This case involves a petition filed by Swedish Match Philippines seeking a refund of business taxes paid under Section 21 of the Manila Revenue Code, which they claimed constituted double taxation since they also paid taxes under Section 14 of the same Code. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the petition, but the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Swedish Match, finding that (1) the person who filed the petition on behalf of Swedish Match was authorized, and (2) imposing taxes under both Section 14 and Section 21 for the same tax period did indeed constitute double taxation. Therefore, Swedish Match was entitled to a refund of the taxes paid under Section 21.

1. Swedish Match Philippines
vs.
The Treasurer of the City of Manila
Cecille Carmela T. de los Reyes
Philippine Christian University
Taxation Law
Professor: Atty. Antonio Bonilla
G.R. 181227
Penned by: Chief Justice Sereno

2. Petitioner Swedish Match paid business taxes
in the total amount of P470,932.21.
The assessed amount was based on Sec. 14
and 21 of Ordinance 7794—otherwise known
as the Manila Revenue Code, as amended by
Ordinance Nos. 7988 and 8011.
Out of that amount, P164,552.04 corresponded
to the payment under Sec. 21.
Claiming that Swedish Match is not liable to pay
taxes under Sec. 21, petitioner wrote a letter to
the respondent (Treasurer of Manila) claiming
a refund on business taxes the former had
paid pursuant to the said provision.
Petitioner argued that payment under Sec.
21 constituted double taxation in view of
its payment under Sec. 14.

3. For the alleged failure of respondent to
act on its claim for a refund, petitioner
filed a Petition for Refund of Taxes with
RTC Manila in accordance with
Section 196 of the Local Government
Code of 1991.
RTC Branch of Manila rendered a Decision dismissing the
petition for:
1. Failure to plead the petitioner s capacity to sue
2. Failure to state the authority of Ms. Beleno who had
executed the Verification and Certification of Non-Forum
Shopping
Further, RTC (on Motion for Reconsideration) went on to say
that Section 14 and 21 pertained to taxes of different nature,
thus, the element of double taxation were wanting in this
case.
on Court of Tax Appeals:
The petition for review is denied, ruling as follows:
 There was no proof, board resolution or
secretary s certificate showing proof of Ms.
Beleno s authority in acting in behalf of the
corporation at the time the initiatory pleading
was filed in the RTC.

4. ISSUES
(In order to determine the
entitlement of petitioner to
refund of taxes, the
instant Petition requires
the resolution of these
two main issues)
1. Whether Ms. Beleno
was authorized to file the
Petition for Refund of
Taxes with the RTC
2. Whether the imposition
of tax under Sec. 21 of
the Manila Revenue Code
constitutes double
taxation in view of the tax
collected and paid under
Sec. 14 of the same code.

5. Court Ruling
1. Whether Ms. Beleno was authorized to
file the Petition for Refund of Taxes with the
RTC
Her authority was ratified by the Board in its
Resolution. Even if she was not authorized to
execute the Verification and Certification at the
time of the filing of the Petition, the ratification by
the board of directors retroactively applied to the
date of her signing.
Mactan-Cebu International Airport v. CA—authority
of the GM or acting GM to sign the verification/
certification against NFS.
Pfizer v. Galan—a V/C for NFS signed by an
employment specialist was held valid, who had not
even presented her proof of her authority to
represent the company.
Her being a financial analyst is relevant to the
determination of her capability and sufficiency to
verify the truthfulness and correctness of the
allegations in the Petition.
2. Whether Sec. 14 and 21 of the Manila
Revenue Code constitutes double taxation?
Double taxation means taxing the same property
twice when it should only be taxed once; that is—
taxing the same person twice by the same
jurisdiction over the same thing.
The Court find that there is indeed double taxation
if respondent is subjected to taxes under Sec. 14
and 21 of Tax Ordinance 7794
Based on this reasons, petitioner should not have
been subjected to taxes under Sec. 21 of the
Manila Revenue Code, considering that it had
been paying local business tax under Sec. 14 of
the same ordinance.
Therefore, it is entitled to a refund of P164,552.04
corresponding to the payment under Sec. 21 of the
Manila Revenue Code.
DISPOSITIVE: PETITION GRANTED