G.R. No. 137002 July 27, 2006 BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, petitioner, vs.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, respondent. DECISION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Court, as amended, seeking to set aside a Decision1 of the Court of Appeals dated 14 August 2004 ordering the petitioner to pay respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) deficiency documentary stamp tax of P690,030 for the year 1986, inclusive of surcharge and compromise penalty, plus 20% annual interest until fully paid. The Court of Appeals in its assailed Decision affirmed the Decision2 of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) dated 31 May 1994. From 28 February 1986 to 8 October 1986, petitioner Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) sold to the Central Bank of the Philippines (now Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas) U.S. dollars for P1,608,541,900.00. BPI instructed, by cable, its correspondent bank in New York to transfer U.S. dollars deposited in BPI's account therein to the Federal Reserve Bank in New York for credit to the Central Bank's account therein. Thereafter, the Federal Reserve Bank sent to the Central Bank confirmation that such funds had been credited to its account and the Central Bank promptly transferred to the petitioner's account in the Philippines the corresponding amount in Philippine

pesos.3 During the period starting 11 June 1985 until 9 March 1987, the Central Bank enjoyed tax exemption privileges pursuant to Resolution No. 35-85 dated 3 May 1985 of the Fiscal Incentive Review Board. However, in 1985, Presidential Decree No. 1994 -- An Act Further Amending Certain Provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code was enacted. This law amended Section 222 (now 173) of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), by adding the foregoing: [W]henever one party to the taxable document enjoys exemption from the tax herein imposed, the other party thereto who is not exempt shall be the one directly liable for the tax. In 1988, respondent CIR ordered an investigation to be made on BPI's sale of foreign currency. As a result thereof, the CIR issued a pre-assessment notice informing BPI that in accordance with Section 195 (now Section 182)4 of the NIRC, BPI was liable for documentary stamp tax at the rate of P0.30 per P200.00 on all foreign exchange sold to the Central Bank. Total tax liability was assessed at P3,016,316.06, which consists of a documentary stamp tax liability of P2,412,812.85, a 25% surcharge of P603,203.21, and a compromise penalty of P300.00.5 BPI disputed the findings contained in the pre-assessment notice. Nevertheless, the CIR issued Assessment No. FAS-5-86-88-003022, dated 30 September 1988, which BPI received on 11 October 1988. BPI formally protested the assessment, but the protest was denied. On 10 July 1990, BPI received the final notice and demand for payment of its 1986 assessment for deficiency documentary stamp tax in the amount of P3,016,316.06. Consequently, a petition for review was filed with the CTA on 9 August 1990.6

On 31 May 1994, the CTA rendered the Decision holding BPI liable for documentary stamp tax in connection with the sale of foreign exchange to the Central Bank from the period 29 July 1986 to 8 October 1986 only, thus substantially reducing the CIR's original assessment. The dispositive portion of the said Decision reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner is hereby ordered to pay respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the amount of P690,030 inclusive of surcharge and compromise penalty, plus 20% annual interest until fully paid pursuant to Section 249 (cc) (sic) (3) of the Tax Code.7 The CTA ruled that BPI's instructions to its correspondent bank in the U.S. to pay to the Federal Reserve Bank in New York, for the account of the Central Bank, a sum of money falls squarely within the scope of Section 51 of The Revised Documentary Stamp Tax Regulations (Regulations No. 26), dated 26 March 1924, the implementing rules to the earlier provisions on documentary stamp tax, which provides that: 8 What may be regarded as telegraphic transfer. a local bank cables to a certain bank in a foreign country with which bank said local bank has a credit, and directs that foreign bank to pay to another bank or person in the same locality a certain sum of money, the document for and in respect such transaction will be regarded as a telegraphic transfer, taxable under the provisions of Section 1449(i) of the Administrative Code. Nevertheless, the CTA also noted that although Presidential Decree No. 1994, the law which passes the liability on to the non-exempt party, was published in the Official Gazette issue of 2 December

1985, the same was released to the public only on 18 June 1986, as certified by the National Printing Office. Therefore, Presidential Decree No. 1994 took effect only in July 1986 or 15 days after the issue of Official Gazette where the law was actually published, that is, circulated to the public. As a result of the delay, BPI's transactions prior to the effectivity of Presidential Decree No. 1994 were not subject to documentary stamp tax. Hence, the CTA reduced the assessment from P3,016,316.06 to P690,030.00, plus 20% annual interest until fully paid pursuant to Section 249(c) of the NIRC.9 Both parties filed their respective Motions for Reconsideration, which the CTA denied in a Resolution dated 26 September 1994. BPI filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals on 11 November 1994. On 14 August 1998, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Decision of the CTA. The Court of Appeals ruled that the documentary stamp tax imposed under Section 195 (now Section 182) is not limited only to foreign bills of exchange and letters of credit but also includes the orders made by telegraph or by any other means for the payment of money made by any person drawn in but payable out of the Philippines. The Court of Appeals also maintained that telegraphic transfers, such as the one BPI sent to its correspondent bank in the U.S., are proper subjects for the imposition of documentary stamp tax under Section 195 (now Section 182) and Section 51 of Revenue Regulation No. 26. The Court of Appeals likewise affirmed the CTA's Decision imposing a 20% delinquency on the reduced assessment, in accordance with Section 24(c)(3) of the NIRC and the case of Philippine Refining Company v. Court of Appeals.10 Petitioner filed a Partial Motion for Reconsideration on 9 September 1998, which the Court of Appeals denied on 29 December 1998.11

Hence this petition, wherein the petitioner raised the following issues: I WHETHER OR NOT, THE COURT OF APPEALS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT SALES OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE (SPOT CASH), AS DISTINGUISHED FROM SALES OF FOREIGN BILLS OF EXCHANGE, ARE SUBJECT TO DOCUMENTARY STAMP TAX UNDER SECTION 182 OF THE TAX CODE II WHETHER OR NOT, THE COURT OF APPEALS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE IMPOSITION OF A DELINQUENCY INTEREST OF 20% ON THE REVISED DEFICIENCY STAMP ASSESSMENT DESPITE A REDUCTION THEREOF BY THE COUR T OF TAX APPEALS WHICH ERRED IN ITS ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT.12 The first issue raised by the petitioner is whether BPI is liable for documentary stamp taxes in connection with its sale of foreign exchange to the Central Bank in 1986 under Section 195 (now Section 182) of the NIRC, quoted hereunder: Sec. 182. Stamp tax on foreign bills of exchange and letters of credit. On all foreign bills of exchange and letters of credit (including orders, by telegraph or otherwise, for the payment of money issued by express or steamship companies or by any person or persons) drawn in but payable out of the Philippines in a set of three or more according to the custom of merchants and bankers, there shall be collected a documentary stamp tax of thirty centavos on each two

hundred pesos, or fractional part thereof, of the face value of such bill of exchange or letter of credit, or the Philippine equivalent of such face value, if expressed in foreign country. To determine what is being taxed under this section, a discussion on the nature of the acts covered by Section 195 (now Section 182) of the NIRC is indispensable. This section imposes a documentary stamp tax on (1) foreign bills of exchange, (2) letters of credit, and (3) orders, by telegraph or otherwise, for the payment of money issued by express or steamship companies or by any person or persons. This enumeration is further limited by the qualification that they should be drawn in the Philippines and payable outside of the Philippines. A definition of a "bill of exchange" is provided by Section 39 of Regulations No. 26, the rules governing documentary taxes promulgated by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) in 1924: Sec. 39. Definition of "bill of exchange". The term bill of exchange denotes checks, drafts, and all other kinds of orders for the payment of money, payable at sight, or on demand or after a specific period after sight or from a stated date. Section 126 of The Negotiable Instruments Law (Act No. 2031) reiterates that it is an "order for the payment of money" and specifies the particular requisites that make it negotiable. Sec. 126. Bill of exchange defined. A bill of exchange is an unconditional order in writing addressed by one person to another, signed by the person giving it, requiring the person to whom it is addressed to pay on demand or at fixed or determinable future time a sum certain in money to order or to bearer. Section 129 of the same law classifies bills of exchange as inland and foreign, the distinction is laid

down by where the bills are drawn and paid. Thus, a "foreign bill of exchange" may be drawn outside the Philippines, payable outside the Philippines, or both drawn and payable outside of the Philippines. Sec. 129. Inland and foreign bills of exchange. -- An inland bill of exchange is a bill which is, or on its face purports to be, both drawn and payable within the Philippines. Any other bill is a foreign bill. x x x The Code of Commerce loosely defines a "letter of credit" and provides for its essential conditions, thus: Art. 567. Letters of credit are those issued by one merchant to another or for the purpose of attending to a commercial transaction. Art 568. The essential conditions of letters of credit shall be: 1. To be issued in favor of a definite person and not to order. 2. To be limited to a fixed and specified amount, or to one or more undetermined amounts, but within a maximum the limits of which has to be stated exactly. A more explicit definition of a letter of credit can be found in the commentaries: A letter of credit is one whereby one person requests some other person to advance money or give credit to a third person, and promises that he will repay the same to the person making the advancement, or accept the bills drawn upon himself for the like amount.13 A bill of exchange and a letter of credit may differ as to their negotiability, and as to who owns the funds used for the payment at the time payment is made. However, in both bills of exchange and

letters of credit, a person orders another to pay money to a third person. The phrase "orders, by telegraph or otherwise, for the payment of money" used in reference to documentary stamp taxes may be found in an earlier documentary tax provision, Section 1449(i) of the Administrative Code of 1917, which was substantially reproduced in Section 195 (now Section 182) of the NIRC. Regulations No. 26, which provided the rules and guidelines for the documentary stamp tax imposed under the Administrative Code of 1917, contains an explanation for the phrase "orders, by telegraph or otherwise, for the payment of money": What may be regarded as telegraphic transfer. a local bank cables to a certain bank in a foreign country with which bank said local bank has a credit, and directs that foreign bank to pay to another bank or person in the same locality a certain sum of money, the document for and in respect such transaction will be regarded as a telegraphic transfer, taxable under the provisions of Section 1449(i) of the Administrative Code. In this case, BPI ordered its correspondent bank in the U.S. to pay the Federal Reserve Bank in New York a sum of money, which is to be credited to the account of the Central Bank. These are the same acts described under Section 51 of Regulations No. 26, interpreting the documentary stamp tax provision in the Administrative Code of 1917, which is substantially identical to Section 195 (now Section 182) of the NIRC. These acts performed by BPI incidental to its sale of foreign exchange to the Central Bank are included among those taxed under Section 195 (now Section 182) of the NIRC. BPI alleges that the assailed decision must be reversed since the sale between BPI and the Central Bank of foreign exchange, as distinguished from foreign bills of exchange, is not subject to the

documentary stamp taxes prescribed in Section 195 (now Section 182) of the NIRC. This argument leaves much to be desired. In this case, it is not the sale of foreign exchange per se that is being taxed under Section 195 of the NIRC. This section refers to a documentary stamp tax, which is an excise upon the facilities used in the transaction of the business separate and apart from the business itself.14 It is not a tax upon the business itself which is so transacted, but it is a duty upon the facilities made use of and actually employed in the transaction of the business, and separate and apart from the business itself.15 Section 195 (now Section 182) of the NIRC covers foreign bills of exchange, letters of credit, and orders of payment for money, drawn in Philippines, but payable outside the Philippines. From this enumeration, two common elements need to be present: (1) drawing the instrument or ordering a drawee, within the Philippines; and (2) ordering that drawee to pay another person a specified amount of money outside the Philippines. What is being taxed is the facility that allows a party to draw the draft or make the order to pay within the Philippines and have the payment made in another country. A perusal of the facts contained in the record in this case shows that BPI, while in the Philippines, ordered its correspondent bank by cable to make a payment, and that payment is to be made to the Federal Reserve Bank in New York. Thus, BPI made use of the aforementioned facility. As a result, BPI need not have sent a representative to New York, nor did the Federal Reserve Bank have to go to the Philippines to collect the funds which were to be credited to the Central Bank's account with them. The transaction was made at the shortest time possible and at the greatest convenience to the parties.

