Request for comments/review on Kapasiyahan Blg. 51 and Kautusang Pambarangay Blg. 02, s. 1998, of that Sangguniang Barangay imposing taxes, fees and charges on vehicles availing of the parking area in the New Tanay Public Market and on the commercial breeding of gamecocks and cockfighting in licensed cockpits located within that barangay vis-a-vis the propriety of the disapproval thereof by the Sangguniang Bayan

April 8, 1999 DILG OPINION NO. 052-99 Mr. Reynaldo C. Esguerra Punong Barangay Brgy. Plaza Aldea, Tanay Rizal RE : Request for comments/review on Kapasiyahan Blg. 51 and Kautusang Pambarangay Blg. 02, s. 1998, of that Sangguniang Barangay imposing taxes, fees and charges on vehicles availing of the parking area in the New Tanay Public Market and on the commercial breeding of gamecocks and cockfighting in licensed cockpits located within that barangay vis-a-vis the propriety of the disapproval thereof by the Sangguniang Bayan S i r : Please be informed at the outset that this Department does not have any revisory authority to rule on the propriety of any tax ordinance because under Section 187 of the Local Government Code of 1991 (RA 7160), any question on the constitutionality or legality of tax ordinances or revenue measures may be appealed to the Secretary of Justice within thirty (30) days from its effectivity. Nevertheless, in view of your aforestated request, we are impelled to express our views thereon, specifically on the perception of the sangguniang bayan that the tax imposition by that barangay over the operators/drivers of vehicles entering the parking area of the New Tanay Public Market constitutes "double taxation" as they are already subjected to the same imposition by the Municipal Government. It must be noted that LGUs are empowered to levy three kinds of impositions, i.e., taxes, fees and charges. "Fees" are imposed for the regulation or inspection of a business or activity while "Charges" refer to any pecuniary liability as rents or fees against persons or property (Sec. 131). In regard to taxes, there is generally no prohibition against double or multiple taxation in our jurisdiction. In order to constitute double taxation in the objectionable or prohibited sense, the same property or taxpayer must be taxed twice for the benefit of the same governmental entity or by the same jurisdiction for the same purpose and during the same taxing period, and they must be the same kind or character of tax ( Villanueva vs. City of Iloilo, 26 SCRA 581; Punzalan vs. Mun. Board of Manila, 95 Phil. 46 ), but not in a case where one tax is imposed by the municipality and the other by the barangay. Same is true with fees and charges. With regard to fees that may be imposed by a barangay unit, Section 152 of the Local Government Code provides that it can impose such fees and charges for services rendered in connection with the regulation or the use of barangay-owned properties or service facilities (Section 152). But even if the property is not owned by the barangay but by another LGU, the barangay may still impose such fees for regulation pursuant to Section 186 in relation to Section 391 of the same Code which authorizes the sangguniang barangay to regulate the use of parking areas constructed with government funds within the jurisdiction of the barangay and to charge reasonable fees for the use thereof. However, since the power of the barangay on this aspect is only in the nature of "fees", the same should be based merely on the cost of inspecting the premises so as to determine their compliance with safety, sanitation, and other government regulations (Ursal, Local Government Taxation Annotated , 1992, p. 178). It bears emphasizing that unlike taxes, fees are generally imposed to recover the cost of regulating or inspecting a business or activity (Sec. 131 [1], RA 7160). Anent the imposition by the barangay of fees and charges on the commercial breeding of fighting cocks as well as over the proprietors and operators of cockpits duly licensed by the municipal government and the owner of the winning fighting cocks, we do not find any objection thereto as the same is within its revenue-raising power. The foregoing notwithstanding, we would like to emphasize that the enforcement of any tax ordinance or revenue measure after due notice of the disapproval or suspension thereof shall be a sufficient ground for administrative disciplinary action against the local officials and employees responsible therefor (Sec. 190, RA 7160). Hence, any attempt to invalidate the action of the sangguniang bayan or to question the legality thereof can only be pursued before the proper court by availing of the remedies provided for under the Rules of Court. Furthermore, in the interpretation of tax ordinances, any doubt is resolved in favor of the taxpayer and against the taxing authority as provided for under Section 5 [b] of the Code. We hope to have enlightened you accordingly. Very truly yours (SGD.) JESUS I. INGENIERO Assistant Secretary Department of Interior and Local Government