Butuan buy coke

__________________________

📍 Verified store!

📍 Guarantees! Quality! Reviews!

__________________________

▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼

▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲

Butuan buy coke

Sabido, Sabido and Associates for plaintiff-appellant. The City Attorney of Butuan City for defendants-appellees. Direct appeal to this Court, from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Agusan, dismissing plaintiff's complaint, with costs. Plaintiff, Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company of the Philippines, is a domestic corporation with offices and principal place of business in Quezon City. Plaintiff — seeks to recover the sums paid by it to the City of Butuan — hereinafter referred to as the City and collected by the latter, pursuant to its Municipal Ordinance No. Both parties submitted the case for decision in the lower court upon a stipulation to the effect:. That plaintiff's warehouse in the City of Butuan serves as a storage for its products the 'Pepsi-Cola' soft drinks for sale to customers in the City of Butuan and all the municipalities in the Province of Agusan. These 'Pepsi-Cola Cola' soft drinks are bottled in Cebu City and shipped to the Butuan City warehouse of plaintiff for distribution and sale in the City of Butuan and all municipalities of Agusan. A copy of Ordinance No. That Ordinance No. That the plaintiff filed the foregoing complaint for the recovery of the total amount of P14, That pursuant to Ordinance No. A copy of the form is enclosed herewith as Exhibit 'C'. In this Profit and Loss Statement, the defendants claim that the plaintiff is not entitled to a depreciation of P3, The plaintiff differs only on the claim of depreciation which the company claims to be P3, This is in accordance with the findings of the representative of the undersigned City Attorney who verified the records of the plaintiff. That beginning November 21, , the price of Pepsi-Cola per case of 24 bottles was increased to P1. Said increase was made due to the increase in the production cost of its manufacture. That the parties reserve the right to submit arguments on the constitutionality and illegality of Ordinance No. Section 1 of said Ordinance No. Section 3 prescribes a tax of P0. Section 4 provides that said taxes 'shall be paid at the end of every calendar month. Plaintiff maintains that the disputed ordinance is null and void because: 1 it partakes of the nature of an import tax; 2 it amounts to double taxation; 3 it is excessive, oppressive and confiscatory; 4 it is highly unjust and discriminatory; and 5 section 2 of Republic Act No. The second and last objections are manifestly devoid of merit. Indeed — independently of whether or not the tax in question, when considered in relation to the sales tax prescribed by Acts of Congress, amounts to double taxation, on which we need not and do not express any opinion - double taxation, in general, is not forbidden by our fundamental law. We have not adopted, as part thereof, the injunction against double taxation found in the Constitution of the United States and of some States of the Union. The third objection is, likewise, untenable. The tax of 'P0. The first and the fourth objections merit, however, serious consideration. In this connection, it is noteworthy that the tax prescribed in section 3 of Ordinance No. Thus, it would seem that the intent was then to levy a tax upon the sale of said merchandise. As amended by Ordinance No. When we consider, also, that the tax 'shall be based and computed from the cargo manifest or bill of lading Viewed from this angle, the tax partakes of the nature of an import duty, which is beyond defendant's authority to impose by express provision of law. Even however, if the burden in question were regarded as a tax on the sale of said beverages, it would still be invalid, as discriminatory, and hence, violative of the uniformity required by the Constitution and the law therefor, since only sales by 'agents or consignees' of outside dealers would be subject to the tax. Sales by local dealers, not acting for or on behalf of other merchants, regardless of the volume of their sales, and even if the same exceeded those made by said agents or consignees of producers or merchants established outside the City of Butuan, would be exempt from the disputed tax. It is true that the uniformity essential to the valid exercise of the power of taxation does not require identity or equality under all circumstances, or negate the authority to classify the objects of taxation. These conditions are not fully met by the ordinance in question. It is so ordered. Reyes, J. Stanley, 32 Phil. Inter-Island Gas Service, 99 Phil. Gruet, L, Jan. City of Mankato, N. Provinces, 34 Cal. Hennick U. City of Tacloban, L- , Sept. City of Davao, L, August 21, Municipality of Roxas, L, July 20, Salas, L, October 29, ; Aleja v. Solon, L, November 23, ; People v. Cayat, 68 Phil. Vera, 65 Phil. Misa, 42 O. Botelho Shipping Corp. City Mayor, L, October 23, ; Rafael v. Public Utilities Employee Ass'n. Treasurer of Ormoc City, L, February 17, Both parties submitted the case for decision in the lower court upon a stipulation to the effect: 1. Bull, 15 Phil. Thompson, U.