EN BANC

[G.R. No. 24116-17. August 22, 1968.]

CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY , plaintiff-appellant, vs .

MUNICIPALITY OF NAGA, CEBU, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

Tomas P. Matic, Jr. and Lorenzo R. Mosqueda for plaintiff-appellant.

Fernan, Osmea & Bellaflor for defendants-appellees.

SYLLABUS

1. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: DISTRAINT AND LEVY; POWER OF MUNICIPAL TREASURER TO

SEIZE AND DISTRAINT PERSONAL PROPERTY FOR FAILURE TO PAY TAX WITHIN THE
TIME REQUIRED, INSTANT CASE. The clear and explicit language of the Revised
Administrative Code leaves no room for doubt. The municipal treasurer "may seize and
distraint any personal property" of the individual or entity subject to tax upon failure "to pay
the same at the time required . . . ." There was such a failure on the part of plaintiff-
appellant to pay the municipal tax at the time required. The power of the municipal
treasurer in accordance with the above provision therefore came into play.
2. ID.; ID.; LAW IS NOT AMENDED BY MERE LETTER OF MUNICIPAL TREASURER.
Whatever might have been set forth in the letter of the municipal treasurer could not
change or amend the law. It has to be enforced as written. That was what the lower court
did. What was done then cannot be rightfully looked upon as a failure to abide by what the
statutory provision requires. Time and time again, it has been repeatedly declared by this
Court that where the law speaks in clear and categorical language, there is no room for
interpretation. There is only room for application.
3. ID.; ID.; SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 2305 OF
REVISED ADMINISTRATIVE CODE IN INSTANT CASE. As correctly held by the lower
court "the defendant Municipality of Naga and Municipal Treasurer of Naga have
substantially complied with the requirements provided for by Section 2305 of the Revised
Administrative Code. From the time that plaintiff was rst noti ed of the distraint on July
6, 1961 up to the date of the sale on January 30, 1962, certainly, more than twenty days
have elapsed. If the sale did not take place, as was advertised, on July 27, 1961, but only
on January 30, 1962, it was due to the requests for deferment made by plaintiff which
unduly delayed the proceedings for collection of the tax, and the said taxpayer should not
be allowed now to complain that the required period has not yet elapsed when the
intention of the tax collector was already well publicized for many months."
4. ID.; APPEAL; ONLY QUESTIONS OF LAW MAY BE RAISED ON APPEAL. This being a
direct appeal to this Court, plaintiff-appellant must be deemed to have accepted as
conclusive what the lower court found as established by the evidence, only questions of
law being brought to us for review. It is the established rule that when a party appeals
directly to this Court, he is deemed to have waived the right to dispute any nding of fact
made by the court below.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 DECISION

FERNANDO , J : p

In two separate actions, plaintiff-appellant Cebu Portland Cement Company

sought to test the validity of the distraint and thereafter the sale at public auction by the
principal defendant-appellee, Municipality of Naga, Cebu, of 100,000 bags of cement
for the purpose of satisfying its alleged de ciency in the payment of the municipal
license tax for 1960, municipal license tax for 1961 as well as the penalty, all in the total
sum of P204,300.00. The lower court rendered a joint decision sustaining the validity of
the action taken by defendant-appellee Municipality of Naga. The case is now before us
on appeal. We affirm.

