8/31/2016 G.R.No.

L2947

TodayisWednesday,August31,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

ENBANC

G.R.No.L2947January11,1951

MANILARACEHORSETRAINERSASSOCIATION,INC.,andJUANT.SORDAN,plaintiffsappellants,
vs.
MANUELDELAFUENTE,defendantappellee.

Soriano,GardeandCervaniaforappellants.
CityFiscalEugenioAngelesandAssistantFiscalArsenioNaawaforappellee.

TUASON,J.:

This action was instituted for a declaratory relief by the Manila Race Horses Trainers Association, Inc., a non
stockcorporationdulyorganizedandexistingunderandbyvirtueofthelawsofthePhilippines,whoallegethat
theyareownersofboardingstablesforracehorsesandthattheirrightsassuchareaffectedbyOrdinanceNo.
3065oftheCityofManilaapprovedonJuly1,1947.1TheymadetheMayorofManiladefendantandprayedthat
saidordinancebedeclaredinvalidasviolativeofthePhilippineConstitution.

Thecasewassubmittedonthepleadings,andthedecisionwasthattheordinanceinquestion"isconstitutional
andvalidandhasbeenenactedinaccordancewiththepowersoftheMunicipalBoardgrantedbytheCharterof
theCityofManila."

Onappeal,theplaintiffsasappellantsmakethreeassignmentsoferror,thefirsttwoofwhicharediscussedjointly
intheirbriefundertwoseparatetopics.

First, it is maintained that the ordinance under consideration is a tax on race horses as distinct from boarding
stables. It is argued that by section 2 the basis of the license fees "is the number of race horses kept or
maintained in the boarding stables to be paid by the maintainers at the rate of P10.00 a year for each race
horse" that "the fee is increased correspondingly P10 for each additional race horse maintained or fed in the
stable"andthat"bythesametoken,anemptystableforracehorsepaysnolicensefeeatall."

Thespirit,ratherthantheletter,ofanordinancedeterminestheconstructionthereof,andthecourtlookslessto
itswordsandmoretothecontext,subjectmatter,consequenceandeffect.Accordingly,whatiswithinthespiritis
withintheordinancealthoughitisnotwithintheletterthereof,whilethatwhichisintheletter,althoughnotwithin
thespirit,isnotwithintheordinance.(62C.J.S.,845.)FromthecontextofOrdinanceNo.3065,theintenttotax
orlicensestablesandnothorsesisclearlymanifest.Thetaxisassessednotontheownersofthehorsesbuton
the owners of the stables, as counsel admit in their brief, although there is nothing, of course, to stop stable
owners from shifting the tax to the horse owners in the form of increased rents or fees, which is generally the
case.

Itisalsoplainfromthetextofthewholeordinancethatthenumberofhorsesisusedintheassessmentpurelyas
amethodoffixinganequitableandpracticaldistributionoftheburdenimposedbythemeasure.Farfrombeing
obnoxious, the method is fair and just. It is but fair and just that for a boarding stable where only one horse is
maintained proportionately less amount should be exacted than for a stable where more horses are kept and
fromwhichgreaterincomeisderived.

We do not share plaintiff's opinion, apropos the second proposition, that the ordinance in question is
discriminatoryandsavorsofclasslegislation.Intaxingonlyboardingstablesforracehorses,wedonotbelieve
thattheordinance,makesarbitraryclassification.InthecaseofEasternTheatricalCo.Inc.,vs.Alfonso, 46 Off.
Gaz. Supp. to No. 11, p. 303,* it was said there is equality and uniformity in taxation if all articles or kinds of
property of the same class are taxed at the same rate. Thus, it was held in that case, that "the fact that some
places of amusement are not taxed while others, such as cinematographs, theaters, vaudeville companies,
theatricalshows,andboxingexhibitionsandotherkindsofamusementsorplacesofamusementaretaxed,isnot
argumentatallagainsttheequalityanduniformityoftaximposition."Applyingthiscriteriontothepresentcase,
there would be discrimination if some boarding stables of the same class used for the same number of horses
werenottaxedorweremadetopaylessormorethanothers.