The tax was laid upon this privilege or facility used by the parties in their transactions, transactions which they may effect through our courts, and which are regulated and protected by our government. BPI further alleges that since the funds transferred to the Federal Reserve Bank were taken from BPI's account with the correspondent bank, this is not the transaction contemplated under Section 51 of Regulations No. 26. BPI argues that Section 51 of Regulations No. 26, in using the phrase "with which local bank has credit," involves transactions wherein the drawee bank pays with its own funds and excludes from the coverage of the law situations wherein the funds paid out by the correspondent bank are owned by the drawer. In the case of Republic of the Philippines v. Philippine National Bank,16 the Court equated "credit" with the term "deposits," and identified the depositor as the creditor and the bank as the debtor. And as correctly stated by the trial court, the term "credit" in its usual meaning is a sum credited on the books of a company to a person who appears to be entitled to it. It presupposes a creditordebtor relationship, and may be said to imply ability, by reason of property or estates, to make a promised payment. It is the correlative to debt or indebtedness, and that which is due to any person, as distinguished from that which he owes. The same is true with the term "deposits" in banks where the relationship created between the depositor and the bank is that of creditor and debtor. By this definition of "credit," BPI's deposit account with its correspondent bank is much the same as the "credit" referred to in Section 51 of Regulations No. 26. Thus, the fact that the funds transferred to the Central Bank's account with the Federal Reserve Bank are from BPI's deposit account with the

correspondent bank can only underline that the present case is the same situation described under Section 51 of Regulations No. 26. Moreover, the fact that the funds belong to BPI and were not advanced by the correspondent bank will not remove the transaction from the coverage of Section 195 (now Section 182) of the NIRC. There are transactions covered by this section wherein funds belonging to the drawer are used for payment. A bill of exchange, when drawn in the Philippines but payable in another country, would surely be covered by this section. And in the case of a bill of exchange, the funds may belong to the drawer and need not be advanced by the drawee, as in the case of a check or a draft. In the description of a draft provided hereunder, the drawee is in possession of funds belonging to the drawer of the bill: A draft is a form of a bill of exchange used mainly in transactions between persons physically remote from each other. It is an order made by one person, say the buyer of goods, addressed to a person having in his possession funds of such buyer ordering the addressee to pay the purchase price to the seller of the goods. Where the order is made by one bank to another, it is referred to as a bank draft.17 BPI argues that the foreign exchange sold was deposited and transferred within the U.S. and is therefore outside Philippine territory. This argument is unsubstantial. The documentary stamp tax is not imposed on the sale of foreign exchange, rather it is an excise tax on the privilege or facility which the parties used in their transaction. In the case of Allied Thread Co., Inc. v. City Mayor of Manila,18 the Court explained the scope encompassed by the power to levy an excise tax:

The tax imposition here is upon the performance of an act, enjoyment of a privilege, or the engaging in an occupation, and hence is in the nature of an excise tax. The power to levy an excise upon the performance of an act or the engaging in an occupation does not depend upon the domicile of the person subject to the excise, nor upon the physical location of the property and in connection with the act or occupation taxed, but depends upon the place in which the act is performed or occupation engaged in (Emphasis supplied). In this case, the act of BPI instructing the correspondent bank to transfer the funds to the Federal Reserve Bank was performed in the Philippines. Therefore, the excise tax may be levied by the Philippine government. Section 195 (now Section 182) of the NIRC would be rendered invalid if the fact that the payment was made outside of the country can be used as a basis for nonpayment of the tax. The second issue is whether the delinquency interest of 20% per annum, as provided under Section 249(c)(3) of the NIRC, is applicable in this case. In the case of Philippine Refining Company v. Court of Appeals,19 this Court categorically ruled that even if an assessment was later reduced by the courts, a delinquency interest should still be imposed from the time demand was made by the CIR. As correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General, the deficiency tax assessment in this case, which was the subject of the demand letter of respondent Commissioner dated April 11, 1989, should have been paid within thirty (30) days from receipt thereof. By reason of petitioner's default thereon, the delinquency penalties of 25% surcharge and interest of 20% accrued from

April 11, 1989. The fact that petitioner appealed the assessment to the CTA and that the same was modified does not relieve petitioner of the penalties incident to delinquency. The reduced amount of P237,381.25 is but a part of the original assessment of P1,892,584.00. This doctrine is consistent with the earlier decisions of this Court justifying the imposition of additional charges and interests incident to delinquency by explaining that the nature of additional charges is compensatory and not a penalty. The above legal provision makes no distinctions nor does it establish exceptions. It directs the collection of the surcharge and interest at the stated rate upon any sum or sums due and unpaid after the dates prescribed in subsections (b), (c), and (d) of the Act for the payment of the amounts due. The provision therefore is mandatory in case of delinquency. This is justified because the intention of the law is precisely to discourage delay in the payment of taxes due to the State and, in this sense, the surcharge and interest charged are not penal but compensatory in nature they are compensation to the State for the delay in payment, or for the concomitant use of the funds by the taxpayer beyond the date he is supposed to have paid them to the State.20 The same principle was used in Ross v. U.S.21 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it was only equitable for the government to collect interest from a taxpayer who, by the government's error, received a refund which was not due him. Even though [the] taxpayer here did not request the refund made to him, and the situation is entirely due to an error on the part of the government, taxpayer and not the government has had the use of the money during the period involved and it is not unjustly penalizing taxpayer to

require him to pay compensation for this use of money. Based on established doctrine, these charges incident to delinquency are compensatory in nature and are imposed for the taxpayers' use of the funds at the time when the State should have control of said funds. Collecting such charges is mandatory. Therefore, the Decision of the Court of Appeals imposing a 20% delinquency interest over the assessment reduced by the CTA was justified and in accordance with Section 249(c)(3) of the NIRC. WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court DENIES this petition and AFFIRMS the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 57362 dated 14 August 1998, ordering that petitioner Bank of the Philippine Islands to pay Respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue the deficiency documentary stamp tax in the amount of P690,030.00 inclusive of surcharge and compromise penalty, plus 20% annual interest from 7 June 1990 until fully paid. Costs against the petitioner. SO ORDERED. Panganiban, C.J., Ynares-Santiago, Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr., J.J., concur. Footnotes
1

Penned by Associate Justice Arturo B. Buena with Associate Justice Ramon Mabutas, Jr. and Associate Justice Hilarion L. Aquino, concurring; Rollo, pp. 42-51.
2

CA rollo, pp. 52-64.

3 4

Rollo, p. 42

Sec. 182. Stamp tax on foreign bills of exchange and letters of credit. On all foreign bills of exchange and letters of credit (including orders, by telegraph or otherwise, for the payment of money issued by express or steamship companies or by any person or persons) drawn in but payable out of the Philippines in a set of three or more according to the custom of merchants and bankers, there shall be collected a documentary stamp tax of thirty centavos on each two hundred pesos, or fractional part thereof, of the face value of such bill of exchange or letter of credit, or the Philippine equivalent of such face value, if expressed in foreign country.
5 6 7 8 9

CA rollo, p. 53. Id. Id. at 63-64. Id. at 54-55. Id. at 60-63. 326 Phil. 680 (1996). Rollo, p. 54. Id. at 5. Jose Campos, Jr. and Maria Clara Lopez-Campos, Notes and Selected Cases on Negotiable

10 11 12 13

Instruments Law, Fifth Edition. Quezon City: Central Professional Books, Inc, 1994, p. 878.
14 15

DuPont v. U.S., 300 U.S. 150 (1937)

Lincoln Philippine Life Insurance Company, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 354 Phil. 896, 904 (1998); Nicol v. Ames, 173 US 509 (1899).
16 17 18 19 20 21

113 Phil. 828, 830-831 (1961). Supra note 13 at 3. 218 Phil. 308, 313-314 (1984). Supra note 10 at 691. Republic v. Philippine Bank of Commerce, 145 Phil. 81, 89 (1970). 148 F. Supp. 330 (1957), p. 333.

G.R. No. L-65773-74 April 30, 1987

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner, vs. BRITISH OVERSEAS AIRWAYS CORPORATION and COURT OF TAX APPEALS, respondents.

MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.: Petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) seeks a review on certiorari of the joint Decision of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) in CTA Cases Nos. 2373 and 2561, dated 26 January 1983, which set aside petitioner's assessment of deficiency income taxes against respondent British Overseas Airways Corporation (BOAC) for the fiscal years 1959 to 1967, 1968-69 to 1970-71, respectively, as well as its Resolution of 18 November, 1983 denying reconsideration. BOAC is a 100% British Government-owned corporation organized and existing under the laws of the United Kingdom It is engaged in the international airline business and is a member-signatory of the Interline Air Transport Association (IATA). As such it operates air transportation service and sells transportation tickets over the routes of the other airline members. During the periods covered by the disputed assessments, it is admitted that BOAC had no landing rights for traffic purposes in the Philippines, and was not granted a Certificate of public convenience and necessity to operate in the Philippines by the Civil

Aeronautics Board (CAB), except for a nine-month period, partly in 1961 and partly in 1962, when it was granted a temporary landing permit by the CAB. Consequently, it did not carry passengers and/or cargo to or from the Philippines, although during the period covere d by the assessments, it maintained a general sales agent in the Philippines Wamer Barnes and Company, Ltd., and later Qantas Airways which was responsible for selling BOAC tickets covering passengers and cargoes. 1 G.R. No. 65773 (CTA Case No. 2373, the First Case) On 7 May 1968, petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR, for brevity) assessed BOAC the aggregate amount of P2,498,358.56 for deficiency income taxes covering the years 1959 to 1963. This was protested by BOAC. Subsequent investigation resulted in the issuance of a new assessment, dated 16 January 1970 for the years 1959 to 1967 in the amount of P858,307.79. BOAC paid this new assessment under protest. On 7 October 1970, BOAC filed a claim for refund of the amount of P858,307.79, which claim was denied by the CIR on 16 February 1972. But before said denial, BOAC had already filed a petition for review with the Tax Court on 27 January 1972, assailing the assessment and praying for the refund of the amount paid. G.R. No. 65774 (CTA Case No. 2561, the Second Case) On 17 November 1971, BOAC was assessed deficiency income taxes, interests, and

penalty for the fiscal years 1968-1969 to 1970-1971 in the aggregate amount of P549,327.43, and the additional amounts of P1,000.00 and P1,800.00 as compromise penalties for violation of Section 46 (requiring the filing of corporation returns) penalized under Section 74 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC). On 25 November 1971, BOAC requested that the assessment be countermanded and set aside. In a letter, dated 16 February 1972, however, the CIR not only denied the BOAC request for refund in the First Case but also re-issued in the Second Case the deficiency income tax assessment for P534,132.08 for the years 1969 to 1970-71 plus P1,000.00 as compromise penalty under Section 74 of the Tax Code. BOAC's request for reconsideration was denied by the CIR on 24 August 1973. This prompted BOAC to file the Second Case before the Tax Court praying that it be absolved of liability for deficiency income tax for the years 1969 to 1971. This case was subsequently tried jointly with the First Case. On 26 January 1983, the Tax Court rendered the assailed joint Decision reversing the CIR. The Tax Court held that the proceeds of sales of BOAC passage tickets in the Philippines by Warner Barnes and Company, Ltd., and later by Qantas Airways, during the period in question, do not constitute BOAC income from Philippine sources "since no service of carriage of passengers or freight was performed by BOAC within the Philippines" and, therefore, said income is not subject to Philippine income tax. The CTA position was that income from transportation is income from services so that the place where services are

rendered determines the source. Thus, in the dispositive portion of its Decision, the Tax Court ordered petitioner to credit BOAC with the sum of P858,307.79, and to cancel the deficiency income tax assessments against BOAC in the amount of P534,132.08 for the fiscal years 1968-69 to 1970-71. Hence, this Petition for Review on certiorari of the Decision of the Tax Court. The Solicitor General, in representation of the CIR, has aptly defined the issues, thus:
1. Whether or not the revenue derived by private respondent British Overseas Airways Corporation (BOAC) from sales of tickets in the Philippines for air transportation, while having no landing rights here, constitute income of BOAC from Philippine sources, and, accordingly, taxable. 2. Whether or not during the fiscal years in question BOAC s a resident foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines or has an office or place of business in the Philippines. 3. In the alternative that private respondent may not be considered a resident foreign corporation but a non-resident foreign corporation, then it is liable to Philippine income tax at the rate of thirty-five per cent (35%) of its gross income received from all sources within the Philippines.

Under Section 20 of the 1977 Tax Code:

(h) the term resident foreign corporation engaged in trade or business within the Philippines or having an office or place of business therein. (i) The term "non-resident foreign corporation" applies to a foreign corporation not engaged in trade or business within the Philippines and not having any office or place of business therein

It is our considered opinion that BOAC is a resident foreign corporation. There is no specific criterion as to what constitutes "doing" or "engaging in" or "transacting" business. Each case must be judged in the light of its peculiar environmental circumstances. The term implies a continuity of commercial dealings and arrangements, and contemplates, to that extent, the performance of acts or works or the exercise of some of the functions normally incident to, and in progressive prosecution of commercial gain or for the purpose and object of the business organization. 2 "In order that a foreign corporation may be regarded as doing business within a State, there must be continuity of conduct and intention to establish a continuous business, such as the appointment of a local agent, and not one of a temporary character. 3 BOAC, during the periods covered by the subject - assessments, maintained a general sales agent in the Philippines, That general sales agent, from 1959 to 1971, "was engaged in (1) selling and issuing tickets; (2) breaking down the whole trip into series of trips each trip in the series corresponding to a different airline company; (3) receiving the fare from the whole trip; and (4) consequently allocating to the various airline companies on the basis of their participation in the services rendered through the mode of interline settlement as prescribed by Article VI of the Resolution No. 850 of the IATA Agreement." 4 Those activities were in exercise of the functions which are normally incident to, and are in progressive pursuit of, the purpose and object of its organization as an international air carrier. In fact, the regular sale of tickets, its main activity, is the very lifeblood of the airline

business, the generation of sales being the paramount objective. There should be no doubt then that BOAC was "engaged in" business in the Philippines through a local agent during the period covered by the assessments. Accordingly, it is a resident foreign corporation subject to tax upon its total net income received in the preceding taxable year from all sources within the Philippines. 5
Sec. 24. Rates of tax on corporations. ... (b) Tax on foreign corporations. ... (2) Resident corporations. A corporation organized, authorized, or existing under the laws of any foreign country, except a foreign fife insurance company, engaged in trade or business within the Philippines, shall be taxable as provided in subsection (a) of this section upon the total net income received in the preceding taxable year from all sources within the Philippines. (Emphasis supplied)

Next, we address ourselves to the issue of whether or not the revenue from sales of tickets by BOAC in the Philippines constitutes income from Philippine sources and, accordingly, taxable under our income tax laws. The Tax Code defines "gross income" thus:
"Gross income" includes gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages or compensation for personal service of whatever kind and in whatever form paid, or from profession, vocations, trades, business, commerce, sales, or dealings in property, whether real or personal, growing out of the ownership or use of or interest in such property; also from interests, rents, dividends, securities, or the transactions of any business carried on for gain

or profile, or gains, profits, and income derived from any source whatever (Sec. 29[3]; Emphasis supplied)

The definition is broad and comprehensive to include proceeds from sales of transport documents. "The words 'income from any source whatever' disclose a legislative policy to include all income not expressly exempted within the class of taxable income under our laws." Income means "cash received or its equivalent"; it is the amount of money coming to a person within a specific time ...; it means something distinct from principal or capital. For, while capital is a fund, income is a flow. As used in our income tax law, "income" refers to the flow of wealth. 6 The records show that the Philippine gross income of BOAC for the fiscal years 1968-69 to 1970-71 amounted to P10,428,368 .00. 7 Did such "flow of wealth" come from "sources within the Philippines", The source of an income is the property, activity or service that produced the income. 8 For the source of income to be considered as coming from the Philippines, it is sufficient that the income is derived from activity within the Philippines. In BOAC's case, the sale of tickets in the Philippines is the activity that produces the income. The tickets exchanged hands here and payments for fares were also made here in Philippine currency. The site of the source of payments is the Philippines. The flow of wealth proceeded from, and occurred within, Philippine territory, enjoying the protection accorded by the Philippine government. In consideration of such protection, the flow of wealth should share the burden of supporting

the government. A transportation ticket is not a mere piece of paper. When issued by a common carrier, it constitutes the contract between the ticket-holder and the carrier. It gives rise to the obligation of the purchaser of the ticket to pay the fare and the corresponding obligation of the carrier to transport the passenger upon the terms and conditions set forth thereon. The ordinary ticket issued to members of the traveling public in general embraces within its terms all the elements to constitute it a valid contract, binding upon the parties entering into the relationship. 9 True, Section 37(a) of the Tax Code, which enumerates items of gross income from sources within the Philippines, namely: (1) interest, (21) dividends, (3) service, (4) rentals and royalties, (5) sale of real property, and (6) sale of personal property, does not mention income from the sale of tickets for international transportation. However, that does not render it less an income from sources within the Philippines. Section 37, by its language, does not intend the enumeration to be exclusive. It merely directs that the types of income listed therein be treated as income from sources within the Philippines. A cursory reading of the section will show that it does not state that it is an all-inclusive enumeration, and that no other kind of income may be so considered. " 10 BOAC, however, would impress upon this Court that income derived from transportation is income for services, with the result that the place where the services are rendered determines the source; and since BOAC's service of transportation is performed outside the

Philippines, the income derived is from sources without the Philippines and, therefore, not taxable under our income tax laws. The Tax Court upholds that stand in the joint Decision under review. The absence of flight operations to and from the Philippines is not determinative of the source of income or the site of income taxation. Admittedly, BOAC was an off-line international airline at the time pertinent to this case. The test of taxability is the "source"; and the source of an income is that activity ... which produced the income. 11 Unquestionably, the passage documentations in these cases were sold in the Philippines and the revenue therefrom was derived from a activity regularly pursued within the Philippines. business a And even if the BOAC tickets sold covered the "transport of passengers and cargo to and from foreign cities", 12 it cannot alter the fact that income from the sale of tickets was derived from the Philippines. The word "source" conveys one essential idea, that of origin, and the origin of the income herein is the Philippines. 13 It should be pointed out, however, that the assessments upheld herein apply only to the fiscal years covered by the questioned deficiency income tax assessments in these cases, or, from 1959 to 1967, 1968-69 to 1970-71. For, pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 69, promulgated on 24 November, 1972, international carriers are now taxed as follows:
... Provided, however, That international carriers shall pay a tax of 2- per cent on their cross Philippine billings. (Sec. 24[b] [21, Tax Code).

Presidential Decree No. 1355, promulgated on 21 April, 1978, provided a statutory definition

of the term "gross Philippine billings," thus:

... "Gross Philippine billings" includes gross revenue realized from uplifts anywhere in the world by any international carrier doing business in the Philippines of passage documents sold therein, whether for passenger, excess baggage or mail provided the cargo or mail originates from the Philippines. ...

The foregoing provision ensures that international airlines are taxed on their income from Philippine sources. The 2- % tax on gross Philippine billings is an income tax. If it had been intended as an excise or percentage tax it would have been place under Title V of the Tax Code covering Taxes on Business. Lastly, we find as untenable the BOAC argument that the dismissal for lack of merit by this Court of the appeal in JAL vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (G.R. No. L-30041) on February 3, 1969, is res judicata to the present case. The ruling by the Tax Court in that case was to the effect that the mere sale of tickets, unaccompanied by the physical act of carriage of transportation, does not render the taxpayer therein subject to the common carrier's tax. As elucidated by the Tax Court, however, the common carrier's tax is an excise tax, being a tax on the activity of transporting, conveying or removing passengers and cargo from one place to another. It purports to tax the business of transportation. 14 Being an excise tax, the same can be levied by the State only when the acts, privileges or businesses are done or performed within the jurisdiction of the Philippines. The subject matter of the case under consideration is income tax, a direct tax on the income of persons and other entities "of whatever kind and in whatever form derived from any source." Since the two

cases treat of a different subject matter, the decision in one cannot be res judicata to the other. WHEREFORE, the appealed joint Decision of the Court of Tax Appeals is hereby SET ASIDE. Private respondent, the British Overseas Airways Corporation (BOAC), is hereby ordered to pay the amount of P534,132.08 as deficiency income tax for the fiscal years 1968-69 to 1970-71 plus 5% surcharge, and 1% monthly interest from April 16, 1972 for a period not to exceed three (3) years in accordance with the Tax Code. The BOAC claim for refund in the amount of P858,307.79 is hereby denied. Without costs. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. L-52019 August 19, 1988 ILOILO BOTTLERS, INC., plaintiff-appellee, vs. CITY OF ILOILO, defendant-appellant.

