Scribd
Upload
8 views2 pages

Churchill vs. Concepcion (Tax1)

The case of Churchill vs. Concepcion involves a tax imposed on electric signs and billboards, which was challenged by the plaintiffs on the grounds of reduced profits due to the tax. The court ruled that the tax is uniform as it applies equally to all signs across the Philippine Islands, satisfying constitutional requirements. The plaintiffs' claims of financial hardship were deemed hypothetical, as they did not attempt to raise advertising rates to offset the tax.

Uploaded by

Phearl Urbina
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
8 views2 pages

Churchill vs. Concepcion (Tax1)

The case of Churchill vs. Concepcion involves a tax imposed on electric signs and billboards, which was challenged by the plaintiffs on the grounds of reduced profits due to the tax. The court ruled that the tax is uniform as it applies equally to all signs across the Philippine Islands, satisfying constitutional requirements. The plaintiffs' claims of financial hardship were deemed hypothetical, as they did not attempt to raise advertising rates to offset the tax.

Uploaded by

Phearl Urbina
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

CHURCHILL vs.

CONCEPCION

G.R. No. 11572 September 22, 1916

FACTS:

Section 100 of Act No. 2339 imposed an annual tax of P4 per square meter upon "electric
signs, billboards, and spaces used for posting or displaying temporary signs, and all signs
displayed on premises not occupied by buildings." This section was subsequently
amended by Act No. 2432, effective by reducing the tax on such signs, billboards, etc., to
P2 per square meter or fraction thereof. Francis A. Churchill and Stewart Tait, owners of a
sign or billboard containing an area of 52 square meters constructed on private property in
the city of Manila and exposed to public view, were taxes thereon P104. The tax was paid
under protest.

Plaintiffs assailed that they were gaining lesser profit than what they ought to
receive because of the tax imposed by the said law. However, it was proven that there was
no attempt on the part of the plaintiffs to raise the advertising rates in order to cope up with
the said tax rates. It will thus be seen that the contention that the rates charged for
advertising cannot be raised is purely hypothetical, based entirely upon the opinion of the
plaintiffs, unsupported by actual test, and that the plaintiffs themselves admit that a
number of other persons have voluntarily and without protest paid the tax herein
complained of.

ISSUE:

Is the tax void for lack of uniformity?

RULING:

A tax is uniform, within the constitutional requirement, when it operates with the same
force and effect in every place where the subject of it is found. "Uniformity," as applied to
the constitutional provision that all taxes shall be uniform, means that all property
belonging to the same class shall be taxed alike. The statute under consideration imposes
a tax of P2 per square meter or fraction thereof upon every electric sign, bill-board, etc.,
wherever found in the Philippine Islands. Or in other words, "the rule of taxation" upon such
signs is uniform throughout the Islands. The Legislature selected signs and billboards as a
subject for taxation and it must be presumed that it, in so doing, acted with a full
knowledge of the situation.

You might also like