American Bible Society vs. City of Manila 101 Phil. 386 (1957) G.R. No. L-9637, April 30, 1957

Fact:

In the course of its ministry, Petitioner’s Philippine agency has been distributing and selling bibles and/or gospel portions thereof (except during the Japanese occupation) throughout the Philippines and translating the same into several Philippine dialects. Respondent informed Petitioner that it was conducting the business of general merchandise since November, 1945, without providing itself with the necessary Mayor’s permit and municipal license, in violation of the City Ordinances, and required plaintiff to secure, within three days, the corresponding permit and license fees. Plaintiff protested against this requirement, but the City Treasurer demanded that plaintiff deposit and pay under protest. To avoid the closing of its, paid the defendant under protest the said permit and license fees. In its complaint plaintiff prays that judgment be rendered declaring the said Municipal Ordinances illegal and unconstitutional, and that the defendant be ordered to refund to the plaintiff paid under protest, together with legal interest thereon, and the costs, plaintiff further praying for such other relief and remedy as the court may deem just equitable. CFI Dismissed the Petition for lack of merit, which the petitioner raised the issue to the CA which certified the case to SC for the reason that the errors assigned to the lower Court involved only questions of law. Adrian Avilado Antazo

Issues:

1. Whether the Selling activity of the Petitioner is exempted from Taxation?

2. Whether the Mayor’s Permit requirement impair Petitioner’s right to the free exercise and enjoyment of its religious profession and worship, as well as its rights of dissemination of religious beliefs?

Held:

1. Yes, It may be true that in this said case, the price asked for the bibles and other religious pamphlets was in some instances a little bit higher than the actual cost of the same but this cannot mean that appellant was engaged in the business or occupation of selling said “merchandise” for profit. For the reason that the provisions of City of Manila Ordinance No. 2529, as amended, cannot be applied to appellant, for in doing so it would impair its free exercise and enjoyment of its religious profession and worship as well as its rights of dissemination of religious beliefs.

2. No, the Mandatory obtention of the Mayor’s permit before any person can engage in any of the businesses, trades or occupations enumerated therein do not imposes any charge upon the enjoyment of a right granted by the Constitution, nor tax the exercise of religious practices. That Ordinance No. 3000 cannot be considered unconstitutional, even if applied to plaintiff Society.