CORTES, J.: The fundamental issue in this appeal is whether the Iloilo Bottlers, Inc. which had its bottling plant in Pavia, Iloilo, but which sold softdrinks in Iloilo City, is liable under Iloilo City tax Ordinance No. 5, series of 1960, as amended, which imposes a municipal license tax on distributors of soft-drinks. On July 12,1972, Iloilo Bottlers, Inc. filed a complaint docketed as Civil Case No. 9046 with the Court of First Instance of Iloilo praying for the recovery of the sum of P3,329.20, which amount allegedly constituted payments of municipal license taxes under Ordinance No. 5 series of 1960, as amended, that the company paid under protest. On November 15,1972, the parties submitted a partial stipulation of facts, the material portions of which state
xxx xxx xxx 2. That plaintiff is engaged in the business of bottling softdrinks under the trade name of

Pepsi Cola And 7-up and selling the same to its customers, with a bottling plant situated at Barrio Ungca Municipality of Pavia, Iloilo, Philippines and which is outside the jurisdiction of defendant; 3. That defendant enacted an ordinance on January 11, 1960 known as Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1960 which ordinance was successively amended by Ordinance No. 28, Series of 1960; Ordinance No. 15, Series of 1964; and Ordinance No. 45, Series of 1964; which provides as follows: Section l. Any person, firm or corporation engaged in the distribution, manufacture or bottling of coca-cola, pepsi cola, tru-orange, seven-up and other soft drinks within the jurisdiction of the City of Iloilo, shall pay a municipal license tax of ten (P0.10) centavos for every case of twenty-four bottles; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that softdrinks sold to the public at not more than five (P0.05) centavos per bottle shall pay a tax of one and one half (P0.015) (centavos) per case of twenty four bottles. Section 1-AFor purposes of this Ordinance, all deliveries and/or dispatches emanating or made at the plant and all goods or stocks taken out of the plant for distribution, sale or exchange irrespective (of) where it would take place shall be covered by the operation of this Ordinance. 4. That prior to September, 1966, Santiago Syjuco Inc., owned and operated a bottling plant at Muelle Loney Street, Iloilo City, which was doing business under the name of Seven-up Bottling Company of the Philippines and bottled the soft-drinks Pepsi-Cola and 7-up; however sometime on September 14,1966, Santiago Syjuco, Inc., informed all its employees that it (was) closing its Iloilo Plant due to financial losses and in fact closed the same and later sold the plant to the plaintiff Iloilo Bottlers, Inc.

5. That thereafter, plaintiff operated the said plant by bottling the soft drinks Pepsi-Cola and 7-up; however, sometime in July 1968, plaintiff closed said bottling plant at Muelle Loney, Iloilo City, and transferred its bottling operations to its new plant in Barrio Ungca, Municipality of Pavia, Province of Iloilo, and which is outside the jurisdiction of the City of Iloilo; 6. That from the time of (the) enactment (of the ordinance), the Seven Up Bottling Company of the Philippines under Santiago Syjuco Inc., had been religiously paying the defendant City of Iloilo the above- mentioned municipal license tax due therefrom for bottler because its bottling plant was then still situated at Muelle Loney St., Iloilo City; but the plaintiff stopped paying the municipal license tax (after) October 21, 1968 (when) it transferred its plant to Barrio Ungca Municipality of Pavia, Iloilo which is outside the jurisdiction of the City of Iloilo; 7. That sometime on July 31, 1969, the defendant demanded from the plaintiff the payment of the municipal license tax under the above-mentioned ordinance, a xerox copy of the said letter is attached to the complaint as Annex "A" and made an integral part hereof by reference. 8. That plaintiff explained in a letter to the defendant that it could not anymore be liable to pay the municipal license fee because its bottling plant (was) not anymore inside the City of Iloilo, and that moreover, since it itself (sold) its own products to its (customers) directly, it could not be considered as a distributor in line with the doctrines enunciated by the Supreme Court in the cases of City of Manila vs. Bugsuk Lumber Co., L- 8255, July 11, 1957; Manila Trading & Supply Co., Inc. vs. City of Manila L-1 2156, April 29, 1959; Central Azucarera de Don Pedro vs. City of Manila et al., G.R. No. L7679, September 29,1955; Cebu Portland Cement vs. City of Manila and City Treasurer of Manila, L-1 4229,July 26,1960. A xerox copy of the said letter is attached as Annex "B" to the complaint and made an integral part hereof by reference. As a result of the said letter of the plaintiff, the defendant did not anymore press the plaintiff to

pay the said municipal license tax; 9. That sometime on January 25, 1972, the defendant demanded from the plaintiff compliance with the said ordinance for 1972 in view of the fact that it was engaged in distribution of the softdrinks in the City of Iloilo, and it further demanded from the plaintiff payment of back taxes from the time it transferred its bottling plant to the Municipality of Pavia, Iloilo; 10. That the plaintiff demurred to the said demand of the defendant raising as its jurisdiction the reason that its bottling plant is situated outside the City of Iloilo and as bottler could not be considered as distributor under the said ordinance although it sells its product directly to the consumer, in line with the jurisprudence enunciated by the Supreme Court but due to insistence of the defendant, the plaintiff paid on April 20, 1972, the first quarter payment of the municipal licence tax in the sum of P3,329.20, under protest, and thereafter has been paying defendant every quarter under protest; 11. That on June l5, 1972,the defendant informed the plaintiff that it must pay all the taxes due since July, 1968 up to the last quarter of 1971, otherwise it shall be constrained to cancel the operation of the business of the plaintiff, and because of this threat, and so as not to occasion disruption of its business operation, the plaintiff under protest agreed to the payment of the back taxes, on staggered basis, which was acceded to by the defendant; 12. That as computed by the plaintiff the following are its softdrinks sold in Iloilo City since it transferred its bottling plant from the City of Iloilo to Barrio Ungca Pavia, Iloilo in July 1968, to wit: No. of Cases sold

SEVEN-UP 1968 Jul to Dec Jan. to Dec. Jan. to Dec. Jan. to Dec. TOTAL 39,340

PEPSI-COLA 49,060

TOTAL 88,400

TAX DUE P8,840

1969

81,240

87,660

168,900

16,890

1970

79,389

89,211

168,600

16,600

1971

80,670

88,480

169,150

16,915

280,639

314,411

595,050

P 59,505

13. That the plaintiff does not maintain any store or commercial establishment in the City of Iloilo from which it distributes its products, but by means of a fleet of delivery trucks, plaintiff distributes its products from its bottling plant at Barrio Ungca Municipality of Pavia, Iloilo, directly to its customers in the different towns of the Province of Iloilo as well as the City of Iloilo; 14. That the plaintiff is already paying the National Government a percentage Tax of 71/t, as manufacturer's sales tax on all the softdrinks it manufactures as follows: O.R. No. 4683995 - January, 1972 Sales P17,222.90 O.R. No. 5614767 - February " " 17,024.81 O.R. No. .5614870 - March " " 17,589.19

O.R. No. 5614891 - April " " 18,726.77 O.R. No. 5614897 - May " " 16,710.99 O.R. No. 5614935 - June " " 14,791.20 O.R. No. 5614967 - July " " 13,952.00 O.R. No. 5614973 - August " " 15,726.16 O.R. No. 56'L4999 - September " " 19,159.54 and is also paying the municipal license tax to the municipality of Pavia, Iloilo in the amount of P l0,000.00 every year, plus a municipal license tax for engaging in its business to the municipality of Pavia in its amount of P2,000.00 every year. xxx xxx xxx [Rollo, P. 10 (Record on Appeal, pp. 25-31)]

On the basis of the above stipulations, the court a quo rendered on January 26, 1973 a decision in favor of Iloilo Bottlers, Inc. declaring the Corporation not liable under the ordinance and directing the City of Iloilo to pay the sum of' P3,329.20. The decision was amended in an Order dated March 15, 1973, so as to include the amounts paid by the company after the filing of the complaint. The City of Iloilo appealed to the Court of Appeals which certified the case to this Court. The tax ordinance imposes a tax on persons, firms, and corporations engaged in the business of:

1. distribution of soft-drinks 2. manufacture of soft-drinks, and 3. bottling of softdrinks within the territorial jurisdiction of the City of Iloilo. There is no question that after it transferred its plant to Pavia, Iloilo province, Iloilo Bottlers, Inc. no longer manufactured/bottled its softdrinks within Iloilo City. Thus, it cannot be taxed as one falling under the second or the third type of business. The resolution of this case therefore hinges on whether the company may be considered engaged in the distribution of softdrinks in Iloilo City, even after it had transferred its bottling plant to Pavia, so as to be within the purview of the ordinance. Iloilo Bottlers, Inc. disclaims liability on two grounds: First, it contends that since it is not engaged in the independent business of distributing soft-drinks, but that its activity of selling is merely an incident to, or is a necessary consequence of its main or principal business of bottling, then it is NOT liable under the city tax ordinance. Second, it claims that only manufacturers or bottlers having their plants inside the territorial jurisdiction of the city are covered by the ordinance. The second ground is manifestly devoid of merit. It is clear from the ordinance that three types of activities are covered: (1) distribution, (2) manufacture and (3) bottling of softdrinks. A person engaged in any or all of these activities is subject to the tax. The first ground, however, merits serious consideration.