Fromtheviewpointofeconomicsandpublicpolicythetaxingofboardingstablesforracehorsestotheexclusion
ofboardingstablesforhorsesdedicatedtootherpurposesisnotindefensible.Theownersofboardingstablesfor
racehorsesand,forthatmatter,theracehorseownersthemselves,whointheschemeofshiftingmaycarrythe
taxation burden, are a class by themselves and appropriately taxed where owners of other kinds of horses are
taxed less or not at all, considering that equity in taxation is generally conceived in terms of ability to pay in
relation to the benefits received by the taxpayer and by the public from the business or property taxed. Race
horsesaredevotedtogamblingiflegalized,theirownersderivefatincomeandthepublichardlyanyprofitfrom
horseracing,andthisbusinessdemandsrelativelyheavypolicesupervision.Takingeverythingintoaccount,the
differentiationagainstwhichtheplaintiffscomplainconformstothepracticaldictatesofjusticeandequityandis
notdiscrimatorywithinthemeaningoftheConstitution.

Onegroundofattackinthecourtbelowontheconstitutionalityoftheordinancevariancebetweenthetitleand
thesubjectmatterapparentlyhasbeenabandoned.Initsplaceanewquestionisbroughtupontheappealin
thethirdandlastassignmentoferror.Itisnowcontended,forthefirsttime,that"theMunicipalBoardofManila
(is)withoutpowertoenactordinancetaxingprivatestablesforracehorses,"andthatthelowercourterredinnot

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1951/jan1951/gr_l2947_1951.html 1/2
8/31/2016 G.R.No.L2947

sodeclaring.ThisassignmentoferrorhasreferencetoClassBorthesecondsubparagraphofsection1ofthe
ordinance.

Nothavingbeenraisedinthepleading,thisquestionwasproperlyignored,nottosaythatevenithadbeenraised
itwouldnothavebeenavailableasbasisforadeclarationofnullityoftheordinance.Theclauseoftheordinance
taxingorlicensingboardingstablesforracehorsesdoesnotprejudicetheplaintiffsinanymaterialway,anditis
wellsettledthatapersonwhoisnotadverselyaffectedbyalicensingordinancemaynotattackitsvalidity.Stated
differently,hemaynotcomplainthatalicensingordinanceisinvalidasagainstaclassotherthanthattowhichhe
belongs.(62C.J.S.830,831.)Byanalogy,whereamunicipalordinanceisvalidinsomeofitspartsandinvalidas
toothersandthevalidpartsareseparablefromtheinvalidonesinwhichlattercasethevalidprovisionsstand
asoperativetheplaintiffmaycontestthevalidityoftheprovisionsthatinjurehisinterestbutnotthosethatdo
not.

Weareoftheopinionthatthetrialcourtcommittednoerrorandthejudgmentisaffirmedwithcostsagainstthe
plaintiffappellants.

Moran,C.J.,Paras,Feria,Pablo,Bengzon,Padilla,Montemayor,Reyes,JugoandBautistaAngelo,JJ.,concur.

Footnotes
1ANORDINANCEPROVIDINGFORLICENSEFEESONPERSONSMAINTAININGORCONDUCTINGANY
BOARDINGSTABLEFORHORSERACESAND/ORHORSESTABLES,ORPLACESWHEREHORSEARE
KEPT,FED,ORBOARDEDFOROTHERS,FORCOMPENSATIONORHIRE,AND/ORFORPRIVATE,AND
FOROTHERPURPOSES.

BeitordainedbytheMunicipalBoardoftheCityofManila,that:

SECTION 1. License. No person shall own, keep, maintain, or conduct any boarding stable, or place
where race horse are kept, fed, or boarded for others, for compensation or hire, and/or for race horse
stable privately owned not for hire, without first having obtained a permit from the Mayor and license
thereforfromtheCityTreasurer.

SEC.2.Fees.Foreverylicensegrantedundertheprovisionsofthisordinance,thereshallbepaidan
annuallicensefee,whichmaybepaideitherannually,semestrallyorquarterlyattheoptionofthetaxpayer,
towit:

Boardingstableforracehorses:

ClassAForeachracehorse,kept,maintained, P10.00
fed or boarded in boarding
stables........................................................

ClassBForeachracehorse,kept,maintained, P5.00
or fed in private race horse
stables........................................................

SEC. 3. Contents of application. Every application for the license in this ordinance required, shall be
accompanied by a sworn statement of the greatest number of animals to be kept by the applicant, which
statementshallbethebasisforcomputingtheamountoffeestobepaidforsuchlicense.

SEC.4.Effectivity.Thisordinanceshalltakeeffectuponitsapproval.
*83Phil.,852.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1951/jan1951/gr_l2947_1951.html 2/2