This  is  a suit to recover the sum of  ?4,630  (with interest)  which plaintiff paid to the City  of Manila as inspection fees of  its steam boilers, in accordance with the provisions  of  Chapter  117,  Title   15,  of  the  Revised Ordinances of said city.  Such provisions, plaintiff alleged, have been repealed  by  subsequent  legislation.  It  also alleged that the fees were grossly disproportionate to the services rendered.

The  Manila court of  first instance,  after  hearing the parties, rendered judgment dismissing the complaint,  with costs.   Judge  Edilberto  Barot made  the following statement of the  case:

"The  facts are  not  in  dispute.  The plaintiff  operates   seven steam boilers of more than 100 horse  power each for  generating electricity in the  City of Manila, As  fees  for  the  inspection of its boilers by inspectors  of  the Department  of Labor under  regulations promulgated by  the  Secretary of  Labor pursuant  to  Commonwealth  Act  No. 104, as  amended by  Commonwealth  Act No. 696,  plaintiff  paid the  National  Government  P2,390  in   1946, P2.044.10 in 1947,  P2,826.50  in  1948,  and P3,326, in 1949.  (Paragraph II, complaint:  paragraph I, defendant's answer,)   Furthermore, upon  defendant's  demand,  plaintiff  also  paid,  but  under protest,  to defendant city, the sum of P3,524 on January 24,  1949, and Pl,506 on  February  11, 1949, or a total of P4,630  as  fees for inspection of the same boilers by the office of the City Engineer, pursuant to the provisions of Title 15, Chapter 117, of the Revised Ordinances.   (Paragraphs IV  and V,  complaint;  paragraphs II and III, defendant's answer.)"

The Manila Charter (1917)  authorized the Municipal Board "to  tax   * * * steam boilers"  and to  regulate * * * steam  engines and boilers"  and  provide for  the inspection  thereof and for a reasonable  fee for  such inspection".^[1]  Pursuant  to this statute the  ordinance  in question was approved,  and the payment  demanded and received.  However plaintiff  insists  that Commonwealth Act No. 104  (1936)  as  amended by  Commonwealth Act No. 696  (1945) repealed the above portions  of  the Manila Charter, because these two enactment direct that  "for inspection  of boilers  and pressure vessels,  the Secretary of Labor *  * * shall fix and collect reasonable inspection fees."  (section  S).^[2]

His Honor  perceived no repeal by implication, and believed there was no  legislative  intention to deprive  the City of its  power to tax and license steam  boilers, pointing to the  subsequent enactment in  1949 of the Revised Charter of the City of Manila  (Republic Act No.  409) repeating the  identical provisions,of the Administrative Code above quoted.  There was no  repeal,  in  our opinion too. In the first place  the City's power to tax  steam boilers could not have been affected by the Department of Labor's  power to regulate or inspect them:  one is taxation,  the other regulation.   In  the second place, the  power  of inspection  of the Secretary  of Labor  does not  necessarily  conflict with that of the  City authorities, because the former has  particular relation to the "safety of laborers and  employees"  (section 1) of industrial enterprises,  whereas   that of the  City  of Manila is not limited  to  such  purpose, but is related to the safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the City,  particularly of the neighborhood wherein the boilers are located.   (Smoke, noise, vibration, fire hazards etc.)   Different purposes, are served by the two inspections. Anyway,  this  Court has already declared  in  U. S. vs. Chan  Tienco, 25 Phil., 89:

"The mere fact that a municipality, for the purpose of protecting the health of its  people,  requires  a permit from the  president of the municipal board of  health for the slaughtering1 of  large cattle,  does not  contravene nor  is it  repugnant to the provisions of the  general law of the State requiring, for the purposes  mentioned  in the  general  law, a permit from  the municipal  treasurer for the slaughtering of large cattle.  The  purposes of the two Jaws are distinct.  Many instances  might be given  showing that an  inhabitant of  a municipality, before he can do a particular thing  or  engage in a  particular class of business, should secure two permits,  one  from the  municipality  and another from  the State."

Mr. Justice  Johnson who wrote the above quotation had previously had  occasion  to  make a lengthy  exposition, replete with precedents of the principle that a  municipal regulation or prohibition  of a certain line of activity may co-exist  with  national regulation  or prohibition  of the same.  (U.  S.  vs.  Joson, 26 Phil.,  1) Because in the opinion of judicial authorities there is nothing "inherently obnoxious in the requirement that a person engaging in a business shall  have two licenses, one  issued by the  state and another by a  political subdivision or public corporation."  (33  Am.  Jur.  345).

In   its last  assignment of  error  the plaintiff,  asserts that the inspection fees charged by the City are "excessive, unreasonable, and grossly disproportionate  to the services rendered" by it.  This point does not seem to be material. If the inspection fees had been demanded solely by virtue of the City's power to regulate  and license steam boilers, it might be  pertinent to  inquire  into the reasonability of the charges.  However, the City has also authority to tax steam, boilers;  and  there is  every indication that herein charges were  collected under both the power to  tax and the power to regulate.   The name "fee" is not conclusive taxes are often times  called fees.

"Where under undoubted charter power  to  tax  is imposed  for revenue alone,  or  for  police  regulation and revenue,  the  amount thereof is  usually a matter  for  determination by  the legislative branch  of the  municipal government.  Ordinarily the courts will decline  to interfere on the ground that the amount is oppressive or unreasonably large,"   (McQuillen on Municipal Corporations, 2nd. ed., Vol. 3, pp. 686-693).

The appealed judgment will therefore  be affirmed  with costs  against appellant.   So  ordered.

Paras, C. J., Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Reyes, J. B. L. and Endencia, JJ.,  concur.

---

^[1] Section 2444 Administrative Code (m) and (o).

^[2]  What  is said about  these two  acts applies equally to Republic Act 867 invoked by  plaintiff.