This Court has always recognized that the right to manufacture implies the right to sell/distribute the manufactured products [See Central Azucarera de Don Pedro v. City of Manila and Sarmiento, 97 Phil. 627 (1955); Caltex (Philippines), Inc. v. City of Manila and Cudiamat, G.R. No. L-22764, July 28, 1969, 28 SCRA 840, 843.] Hence, for tax purposes, a manufacturer does not necessarily become engaged in the separate business of selling simply because it sells the products it manufactures. In certain cases, however, a manufacturer may also be considered as engaged in the separate business of selling its products. To determine whether an entity engaged in the principal business of manufacturing, is likewise engaged in the separate business of selling, its marketing system or sales operations must be looked into. In several cases [See Central Azucarera de Don Pedro v. City of Manila and Sarmiento, supra; Cebu Portland Cement Co. v. City of Manila and the City Treasurer, 108 Phil. 1063 (1960); Caltex (Philippines), Inc. v. City of Manila and Cudiamat, supra], this Court had occasion to distinguish two marketing systems: Under the first system, the manufacturer enters into sales transactions and invoices the sales at its main office where purchase orders are received and approved before delivery orders are sent to the company's warehouses, where in turn actual deliveries are made. No warehouse sales are made; nor are separate stores maintained where products may be sold independently from the main office. The warehouses only serve as storage sites and

delivery points of the products earlier sold at the main office. Under the second system, sales transactions are entered into and perfected at stores or warehouses maintained by the company. Any one who desires to purchase the product may go to the store or warehouse and there purchase the merchandise. The stores and warehouses serve as selling centers. Entities operating under the first system are NOT considered engaged in the separate business of selling or dealing in their products, independent of their manufacturing business. Entities operating under the second system are considered engaged in the separate business of selling. In the case at bar, the company distributed its softdrinks by means of a fleet of delivery trucks which went directly to customers in the different places in lloilo province. Sales transactions with customers were entered into and sales were perfected and consummated by route salesmen. Truck sales were made independently of transactions in the main office. The delivery trucks were not used solely for the purpose of delivering softdrinks previously sold at Pavia. They served as selling units. They were what were called, until recently, "rolling stores". The delivery trucks were therefore much the same as the stores and warehouses under the second marketing system. Iloilo Bottlers, Inc. thus falls under the second category above. That is, the corporation was engaged in the separate business of selling or distributing soft-drinks, independently of its business of bottling them. The tax imposed under Ordinance No. 5 is an excise tax. It is a tax on the privilege of

distributing, manufacturing or bottling softdrinks. Being an excise tax, it can be levied by the taxing authority only when the acts, privileges or businesses are done or performed within the jurisdiction of said authority [Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. British Overseas Airways Corp. and Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 65773-74, April 30, 1987, 149 SCRA 395, 410.] Specifically, the situs of the act of distributing, bottling or manufacturing softdrinks must be within city limits, before an entity engaged in any of the activities may be taxed in Iloilo City. As stated above, sales were made by Iloilo Bottlers, Inc. in Iloilo City. Thus, We have no option but to declare the company liable under the tax ordinance. With the foregoing discussion, it becomes unnecessary to discuss the other issues raised by the parties. WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby REVERSED. The complaint in Civil Case No. 9046 is ordered DISMISSED. No Costs. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 169836

July 31, 2007

PHILIPPINE FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE and the CITY OF ILOILO, respondents. DECISION YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: Assailed in this petition for review is the June 21, 2005 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 81228, which held that petitioner Philippine Fisheries Development Authority (hereafter referred to as Authority) is liable to pay real property taxes on the land and buildings of the Iloilo Fishing Port Complex (IFPC) which are owned by the Republic of the Philippines but operated and governed by the Authority. The facts are not disputed. On August 11, 1976, then President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. 977 (PD 977) creating the Authority and placing it under the direct control and supervision of the Secretary of Natural Resources. On February 8, 1982, Executive Order No. 772 (EO 772) was issued amending PD 977, and renaming the Authority as the now "Philippine Fisheries Development Authority," and attaching said agency to the Ministry of Natural Resources. Upon the effectivity of the Administrative Code (EO 292), the Authority became an attached agency of the Department of Agriculture.2

Meanwhile, beginning October 31, 1981, the then Ministry of Public Works and Highways reclaimed from the sea a 21-hectare parcel of land in Barangay Tanza, Iloilo City, and constructed thereon the IFPC, consisting of breakwater, a landing quay, a refrigeration building, a market hall, a municipal shed, an administration building, a water and fuel oil supply system and other port related facilities and machineries. Upon its completion, the Ministry of Public Works and Highways turned over IFPC to the Authority, pursuant to Section 11 of PD 977, which places fishing port complexes and related facilities under the governance and operation of the Authority. Notwithstanding said turn over, title to the land and buildings of the IFPC remained with the Republic. The Authority thereafter leased portions of IFPC to private firms and individuals engaged in fishing related businesses. Sometime in May 1988, the City of Iloilo assessed the entire IFPC for real property taxes. The assessment remained unpaid until the alleged total tax delinquency of the Authority for the fiscal years 1988 and 1989 amounted to P5,057,349.67, inclusive of penalties and interests. To satisfy the tax delinquency, the City of Iloilo scheduled on August 30, 1990, the sale at public auction of the IFPC. The Authority filed an injunction case with the Regional Trial Court. At the pre-trial, the parties agreed to avail of administrative proceedings, i.e., for the Authority to file a claim for tax exemption with the Iloilo City Assessors Office. The latter, however, denied the claim for exemption, hence, the Authority elevated the case to the Department of Finance (DOF). In its letter-decision3 dated March 6, 1992, the DOF ruled that the Authority is liable to pay real

property taxes to the City of Iloilo because it enjoys the beneficial use of the IFPC. The DOF added, however, that in satisfying the amount of the unpaid real property taxes, the property that is owned by the Authority shall be auctioned, and not the IFPC, which is a property of the Republic. 4 The Authority filed a petition before the Office of the President but it was dismissed.5 It also denied the motion for reconsideration filed by the Authority.6 On petition with the Court of Appeals, the latter affirmed the decision of the Office of the President. It opined, however, that the IFPC may be sold at public auction to satisfy the tax delinquency of the Authority.7 The dispositive portion thereof, reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Review is DENIED, and accordingly the June 30, 2003 Decision and December 3, 2003 Order of the Office of the President are hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.8 Hence, this petition. The issues are as follows: Is the Authority liable to pay real property tax to the City of Iloilo? If the answer is in the affirmative, may the IFPC be sold at public auction to satisfy the tax delinquency? To resolve said issues, the Court has to determine (1) whether the Authority is a government owned or controlled corporation (GOCC) or an instrumentality of the national government; and (2) whether the IFPC is a property of public dominion.

The Court rules that the Authority is not a GOCC but an instrumentality of the national government which is generally exempt from payment of real property tax. However, said exemption does not apply to the portions of the IFPC which the Authority leased to private entities. With respect to these properties, the Authority is liable to pay real property tax. Nonetheless, the IFPC, being a property of public dominion cannot be sold at public auction to satisfy the tax delinquency. In Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) v. Court of Appeals,9 the Court made a distinction between a GOCC and an instrumentality. Thus: Section 2(13) of the Introductory Provisions of the Administrative Code of 1987 defines a government-owned or controlled corporation as follows: SEC. 2. General Terms Defined. x x x (13) Government-owned or controlled corporation refers to any agency organized as a stock or non-stock corporation, vested with functions relating to public needs whether governmental or proprietary in nature, and owned by the Government directly or through its instrumentalities either wholly, or, where applicable as in the case of stock corporations, to the extent of at least fifty-one (51) percent of its capital stock: x x x (Emphasis supplied) A government-owned or controlled corporation must be "organized as a stock or non-stock corporation." MIAA is not organized as a stock or non-stock corporation. MIAA is not a stock corporation because it has no capital stock divided into shares. MIAA has no stockholders or voting shares.

xxxx Section 3 of the Corporation Code defines a stock corporation as one whose "capital stock is divided into shares and x x x authorized to distribute to the holders of such shares dividends x x x." MIAA has capital but it is not divided into shares of stock. MIAA has no stockholders or voting shares. Hence, MIAA is not a stock corporation. MIAA is also not a non-stock corporation because it has no members. Section 87 of the Corporation Code defines a non-stock corporation as "one where no part of its income is distributable as dividends to its members, trustees or officers." A non-stock corporation must have members. Even if we assume that the Government is considered as the sole member of MIAA, this will not make MIAA a non-stock corporation. Non-stock corporations cannot distribute any part of their income to their members. Section 11 of the MIAA Charter mandates MIAA to remit 20% of its annual gross operating income to the National Treasury. This prevents MIAA from qualifying as a non-stock corporation. Section 88 of the Corporation Code provides that non-stock corporations are "organized for charitable, religious, educational, professional, cultural, recreational, fraternal, literary, scientific, social, civil service, or similar purposes, like trade, industry, agriculture and like chambers." MIAA is not organized for any of these purposes. MIAA, a public utility, is organized to operate an international and domestic airport for public use. Since MIAA is neither a stock nor a non-stock corporation, MIAA does not qualify as a government-owned or controlled corporation.10 (Emphasis supplied)

Thus, for an entity to be considered as a GOCC, it must either be organized as a stock or non-stock corporation. Two requisites must concur before one may be classified as a stock corporation, namely: (1) that it has capital stock divided into shares, and (2) that it is authorized to distribute dividends and allotments of surplus and profits to its stockholders. If only one requisite is present, it cannot be properly classified as a stock corporation. As for non-stock corporations, they must have members and must not distribute any part of their income to said members.11 On the basis of the parameters set in the MIAA case, the Authority should be classified as an instrumentality of the national government. As such, it is generally exempt from payment of real property tax, except those portions which have been leased to private entities. In the MIAA case, petitioner Philippine Fisheries Development Authority was cited as among the instrumentalities of the national government. Thus Some of the national government instrumentalities vested by law with juridical personalities are: Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, Philippine Rice Research Institute, Laguna Lake Development Authority, Fisheries Development Authority, Bases Conversion Development Authority, Philippine Ports Authority, Cagayan de Oro Port Authority, San Fernando Port Authority, Cebu Port Authority, and Philippine National Railways. Indeed, the Authority is not a GOCC but an instrumentality of the government. The Authority has a capital stock but it is not divided into shares of stocks.12 Also, it has no stockholders or voting shares. Hence, it is not a stock corporation. Neither it is a non-stock corporation because it has no members. The Authority is actually a national government instrumentality which is defined as an agency of the

national government, not integrated within the department framework, vested with special functions or jurisdiction by law, endowed with some if not all corporate powers, administering special funds, and enjoying operational autonomy, usually through a charter.13 When the law vests in a government instrumentality corporate powers, the instrumentality does not become a corporation. Unless the government instrumentality is organized as a stock or non-stock corporation, it remains a government instrumentality exercising not only governmental but also corporate powers. Thus, the Authority which is tasked with the special public function to carry out the governments policy "to promote the development of the countrys fishing industry and improve the efficiency in handling, preserving, marketing, and distribution of fish and other aquatic products," exercises the governmental powers of eminent domain,14 and the power to levy fees and charges.15 At the same time, the Authority exercises "the general corporate powers conferred by laws upon private and government-owned or controlled corporations."16 The MIAA case held17 that unlike GOCCs, instrumentalities of the national government, like MIAA, are exempt from local taxes pursuant to Section 133(o) of the Local Government Code. This exemption, however, admits of an exception with respect to real property taxes. Applying Section 234(a) of the Local Government Code, the Court ruled that when an instrumentality of the national government grants to a taxable person the beneficial use of a real property owned by the Republic, said instrumentality becomes liable to pay real property tax. Thus, while MIAA was held to be an instrumentality of the national government which is generally exempt from local taxes, it was at the same time declared liable to pay real property taxes on the airport lands and buildings which it leased

to private persons. It was held that the real property tax assessments and notices of delinquencies issued by the City of Pasay to MIAA are void except those pertaining to portions of the airport which are leased to private parties. Pertinent portions of the decision, reads: Section 193 of the Local Government Code expressly withdrew the tax exemption of all juridical persons "[u]nless otherwise provided in this Code." Now, Section 133(o) of the Local Government Code expressly provides otherwise, specifically prohibiting local governments from imposing any kind of tax on national government instrumentalities. Section 133(o) states: SEC. 133. Common Limitations on the Taxing Powers of Local Government Units. Unless otherwise provided herein, the exercise of the taxing powers of provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays shall not extend to the levy of the following: xxxx (o) Taxes, fees or charges of any kinds on the National Government, its agencies and instrumentalities, and local government units. By express mandate of the Local Government Code, local governments cannot impose any kind of tax on national government instrumentalities like the MIAA. Local governments are devoid of power to tax the national government, its agencies and instrumentalities. The taxing powers of local governments do not extend to the national government, its agencies and instrumentalities, "[u]nless otherwise provided in this Code" as stated in the saving clause of Section 133. x x x xxxx

