VILLEGAS v. HIU CHIONG TSAI PAO HO

VILLEGAS v. HIU CHIONG TSAI PAO HO

G.R. No. L-29646, November 10, 1978

FACTS:

On February 22, 1968, the Municipal Board of Manila passed City Ordinance No. 6537. The said city ordinance was also signed by then Manila Mayor Antonio J. Villegas (Villegas).

Section 1 of the said city ordinance prohibits aliens from being employed or to engage or participate in any position or occupation or business enumerated therein, whether permanent, temporary or casual, without first securing an employment permit from the Mayor of Manila and paying the permit fee of P50.00 except persons employed in the diplomatic or consular missions of foreign countries, or in the technical assistance programs of both the Philippine Government and any foreign government, and those working in their respective households, and members of religious orders or congregations, sect or denomination, who are not paid monetarily or in kind.

Hiu Chiong Tsai Pao Ho (Tsai Pao Ho) who was employed in Manila, filed a petition with the CFI of Manila to declare City Ordinance No. 6537 as null and void for being discriminatory and violative of the rule of the uniformity in taxation.

The trial court declared City Ordinance No. 6537 null and void. Villegas filed the present petition.

ISSUE:

            Whether or not City Ordinance No. 6537 is a tax or revenue measure.

RULING:

Yes. The contention that City Ordinance No. 6537 is not a purely tax or revenue measure because its principal purpose is regulatory in nature has no merit. While it is true that the first part which requires that the alien shall secure an employment permit from the Mayor involves the exercise of discretion and judgment in the processing and approval or disapproval of applications for employment permits and therefore is regulatory in character the second part which requires the payment of P50.00 as employee's fee is not regulatory but a revenue measure. There is no logic or justification in exacting P50.00 from aliens who have been cleared for employment. It is obvious that the purpose of the ordinance is to raise money under the guise of regulation.