According to the appealed decision: "From all the evidence, mostly documentary, adduced
during the hearing the following facts have been established. The efforts of the defendant
Treasurer to collect from the plaintiff the municipal license tax imposed by Amended
Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1959 on cement factories located within the Municipality of
Naga, Cebu, have met with rebuff time and again. The demands made on the taxpayer . . .
have not been entirely successful. Finally, the defendant Treasurer decided on June 26,
1961 to avail of the civil remedies provided for under Section 2304 of the Revised
Administrative Code and gave the plaintiff a period of ten days from receipt thereof within
which to settle the account, computed as follows . . .: De ciency Municipal License Tax for
1960 P80,250.00; Municipal License Tax for 1961 P90,000.00; and 20% Penalty
P34,050.00, stating in exasperation, 'This is our last recourse as we had exhausted all
efforts for an amicable solution of our problem.' " 1
It was further shown: "On July 6, 1961, at 11:00 A.M., the defendant Treasurer noti ed the
Plant Manager of the plaintiff that he was 'distraining 100,000 bags of Apo cement in
satisfaction of your delinquency in municipal license taxes in the total amount of
P204,300.00' . . . This notice was received by the acting of cer in charge of the plaintiff's
plant, Vicente T. Garaygay, according to his own admission. At rst, he was not in accord
with the said letter, asking the defendant Treasurer for time to study the same, but in the
afternoon he [acknowledged the] distraint . . ." 2
As was noted in the decision, the defendant Treasurer in turn "signed the receipt for goods,
articles or effects seized under authority of Section 2304 of the Revised Administrative
Code, certifying that he has constructively distrained on July 6, 1961 from the Cebu
Portland Cement Company at its plant at Tinaan, Naga, Cebu, 100,000 bags of Apo cement
in tanks, and that 'the said articles or goods will be sold at public auction to the highest
bidder on July 27, 1961, and the proceeds thereof will be utilized in part satisfaction of the
account of the said company in municipal licenses and penalties in the total amount of
P204,300.00 due the municipality of Naga- Province of Cebu' . . ." 3
The lower court likewise found as a fact that on the same day, July 6, 1961, the municipal
treasurer posted the notice of sale to the effect that pursuant to the provisions of Section
2305 of the Revised Administrative Code, he would sell at public auction for cash to the
highest bidder at the main entrance of the municipal building of the Municipality of Naga,
Province of Cebu, Philippines on the 27th day of July, 1961, at 9 o'clock in the morning, the
property seized and distrained or levied upon from the Cebu Portland Cement Company in
satisfaction of the municipal license taxes and penalties in the amount of P204,300.00,
specifying that what was to be sold was 100,000 bags of Apo cement. 4 No sale, as thus
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 announced, was held on July 27, 1961. It was likewise stated in the appealed decision that
there was stipulation by the parties to this effect: "1. The auction sale took place on
January 30, 1962, . . ." 5
In this appeal from the above joint decision, plaintiff-appellant Cebu Portland Cement
Company upholds the view that the distraint of the 100,000 bags of cement as well as the
sale at public auction thereafter made ran counter to the law. As earlier noted, we do not
see it that way.
1. On the validity of the distraint In the rst two errors assigned, plaintiff-appellant
submits as illegal the distraint of 100,000 bags of cement made on July 6, 1961. Its
contention is premised on the fact that in the letter of defendant-appellee dated June 26,
1961, requiring plaintiff-appellant to settle its account of P204,300.00, it was given a
period of 10 days from receipt within which it could pay, failure to do so being the
occasion for the distraint of its property. It is now alleged that the 10-day period of grace
was not allowed to lapse, the distraint having taken place on July 6, 1961.
It suf ces to answer such a contention by referring to the explicit language of the law.
According to the Revised Administrative Code: "The remedy by distraint shall proceed as
follows: Upon the failure of the person owing any municipal tax or revenue to pay the same,
at the time required, the municipal treasurer may seize and distraint any personal property
belonging to such person or any property subject to the tax lien, in suf cient quantity to
satisfy the tax or charge in question, together with any increment thereto incident to
delinquency, and the expenses of the distraint." 6
The clear and explicit language of the law leaves no room for doubt. The municipal
treasurer "may seize and distraint any personal property" of the individual or entity subject
to the tax upon failure "to pay the same, at the time required . . ." There was such a failure
on the part of plaintiff-appellant to pay the municipal tax at the time required. The power of
the municipal treasurer in accordance with the above provision therefore came into play.
Whatever might have been set forth in the letter of the municipal treasurer could not
change or amend the law. It has to be enforced as written. That was what the lower court
did. What was done then cannot be rightfully looked upon as a failure to abide by what the
statutory provision requires. Time and time again, it has been repeatedly declared by this
Court that where the law speaks in clear and categorical language, there is no room for
interpretation. There is only room for application. That was what occurred in this case. 7
2. On the validity of the auction sale The validity of the auction sale held on January 30,
1962 is challenged in the next two errors assigned as allegedly committed by the lower
court. Plaintiff- appellant's argument is predicated on the fact that it was not until January
16, 1962 that it was noti ed that the public auction sale was to take place on January 29,
1962. It is its view that under the Revised Administrative Code 8 the sale of the distrained
property cannot take place "less than twenty days after notice to the owner or possessor
of the property [distrained] . . . and the publication or posting of such notice."
Why such a contention could not prosper is explained clearly by the lower court in the
appealed decision. Thus: "With respect to the claim that the auction sale held on January
30, 1962 pursuant to the distraint was null and void for being contrary to law because not
more than twenty days have elapsed from the date of notice, it is believed that the
defendant Municipality of Naga and Municipal Treasurer of Naga have substantially
complied with the requirements provided for by Section 2305 of the Revised
Administrative Code. From the time that the plaintiff was rst noti ed of the distraint on
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 July 6, 1961 up to the date of the sale on January 30,1962, certainly, more than twenty
days have elapsed. If the sale did not take place, as advertised, on July 27, 1961, but only
on January 30, 1962, it was due to the request for deferment made by the plaintiff which
unduly delayed the proceedings for collection of the tax, and the said taxpayer should not
be allowed now to complain that the required period has not yet elapsed when the
intention of the tax collector was already well publicized for many months." 9 The
reasonableness of the above observation of the lower court cannot be disputed. Under the
circumstances, the allegation that there was no observance of the twenty-day period
hardly carries conviction.