The saving clause in Section 133 refers to the exception to the exemption in Section 234(a) of the Code, which makes the national government subject to real estate tax when it gives the beneficial use of its real properties to a taxable entity. Section 234(a) of the Local Government Code provides: SEC. 234. Exemptions from Real Property Tax The following are exempted from payment of the real property tax: (a) Real property owned by the Republic of the Philippines or any of its political subdivisions except when the beneficial use thereof has been granted, for consideration or otherwise, to a taxable person. x x x18 (Emphasis supplied) WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. We SET ASIDE the assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals of 5 October 2001 and 27 September 2002 in CA-G.R. SP No. 66878. We DECLARE the Airport Lands and Buildings of the Manila International Airport Authority EXEMPT from the real estate tax imposed by the City of Paraaque. We declare VOID all the real estate tax assessments, including the final notices of real estate tax delinquencies, issued by the City of Paraaque on the Airport Lands and Buildings of the Manila International Airport Authority, except for the portions that the Manila International Airport Authority has leased to private parties. We also declare VOID the assailed auction sale, and all its effects, of the Airport Lands and Buildings of the Manila International Airport Authority. x x x x.19 (Emphasis added)

In light of the foregoing, the Authority should be classified as an instrumentality of the national government which is liable to pay taxes only with respect to the portions of the property, the beneficial use of which were vested in private entities. When local governments invoke the power to tax on national government instrumentalities, such power is construed strictly against local governments. The rule is that a tax is never presumed and there must be clear language in the law imposing the tax. Any doubt whether a person, article or activity is taxable is resolved against taxation. This rule applies with greater force when local governments seek to tax national government instrumentalities.20 Thus, the real property tax assessments issued by the City of Iloilo should be upheld only with respect to the portions leased to private persons. In case the Authority fails to pay the real property taxes due thereon, said portions cannot be sold at public auction to satisfy the tax delinquency. In Chavez v. Public Estates Authority it was held that reclaimed lands are lands of the public domain and cannot, without Congressional fiat, be subject of a sale, public or private, thus:21 The salient provisions of CA No. 141, on government reclaimed, foreshore and marshy lands of the public domain, are as follows: Sec. 59. The lands disposable under this title shall be classified as follows: (a) Lands reclaimed by the Government by dredging, filling, or other means; (b) Foreshore; (c) Marshy lands or lands covered with water bordering upon the shores or banks of

navigable lakes or rivers; (d) Lands not included in any of the foregoing classes. xxxx Sec. 61. The lands comprised in classes (a), (b), and (c) of section fifty-nine shall be disposed of to private parties by lease only and not otherwise, as soon as the President, upon recommendation by the Secretary of Agriculture, shall declare that the same are not necessary for the public service and are open to disposition under this chapter. The lands included in class (d) may be disposed of by sale or lease under the provisions of this Act." (Emphasis supplied) xxxx Since then and until now, the only way the government can sell to private parties government reclaimed and marshy disposable lands of the public domain is for the legislature to pass a law authorizing such sale. CA No. 141 does not authorize the President to reclassify government reclaimed and marshy lands into other non-agricultural lands under Section 59 (d). Lands classified under Section 59 (d) are the only alienable or disposable lands for non-agricultural purposes that the government could sell to private parties. (Emphasis supplied) In the same vein, the port built by the State in the Iloilo fishing complex is a property of the public dominion and cannot therefore be sold at public auction. Article 420 of the Civil Code, provides: ARTICLE 420. The following things are property of public dominion:

(1) Those intended for public use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and bridges constructed by the State, banks, shores, roadsteads, and others of similar character; (2) Those which belong to the State, without being for public use, and are intended for some public service or for the development of the national wealth. The Iloilo fishing port which was constructed by the State for public use and/or public service falls within the term "port" in the aforecited provision. Being a property of public dominion the same cannot be subject to execution or foreclosure sale.22 In like manner, the reclaimed land on which the IFPC is built cannot be the object of a private or public sale without Congressional authorization. Whether there are improvements in the fishing port complex that should not be construed to be embraced within the term "port," involves evidentiary matters that cannot be addressed in the present case. As for now, considering that the Authority is a national government instrumentality, any doubt on whether the entire IFPC may be levied upon to satisfy the tax delinquency should be resolved against the City of Iloilo. In sum, the Court finds that the Authority is an instrumentality of the national government, hence, it is liable to pay real property taxes assessed by the City of Iloilo on the IFPC only with respect to those portions which are leased to private entities. Notwithstanding said tax delinquency on the leased portions of the IFPC, the latter or any part thereof, being a property of public domain, cannot be sold at public auction. This means that the City of Iloilo has to satisfy the tax delinquency through means other than the sale at public auction of the IFPC. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the June 21, 2005 Decision of the Court of Appeals

in CA-G.R. SP No. 81228 is SET ASIDE. The real property tax assessments issued by the City Iloilo on the land and buildings of the Iloilo Fishing Port Complex, is declared VOID except those pertaining to the portions leased to private parties. The City of Iloilo is DIRECTED to refrain from levying on the Iloilo Fishing Port Complex to satisfy the payment of the real property tax delinquency. No costs. SO ORDERED. Austria-Martinez, Chico-Nazario, Nachura, Reyes, JJ., concur. Footnotes
1

Rollo, pp. 47-55. Penned by Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang and concurred in by Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Monina Arevalo-Zenarosa.
2 3 4 5 6

Book IV, Title IV, Chapter 6, Section 47, Executive Order No. 292 (1987). Rollo, pp. 128-131. Id. at 131. Id. at 87-89. Id. at 90.

7 8 9

Id. at 54. Id. at 55. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied (Rollo, pp. 57-58).

G.R. No. 155650, July 20, 2006, 495 SCRA 591, 615. The decision became final and executory on November 3, 2006.
10 11

Id. at 615-617.

Agbayani, Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Commercial Laws of the Philippines, vol. 3, 1998 edition, pp. 54-55.
12

Sec. 5. Capitalization; Sinking Fund. The Authority shall have an authorized capital stock of Five Hundred Million Pesos (P500,000,000.00) which shall be fully subscribed by the Republic of the Philippines, and the following amounts shall be paid in: (a) The net assets of the Authority, including the Navotas fishing port complex, the valuation of which shall be determined jointly with the Office of Budget and Management and the Commission on Audit; (b) The amount corresponding to the balance of the programmed appropriations for the Authority for calendar year 1981; and (c) The amount corresponding to the programmed appropriations for the Authority for the calendar year 1982. The Authority is authorized to establish a sinking fund necessary to meet such obligations as

may be incurred by the Authority. The annual contributions to the sinking fund shall come from the revenues derived from its fishing port complexes and, where such revenues are deficient, from such other corporate funds not otherwise intended for any specific purpose as may be designated by the Board. Unless otherwise directed by the Board, the sinking fund shall be placed under the custody of any government bank which shall invest the same in such manner as may be advantageous to the Authority.
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Section 2(10) of the Introductory Provisions of the Administrative Code. Section 4 (k) of PD 977, as amended by EO 772. Section 4 (e) of PD 977, as amended by EO 772. Section 4 (j) of PD 977, as amended by EO 772. Supra note 9 at 645. Id. at 631-634. Id. at 646. Id. at 619. Chavez v. Public Estates Authority, G.R. No. 133250, July 9, 2002, 384 SCRA 152, 202-203.

Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) v. Court of Appeals, supra note 9 at 646; Laurel v. Garcia, G.R. Nos. 92013 & 92047, July 25, 1990, 187 SCRA 797, 808-809.

G.R. No. 186242 December 23, 2009 GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, Petitioner, vs. CITY TREASURER and CITY ASSESSOR of the CITY OF MANILA, Respondents. DECISION VELASCO, JR., J.: The Case For review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court on pure question of law are the November 15, 2007 Decision1 and January 7, 2009 Order2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 49 in Manila, in Civil Case No. 02-104827, a suit to nullify the assessment of real property taxes on certain properties belonging to petitioner Government Service Insurance System (GSIS). The Facts Petitioner GSIS owns or used to own two (2) parcels of land, one located at Katigbak 25th St., Bonifacio Drive, Manila (Katigbak property), and the other, at Concepcion cor. Arroceros Sts., also in Manila (Concepcion-Arroceros property). Title to the Concepcion-Arroceros property was transferred to this Court in 2005 pursuant to Proclamation No. 8353 dated April 27, 2005. Both the GSIS and the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila occupy the Concepcion-Arroceros property, while the Katigbak property was under lease.

The controversy started when the City Treasurer of Manila addressed a letter4 dated September 13, 2002 to GSIS President and General Manager Winston F. Garcia informing him of the unpaid real property taxes due on the aforementioned properties for years 1992 to 2002, broken down as follows: (a) PhP 54,826,599.37 for the Katigbak property; and (b) PhP 48,498,917.01 for the ConcepcionArroceros property. The letter warned of the inclusion of the subject properties in the scheduled October 30, 2002 public auction of all delinquent properties in Manila should the unpaid taxes remain unsettled before that date. On September 16, 2002, the City Treasurer of Manila issued separate Notices of Realty Tax Delinquency5 for the subject properties, with the usual warning of seizure and/or sale. On October 8, 2002, GSIS, through its legal counsel, wrote back emphasizing the GSIS exemption from all kinds of taxes, including realty taxes, under Republic Act No. (RA) 8291.6 Two days after, GSIS filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition7 with prayer for a restraining and injunctive relief before the Manila RTC. In it, GSIS prayed for the nullification of the assessments thus made and that respondents City of Manila officials be permanently enjoined from proceedings against GSIS property. GSIS would later amend its petition8 to include the fact that: (a) the Katigbak property, covered by TCT Nos. 117685 and 119465 in the name of GSIS, has, since November 1991, been leased to and occupied by the Manila Hotel Corporation (MHC), which has contractually bound itself to pay any realty taxes that may be imposed on the subject property; and (b) the ConcepcionArroceros property is partly occupied by GSIS and partly occupied by the MeTC of Manila. The Ruling of the RTC

By Decision of November 15, 2007, the RTC dismissed GSIS petition, as follows: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered, DISMISSING the petition for lack of merit, and declaring the assessment conducted by the respondents City of Manila on the subject real properties of GSIS as valid pursuant to law. SO ORDERED.9 GSIS sought but was denied reconsideration per the assailed Order dated January 7, 2009. Thus, the instant petition for review on pure question of law. The Issues 1. Whether petitioner is exempt from the payment of real property taxes from 1992 to 2002; 2. Whether petitioner is exempt from the payment of real property taxes on the property it leased to a taxable entity; and 3. Whether petitioners real properties are exempt from warrants of levy and from tax sale for non-payment of real property taxes.10 The Courts Ruling The issues raised may be formulated in the following wise: first, whether GSIS under its charter is exempt from real property taxation; second, assuming that it is so exempt, whether GSIS is liable for real property taxes for its properties leased to a taxable entity; and third, whether the properties of GSIS are exempt from levy.

