The suit stemmed from the City Government’s closure order on the Alta Vista Golf and Country Club for failing to pay the “green fees” computed and imposed upon it 1998.
City Hall wanted to tax Alta Vista’s green fees as it defined the club as a place of amusement.
The club’s refusal to pay the imposed tax also constrained City Hall to withhold the issuance of a business permit from 2001 to 2005.
Econg, quoting the Supreme Court in the 1999 Ocampo vs. Court of Appeals case, pointed out that questions regarding the validity of a tax ordinance have to be filed before the justice secretary within 30 days of the measure’s effectivity or, if not acted upon, before the court in 60 days.
She said the element of time was strictly defined because, again quoting the ruling, “any delay in implementing tax measures would be to the detriment of the public.”
“A municipal tax ordinance empowers a local government unit to impose taxes. The power to tax is the most effective instrument to raise needed revenues to finance and support the myriad activities of local government units,” the ruling read.
Alta Vista filed the original suit and asked the court to stop the implementation of the closure order. They also asked the court to rule on the validity of a particular section in the city government’s tax ordinance.
They said the closure order was illegal because a compromise agreement between the club and the city government was already in effect.
City Hall filed a motion against the ruling and questioned the trial court’s jurisdiction of the case. It cited the rule requiring the issue to be raised first to the justice secretary.
The court ruled in favor of City Hall but Alta Vista moved for reconsideration.
The club argued that it deserved to be given a business permit as a matter of right because it had already complied with all requirements.
Besides, Alta Vista said, the tax City Hall wanted to impose was not a business tax but an amusement tax. (KNR)