The point is further made that the auction sale took place not on January 29, 1962, as
stated in the notice of sale, but on the next day, January 30, 1962. According to plaintiff-
appellant: "On this score alone, the sale . . ., was illegal as it was not made on the time
stated in the notice." 10
There is no basis to sustain such a plea as the nding of the lower court is otherwise.
Thus: "On January 16, 1962, the defendant Treasurer informed Garaygay that he would
cause the readvertisement for sale at public auction of the 100,000 bags of Apo cement
which were under constructive distraint . . . On January 19, 1962, the said defendant issued
the corresponding notice of sale, which xed January 30, 1962, at 10:00 AM., as the date
of sale, posting the said notice in public places and delivering copies thereof to the
interested parties in the previous notice . . . Ultimately, the bidding was conducted on that
day, January 30, 1962, with the representatives of the Provincial Auditor and Provincial
Treasurer present. Only two bidders submitted sealed bids. After the bidding, the
defendant- Treasurer informed the plaintiff that an award was given to the winning bidder, .
. ." 11
This being a direct appeal to us, plaintiff-appellant must be deemed to have accepted as
conclusive what the lower court found as established by the evidence, only questions of
law being brought to us for review. It is the established rule that when a party appeals
directly to this Court, he is deemed to have waived the right to dispute any nding of fact
made by the court below. 12
WHEREFORE, the decision of the lower court dated July 23, 1964, is af rmed in toto. With
costs against plaintiff-appellant.
Concepcion, C . J ., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro and Angeles,
JJ ., concur.

Footnotes

1. Decision of July 23, 1964 of the lower court, Record on Appeal, pp. 166-167.
2. Ibid, pp. 167-168.

3. Ibid, pp. 169-170.

4. Ibid, pp. 170-171.
5. Ibid, p. 172.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com

 6. Section 2304, Act No. 2711 as amended.
7. Cf. Lizarraga Hermanos v. Yap Tico, 24 Phil. 504 (1913); People v. Mapa L-22301, August 30,
1967; Pacific Oxygen and Acytelene Co. v. Central Bank, L-21881, March 1, 1968; Dequito
v. Lopez, L-27757, March 28, 1968.
8. "Sec. 2305. Proceedings subsequent to seizure. The of cer levying the distraint shall make
or cause to be made an account of the goods or effects distrained, a copy of which
signed by himself shall be left either with the owner or person from whose possession
such goods or effects were taken, or at the dwelling or place of business of such person
and with some one of suitable age and discretion, to which list shall be added a
statement of the sum demanded and note of the time and place of sale; and the said
of cer shall forthwith cause a noti cation to be exhibited is not less than two public
places in the municipality where the distraint is made, specifying the time and place of
sale and the articles distrained. The time of sale shall not be less than twenty days after
notice of the owner or possessor of the property as above speci ed and the publication
or posting of such notice. One place for the posting of such notice shall be at the of ce
of the mayor of the municipality in which the property is distrained. At the time and place
xed in such notice the said of cer shall sell the goods, or effects, so distrained, at
public auction, to the highest bidder for cash . . ."
9. Decision of the lower court, Record on Appeal, p. 180.

10. Brief for Plaintiff-Appellant, p. 37.

11. Decision of July 23, 1964 of the lower court, p. 175.

12. Republic v. Luzon Stevedoring Corp., L-21749, September 29, 1967. See also Perez v.
Araneta, L-18414, July 15, 1968 and the cases cited therein.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com