In the main, it is petitioners posture that both its old charter, Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1146, and present charter, RA 8291 or the GSIS Act of 1997, exempt the agency and its properties from all forms of taxes and assessments, inclusive of realty tax. Excepting, respondents counter that GSIS may not successfully resist the citys notices and warrants of levy on the basis of its exemption under RA 8291, real property taxation being governed by RA 7160 or the Local Government Code of 1991 (LGC, hereinafter). The petition is meritorious. First Core Issue: GSIS Exempt from Real Property Tax Full tax exemption granted through PD 1146 In 1936, Commonwealth Act No. (CA) 18611 was enacted abolishing the then pension systems under Act No. 1638, as amended, and establishing the GSIS to manage the pension system, life and retirement insurance, and other benefits of all government employees. Under what may be considered as its first charter, the GSIS was set up as a non-stock corporation managed by a board of trustees. Notably, Section 26 of CA 186 provided exemption from any legal process and liens but only for insurance policies and their proceeds, thus: Section 26. Exemption from legal process and liens. No policy of life insurance issued under this Act, or the proceeds thereof, when paid to any member thereunder, nor any other benefit granted under this Act, shall be liable to attachment, garnishment, or other process, or to be seized, taken, appropriated, or applied by any legal or equitable process or operation of law to pay any debt or liability of such member, or his beneficiary, or any other person who may have a right thereunder,

either before or after payment; nor shall the proceeds thereof, when not made payable to a named beneficiary, constitute a part of the estate of the member for payment of his debt. x x x In 1977, PD 1146,12 otherwise known as the Revised Government Service Insurance Act of 1977, was issued, providing for an expanded insurance system for government employees. Sec. 33 of PD 1146 provided for a new tax treatment for GSIS, thus: Section 33. Exemption from Tax, Legal Process and Lien. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the State that the actuarial solvency of the funds of the System shall be preserved and maintained at all times and that the contribution rates necessary to sustain the benefits under this Act shall be kept as low as possible in order not to burden the members of the System and/or their employees. Taxes imposed on the System tend to impair the actuarial solvency of its funds and increase the contribution rate necessary to sustain the benefits under this Act. Accordingly, notwithstanding any laws to the contrary, the System, its assets, revenues including all accruals thereto, and benefits paid, shall be exempt from all taxes, assessments, fees, charges or duties of all kinds. These exemptions shall continue unless expressly and specifically revoked and any assessment against the System as of the approval of this Act are hereby considered paid. The benefits granted under this Act shall not be subject, among others, to attachment, garnishment, levy or other processes. This, however, shall not apply to obligations of the member to the System, or to the employer, or when the benefits granted herein are assigned by the member with the authority of the System. (Emphasis ours.) A scrutiny of PD 1146 reveals that the non-stock corporate structure of GSIS, as established under

CA 186, remained unchanged. Sec. 3413 of PD 1146 pertinently provides that the GSIS, as created by CA 186, shall implement the provisions of PD 1146. RA 7160 lifted GSIS tax exemption Then came the enactment in 1991 of the LGC or RA 7160, providing the exercise of local government units (LGUs) of their power to tax, the scope and limitations thereof,14 and the exemptions from taxations. Of particular pertinence is the general provision on withdrawal of tax exemption privileges in Sec. 193 of the LGC, and the special provision on withdrawal of exemption from payment of real property taxes in the last paragraph of the succeeding Sec. 234, thus: SEC. 193. Withdrawal of Tax Exemption Privileges. Unless otherwise provided in this Code, tax exemptions or incentives granted to, or presently enjoyed by all persons, whether natural or juridical, including government-owned or -controlled corporations, except local water districts, cooperatives duly registered under R.A. No. 6938, non-stock and non-profit hospitals and educational institutions, are hereby withdrawn upon the effectivity of this Code. SEC. 234. Exemption from Real Property Tax. x x x Except as provided herein, any exemption from payment of real property tax previously granted to, or presently enjoyed by, all persons, whether natural or juridical, including all government-owned or controlled corporation are hereby withdrawn upon the effectivity of this Code. From the foregoing provisos, there can be no serious doubt about the Congress intention to withdraw, subject to certain defined exceptions, tax exemptions granted prior to the passage of RA 7160. The question that easily comes to mind then is whether or not the full tax exemption heretofore granted to

GSIS under PD 1146, particular insofar as realty tax is concerned, was deemed withdrawn. We answer in the affirmative. In Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority v. Marcos,[15] the Court held that the express withdrawal by the LGC of previously granted exemptions from realty taxes applied to instrumentalities and government-owned and controlled corporations (GOCCs), such as the MactanCebu International Airport Authority. In City of Davao v. RTC, Branch XII, Davao City,16 the Court, citing Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority, declared the GSIS liable for real property taxes for the years 1992 to 1994 (contested real estate tax assessment therein), its previous exemption under PD 1146 being considered withdrawn with the enactment of the LGC in 1991. Significantly, the Court, in City of Davao, stated the observation that the GSIS tax-exempt status withdrawn in 1992 by the LGC was restored in 1997 by RA 8291.17 Full tax exemption reenacted through RA 8291 Indeed, almost 20 years to the day after the issuance of the GSIS charter, i.e., PD 1146, it was further amended and expanded by RA 8291 which took effect on June 24, 1997.18 Under it, the full tax exemption privilege of GSIS was restored, the operative provision being Sec. 39 thereof, a virtual replication of the earlier quoted Sec. 33 of PD 1146. Sec. 39 of RA 8291 reads: SEC. 39. Exemption from Tax, Legal Process and Lien. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the State that the actuarial solvency of the funds of the GSIS shall be preserved and maintained at all times and that contribution rates necessary to sustain the benefits under this Act shall be kept as low

as possible in order not to burden the members of the GSIS and their employers. Taxes imposed on the GSIS tend to impair the actuarial solvency of its funds and increase the contribution rate necessary to sustain the benefits of this Act. Accordingly, notwithstanding, any laws to the contrary, the GSIS, its assets, revenues including all accruals thereto, and benefits paid, shall be exempt from all taxes, assessments, fees, charges or duties of all kinds. These exemptions shall continue unless expressly and specifically revoked and any assessment against the GSIS as of the approval of this Act are hereby considered paid. Consequently, all laws, ordinances, regulations, issuances, opinions or jurisprudence contrary to or in derogation of this provision are hereby deemed repealed, superseded and rendered ineffective and without legal force and effect. Moreover, these exemptions shall not be affected by subsequent laws to the contrary unless this section is expressly, specifically and categorically revoked or repealed by law and a provision is enacted to substitute or replace the exemption referred to herein as an essential factor to maintain or protect the solvency of the fund, notwithstanding and independently of the guaranty of the national government to secure such solvency or liability. The funds and/or the properties referred to herein as well as the benefits, sums or monies corresponding to the benefits under this Act shall be exempt from attachment, garnishment, execution, levy or other processes issued by the courts, quasi-judicial agencies or administrative bodies including Commission on Audit (COA) disallowances and from all financial obligations of the members, including his pecuniary accountability arising from or caused or occasioned by his exercise or performance of his official functions or duties, or incurred relative to or in connection with his position or work except when his monetary liability, contractual or otherwise, is in favor of

the GSIS. (Emphasis ours.) The foregoing exempting proviso, couched as it were in an encompassing manner, brooks no other construction but that GSIS is exempt from all forms of taxes. While not determinative of this case, it is to be noted that prominently added in GSIS present charter is a paragraph precluding any implied repeal of the tax-exempt clause so as to protect the solvency of GSIS funds. Moreover, an express repeal by a subsequent law would not suffice to affect the full exemption benefits granted the GSIS, unless the following conditionalities are met: (1) The repealing clause must expressly, specifically, and categorically revoke or repeal Sec. 39; and (2) a provision is enacted to substitute or replace the exemption referred to herein as an essential factor to maintain or protect the solvency of the fund. These restrictions for a future express repeal, notwithstanding, do not make the proviso an irrepealable law, for such restrictions do not impinge or limit the carte blanche legislative authority of the legislature to so amend it. The restrictions merely enhance other provisos in the law ensuring the solvency of the GSIS fund.1avvphi1 Given the foregoing perspectives, the following may be assumed: (1) Pursuant to Sec. 33 of PD 1146, GSIS enjoyed tax exemption from real estate taxes, among other tax burdens, until January 1, 1992 when the LGC took effect and withdrew exemptions from payment of real estate taxes privileges granted under PD 1146; (2) RA 8291 restored in 1997 the tax exempt status of GSIS by reenacting under its Sec. 39 what was once Sec. 33 of P.D. 1146;19 and (3) If any real estate tax is due to the City of Manila, it is, following City of Davao, only for the interim period, or from 1992 to 1996, to be precise.

