Butler. Mercedes Leon vs. Manufacturers Life Insurance Co. G.R. No. L-3764November 29, 1951 People of the Philippines vs. Hugo Peregil, et al. G.R. No. L-3884November 29, 1951 International Colleges, Inc. vs. Nieves Argonza, et al. G.R. No. L-4010November 29, 1951 Nieves P. Atienza vs. Philippine Charity Sweeptakes Office G.R. No. L-4037November 29, 1951 Trinidad Florendo vs. Rufina Organo G.R. No. L-4067November 29, 1951 In Re: Antero Mercado. Rosario Garcia vs. Juliana Lacuesta, et al. G.R. No. L-4094November 29, 1951 Victor Castro, et al. vs. Juan Orpiano, et al. G.R. No. L-4135November 29, 1951 Severina Rosales, et al. vs. Loecadio S. Tanseco, et al. G.R. No. L-4199November 29, 1951 Borden Company vs. Doctors Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-4422November 29, 1951 Rogelia Paulete vs. Venancio Laplana, et al. G.R. No. L-4443November 29, 1951 Corazon Roque vs. Bonifacio Ysip, et al. G.R. No. L-4934November 28, 1951 People of the Philippines vs. Juan P. Enriquez, et al. G.R. No. L-3470November 27, 1951 Francisco Chan Su Hok vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-3975November 27, 1951 Francisco Dalupan vs. Fred M. Harden G.R. No. L-3740November 26, 1951 People of the Philippines vs. Donato Tortuga, et al. G.R. No. L-3889November 26, 1951 Vicente Bautista vs. Lam Ping, et al. G.R. No. L-4374November 23, 1951 Ramon Chua Yu Sun vs. Ceferino De Los Santos, etc. G.R. No. L-2966November 21, 1951 People of the Philippines vs. Basilio Orobia G.R. No. L-3691November 21, 1951 Jacinto M. Del Saz Orozco, et al. vs. Salvador Araneta, et al. A.C. No. 74November 20, 1951 In Re: Atty. Arturo Samaniego G.R. No. L-3738November 20, 1951 Concepcion Abella vs. Municipality of Naga, et al. G.R. No. L-3920November 20, 1951 Luisa Lim vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-4249November 20, 1951 Sofia Gustilo, et al. vs. Conchita Jagunap G.R. No. L-4615November 20, 1951 Juan Duldulao, et al. vs. Eusebio F. Ramos, et al. G.R. No. L-3835November 15, 1951 People of the Philippines vs. Juanito Jaula G.R. No. L-3609November 8, 1951 People of the Philippines vs. Juan De La Rosa, et al. G.R. No. L-5150November 8, 1951 Jose Pro. Teves, et al. vs. Commission on Elections The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Sy Kiong vs. Marcelino Sarmiento Pacific Commercial Co. vs. Go Tian Gee, et al. Manuel Gonzales vs. Manolita Gonzales de Carungcong, et al. El Pueblo De Filipinas vs. Idris Amilhusin In Re: Basil Gordon Butler. Mercedes Leon vs. Manufacturers Life Insurance Co. People of the Philippines vs. Hugo Peregil, et al. International Colleges, Inc. vs. Nieves Argonza, et al. Nieves P. Atienza vs. Philippine Charity Sweeptakes Office Trinidad Florendo vs. Rufina Organo In Re: Antero Mercado. Rosario Garcia vs. Juliana Lacuesta, et al. Victor Castro, et al. vs. Juan Orpiano, et al. Severina Rosales, et al. vs. Loecadio S. Tanseco, et al. Borden Company vs. Doctors Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. Rogelia Paulete vs. Venancio Laplana, et al. Corazon Roque vs. Bonifacio Ysip, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Juan P. Enriquez, et al. Francisco Chan Su Hok vs. Republic of the Philippines Francisco Dalupan vs. Fred M. Harden People of the Philippines vs. Donato Tortuga, et al. Vicente Bautista vs. Lam Ping, et al. Ramon Chua Yu Sun vs. Ceferino De Los Santos, etc. People of the Philippines vs. Basilio Orobia Jacinto M. Del Saz Orozco, et al. vs. Salvador Araneta, et al. In Re: Atty. Arturo Samaniego Concepcion Abella vs. Municipality of Naga, et al. Luisa Lim vs. Republic of the Philippines Sofia Gustilo, et al. vs. Conchita Jagunap Juan Duldulao, et al. vs. Eusebio F. Ramos, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Juanito Jaula People of the Philippines vs. Juan De La Rosa, et al. Jose Pro. Teves, et al. vs. Commission on Elections The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-2934 November 29, 1951
SY KIONG,petitioner-appellee,
vs.
MARCELINO SARMIENTO, in his capacity as Treasurer of the City of Manila,respondent-appellant.
Claro M. Recto for petitioner and appellee.
Assistant City Fiscal Arsenio Nañawa for respondent and appellant.
BAUTISTA ANGELO,J.:
This is an action for declaratory relief filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila for the purpose of determining if petitioner is liable to pay the municipal license tax upon his sales of flour to bakeries under Ordinance No. 2723 of the city of Manila, as amended.
Petitioner is the owner of a duly licensed grocery store located in the city of Manila and an importer of flour who sells it either to bakeries or to retail dealers for the purposes of resale. Sometime in September 1948, the Treasurer of the City of Manila assessed against him the sum of P566.50 which, it is claimed, represents the alleged deficiency municipal license tax due from him on his gross sales made to retail dealers for the purposes of resale. Petitioner, instead of honoring the demand, filed the present action for declaratory relief.
In his answer, respondent admitted all the factual allegations of the complaint, but contended that the sales in question are sales at retail and in this sense are subject to the provisions of Ordinance No. 2723, as amended. As the pleadings only raised questions of law, the case was submitted for decision after the parties had submitted their respective memoranda. And on March 4, 1949, the court rendered judgment upholding the contention of the petitioner and declaring that he is not liable to pay the tax question. From this decision respondent appealed.
The only issue involved in this appeal is whether the sales of flour made by petitioner to bakeries to be manufactured into bread are retail or wholesale. If retail, they are subject to tax; if wholesale, they are not.
In the case ofCity of Manila vs. Manila Blue Printing Co.,74 Phil. 317, this Court had occasion to determine when a sale of commodity should be considered retail or wholesale. It was there said that there are two criteria by which this can be determined. "Only is by the quantity, whether small or large; and the other is by the nature of the buyer, whether he is a consumer or a merchant who resells to a profit." The Court followed the second criterion and held that it is the character of the purchaser and not the quantity of the commodity sold that determines if the sale is wholesale or retail. If the purchaser buys the commodity for his own consumption, the sale is considered retail, irrespective of the quantity of the commodity sold. If the purchaser buys the commodity for resale, the sale is deemed wholesale regardless of the quantity of the transaction.
Now, having this criterion in mind, the next question to be determined is, is the sale of flour to a bakery retail or wholesale? Is a bakery who purchases flour to be manufactured into bread a consumer? Can a sale of flour to a bakery be considered wholesale for the simple reason that the flour after its conversion into bread is resold to the public? The answer to these question will depend largely upon the consideration that may be given to the incidence touching on the manufacture of flour into bread before it is resold to the public. This is the main point that should be determined in order that we may have a basis for the determination of this novel controversy.
The Ordinance under which the municipal license tax in question has been assessed does not contain any definition of what isretail gross sale. Said ordinance merely provides that theretail gross salesof a grocery store shall be subject to a license fee to be fixed by the City Treasurer in accordance with certain schedule therein specified, but is silent as to what are considered "retail gross sales". The National Internal Revenue Code does not also furnish any lead as regards the nature of a sale for purposes of taxation. It does not give any definition nor pattern as to how a sale to a bakery or a manufacturer should be considered. This is a loophole that our Congress has not foreseen.
It is true that said Code gives the definition of a "manufacturer" and in so defining it includes every person who manufactures by any of the processes therein specified subject only to the limitation that the finished products shall be "for the purpose of their sale or distribution to others and not for his own use or consumption" (Section 194 [x].); but this definition in our opinion merely gives an idea of who are the persons who would be considered manufacturers for purposes of paying the specific tax provided for therein, and does not state when a manufacturer should be considered a retail dealer or wholesale dealer of the raw materials he uses in the process of manufacture. It cannot be denied that many materials or ingredients are used in the manufacture of a finished product and the question whether the purchase of these materials for the purpose intended is retail or wholesale is not clarified. We have failed to find any legal provision in this jurisdiction that may be invoked to solve this important issue.
But we find one lead that may guide us in the case of Buenaventuravs. Collector of Internal Revenue (50 Phil. 875) wherein a similar question was raised and decided. In that case this Court ruled that the sale of fish to a hotel by a vendor in a public market during certain period of time and for a certain value is a sale at retail and, therefore, is subject to the retail sales tax law. And then the Court added: "even the isolated case of those made to the Hotel de Francia cannot be considered as transactions for resale of fish, because it has not been proved, nor is it probable, that said hotel, as such, cannot be said or considered to be a reseller of fish". The implication of this ruling is that the sale of fish to a hotel is retail even if the same is to be sold later in the form of food.
We believe this ruling to be in point and one of persuasive force in the present case in the absence of any express provisions of law on the matter. The parallelism between that case and the one we are considering is apparent. In one case, the fish is converted into food through certain physical process, and, therefore, it suffers an alteration in form before it is sold. In such case the fish is resold in different form. A similar situation obtains in the case of a bakery. The flour is converted into a bread through a physical or chemical process and later is sold to the public in the form of bread.
We have taken notice of the fact that in many states of the American Union, sales of tangible property to manufacturers, producers or processors, or "sales of goods which as ingredients or constituents go into and form part of tangible personal property sold by the buyer are not taxable" as retail transactions because they are considered wholesale transactions upon the theory that they have to be resold even in a different form or condition. But we have noted that if these transactions are so treated it is not by judicial interpretation but by express statutory provisions. As well stated by counsel for the appellee, these transactions are considered wholesale either because they are so declared by retail sales statutes of different American States, by administrative rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, or by judicial decisions construing and applying them. If there is an express provision of the law on the matter, there is no room for judicial interpretation. Our duty is to apply the law. But, as we have already pointed out, such is not the situation obtaining in the Philippines. Our law on the point is silent, and being silent we do not feel justified to extend the force and effect of American statutes to our jurisdiction. To do so would be to incorporate into our statutes some legislative matter by judicial ruling which is certainly beyond our province to do.
The decision appealed from should be reversed, with costs against the appellee.
Paras, C.J., Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, and Jugo JJ.,concur.