Real property taxes assessed and due from GSIS considered paid While recognizing the exempt status of GSIS owing to the reenactment of the full tax exemption clause under Sec. 39 of RA 8291 in 1997, the ponencia in City of Davao appeared to have failed to take stock of and fully appreciate the all-embracing condoning proviso in the very same Sec. 39 which, for all intents and purposes, considered as paid "any assessment against the GSIS as of the approval of this Act." If only to stress the point, we hereby reproduce the pertinent portion of said Sec. 39: SEC. 39. Exemption from Tax, Legal Process and Lien. x x x Taxes imposed on the GSIS tend to impair the actuarial solvency of its funds and increase the contribution rate necessary to sustain the benefits of this Act. Accordingly, notwithstanding, any laws to the contrary, the GSIS, its assets, revenues including all accruals thereto, and benefits paid, shall be exempt from all taxes, assessments, fees, charges or duties of all kinds. These exemptions shall continue unless expressly and specifically revoked and any assessment against the GSIS as of the approval of this Act are hereby considered paid. Consequently, all laws, ordinances, regulations, issuances, opinions or jurisprudence contrary to or in derogation of this provision are hereby deemed repealed, superseded and rendered ineffective and without legal force and effect. (Emphasis added.) GSIS an instrumentality of the National Government Apart from the foregoing consideration, the Courts fairly recent ruling in Manila International Airport Authority v. Court of Appeals,20 a case likewise involving real estate tax assessments by a Metro Manila city on the real properties administered by MIAA, argues for the non-tax liability of

GSIS for real estate taxes. There, the Court held that MIAA does not qualify as a GOCC, not having been organized either as a stock corporation, its capital not being divided into shares, or as a nonstock corporation because it has no members. MIAA is rather an instrumentality of the National Government and, hence, outside the purview of local taxation by force of Sec. 133 of the LGC providing in context that "unless otherwise provided," local governments cannot tax national government instrumentalities. And as the Court pronounced in Manila International Airport Authority, the airport lands and buildings MIAA administers belong to the Republic of the Philippines, which makes MIAA a mere trustee of such assets. No less than the Administrative Code of 1987 recognizes a scenario where a piece of land owned by the Republic is titled in the name of a department, agency, or instrumentality. The following provision of the said Code suggests as much: Sec. 48. Official Authorized to Convey Real Property.Whenever real property of the Government is authorized by law to be conveyed, the deed of conveyance shall be executed in behalf of the government by the following: x x x x (2) For property belonging to the Republic of the Philippines, but titled in the name of x x x any corporate agency or instrumentality, by the executive head of the agency or instrumentality.21 While perhaps not of governing sway in all fours inasmuch as what were involved in Manila International Airport Authority, e.g., airfields and runways, are properties of the public dominion and, hence, outside the commerce of man, the rationale underpinning the disposition in that case is squarely applicable to GSIS, both MIAA and GSIS being similarly situated. First, while created under CA 186 as a non-stock corporation, a status that has remained unchanged even when it

operated under PD 1146 and RA 8291, GSIS is not, in the context of the afore quoted Sec. 193 of the LGC, a GOCC following the teaching of Manila International Airport Authority, for, like MIAA, GSIS capital is not divided into unit shares. Also, GSIS has no members to speak of. And by members, the reference is to those who, under Sec. 87 of the Corporation Code, make up the nonstock corporation, and not to the compulsory members of the system who are government employees. Its management is entrusted to a Board of Trustees whose members are appointed by the President. Second, the subject properties under GSISs name are likewise owned by the Republic. The GSIS i s but a mere trustee of the subject properties which have either been ceded to it by the Government or acquired for the enhancement of the system. This particular property arrangement is clearly shown by the fact that the disposal or conveyance of said subject properties are either done by or through the authority of the President of the Philippines. Specifically, in the case of the Concepcion-Arroceros property, it was transferred, conveyed, and ceded to this Court on April 27, 2005 through a presidential proclamation, Proclamation No. 835. Pertinently, the text of the proclamation announces that the Concepcion-Arroceros property was earlier ceded to the GSIS on October 13, 1954 pursuant to Proclamation No. 78 for office purposes and had since been titled to GSIS which constructed an office building thereon. Thus, the transfer on April 27, 2005 of the Concepcion-Arroceros property to this Court by the President through Proclamation No. 835. This illustrates the nature of the government ownership of the subject GSIS properties, as indubitably shown in the last clause of Presidential Proclamation No. 835: WHEREAS, by virtue of the Public Land Act (Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended), Presidential Decree No. 1455, and the Administrative Code of 1987, the President is authorized to

transfer any government property that is no longer needed by the agency to which it belongs to other branches or agencies of the government. (Emphasis ours.) Third, GSIS manages the funds for the life insurance, retirement, survivorship, and disability benefits of all government employees and their beneficiaries. This undertaking, to be sure, constitutes an essential and vital function which the government, through one of its agencies or instrumentalities, ought to perform if social security services to civil service employees are to be delivered with reasonable dispatch. It is no wonder, therefore, that the Republic guarantees the fulfillment of the obligations of the GSIS to its members (government employees and their beneficiaries) when and as they become due. This guarantee was first formalized under Sec. 2422 of CA 186, then Sec. 823 of PD 1146, and finally in Sec. 824 of RA 8291. Second Core Issue: Beneficial Use Doctrine Applicable The foregoing notwithstanding, the leased Katigbak property shall be taxable pursuant to the "beneficial use" principle under Sec. 234(a) of the LGC. It is true that said Sec. 234(a), quoted below, exempts from real estate taxes real property owned by the Republic, unless the beneficial use of the property is, for consideration, transferred to a taxable person. SEC. 234. Exemptions from Real Property Tax. The following are exempted from payment of the real property tax: (a) Real property owned by the Republic of the Philippines or any of its political subdivisions except

when the beneficial use thereof has been granted, for consideration or otherwise, to a taxable person. This exemption, however, must be read in relation with Sec. 133(o) of the LGC, which prohibits LGUs from imposing taxes or fees of any kind on the national government, its agencies, and instrumentalities: SEC. 133. Common Limitations on the Taxing Powers of Local Government Units. Unless otherwise provided herein, the exercise of the taxing powers of provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays shall not extend to the levy of the following: xxxx (o) Taxes, fees or charges of any kinds on the National Government, its agencies and instrumentalities, and local government units. (Emphasis supplied.) Thus read together, the provisions allow the Republic to grant the beneficial use of its property to an agency or instrumentality of the national government. Such grant does not necessarily result in the loss of the tax exemption. The tax exemption the property of the Republic or its instrumentality carries ceases only if, as stated in Sec. 234(a) of the LGC of 1991, "beneficial use thereof has been granted, for a consideration or otherwise, to a taxable person." GSIS, as a government instrumentality, is not a taxable juridical person under Sec. 133(o) of the LGC. GSIS, however, lost in a sense that status with respect to the Katigbak property when it contracted its beneficial use to MHC, doubtless a taxable person. Thus, the real estate tax assessment of PhP 54,826,599.37 covering 1992 to 2002 over the subject Katigbak property is valid insofar as said tax delinquency is concerned as assessed over said property.

Taxable entity having beneficial use of leased property liable for real property taxes thereon The next query as to which between GSIS, as the owner of the Katigbak property, or MHC, as the lessee thereof, is liable to pay the accrued real estate tax, need not detain us long. MHC ought to pay. As we declared in Testate Estate of Concordia T. Lim, "the unpaid tax attaches to the property and is chargeable against the taxable person who had actual or beneficial use and possession of it regardless of whether or not he is the owner." Of the same tenor is the Courts holding in the subsequent Manila Electric Company v. Barlis25 and later in Republic v. City of Kidapawan.26 Actual use refers to the purpose for which the property is principally or predominantly utilized by the person in possession thereof.27 Being in possession and having actual use of the Katigbak property since November 1991, MHC is liable for the realty taxes assessed over the Katigbak property from 1992 to 2002. The foregoing is not all. As it were, MHC has obligated itself under the GSIS-MHC Contract of Lease to shoulder such assessment. Stipulation l8 of the contract pertinently reads: 18. By law, the Lessor, [GSIS], is exempt from taxes, assessments and levies. Should there be any change in the law or the interpretation thereof or any other circumstances which would subject the Leased Property to any kind of tax, assessment or levy which would constitute a charge against the Lessor or create a lien against the Leased Property, the Lessee agrees and obligates itself to shoulder and pay such tax, assessment or levy as it becomes due.28 (Emphasis ours.)

As a matter of law and contract, therefore, MHC stands liable to pay the realty taxes due on the Katigbak property. Considering, however, that MHC has not been impleaded in the instant case, the remedy of the City of Manila is to serve the realty tax assessment covering the subject Katigbak property to MHC and to pursue other available remedies in case of nonpayment, for said property cannot be levied upon as shall be explained below. Third Core Issue: GSIS Properties Exempt from Levy In light of the foregoing disquisition, the issue of the propriety of the threatened levy of subject properties by the City of Manila to answer for the demanded realty tax deficiency is now moot and academic. A valid tax levy presupposes a corresponding tax liability. Nonetheless, it will not be remiss to note that it is without doubt that the subject GSIS properties are exempt from any attachment, garnishment, execution, levy, or other legal processes. This is the clear import of the third paragraph of Sec. 39, RA 8291, which we quote anew for clarity: SEC. 39. Exemption from Tax, Legal Process and Lien. x x x. xxxx The funds and/or the properties referred to herein as well as the benefits, sums or monies corresponding to the benefits under this Act shall be exempt from attachment, garnishment, execution, levy or other processes issued by the courts, quasi-judicial agencies or administrative bodies including Commission on Audit (COA) disallowances and from all financial obligations of the members, including his pecuniary accountability arising from or caused or occasioned by his exercise or performance of his official functions or duties, or incurred relative to or in connection

with his position or work except when his monetary liability, contractual or otherwise, is in favor of the GSIS. (Emphasis ours.) The Court would not be indulging in pure speculative exercise to say that the underlying legislative intent behind the above exempting proviso cannot be other than to isolate GSIS funds and properties from legal processes that will either impair the solvency of its fund or hamper its operation that would ultimately require an increase in the contribution rate necessary to sustain the benefits of the system. Throughout GSIS life under three different charters, the need to ensure the solvency of GSIS fund has always been a legislative concern, a concern expressed in the tax-exempting provisions. Thus, even granting arguendo that GSIS liability for realty taxes attached from 1992, when RA 7160 effectively lifted its tax exemption under PD 1146, to 1996, when RA 8291 restored the tax incentive, the levy on the subject properties to answer for the assessed realty tax delinquencies cannot still be sustained. The simple reason: The governing law, RA 8291, in force at the time of the levy prohibits it. And in the final analysis, the proscription against the levy extends to the leased Katigbak property, the beneficial use doctrine, notwithstanding. Summary In sum, the Court finds that GSIS enjoys under its charter full tax exemption. Moreover, as an instrumentality of the national government, it is itself not liable to pay real estate taxes assessed by the City of Manila against its Katigbak and Concepcion-Arroceros properties. Following the "beneficial use" rule, however, accrued real property taxes are due from the Katigbak property, leased as it is to a taxable entity. But the corresponding liability for the payment thereof devolves on

the taxable beneficial user. The Katigbak property cannot in any event be subject of a public auction sale, notwithstanding its realty tax delinquency. This means that the City of Manila has to satisfy its tax claim by serving the accrued realty tax assessment on MHC, as the taxable beneficial user of the Katigbak property and, in case of nonpayment, through means other than the sale at public auction of the leased property. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. The November 15, 2007 Decision and January 7, 2009 Order of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 49, Manila are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the real property tax assessments issued by the City of Manila to the Government Service Insurance System on the subject properties are declared VOID, except that the real property tax assessment pertaining to the leased Katigbak property shall be valid if served on the Manila Hotel Corporation, as lessee which has actual and beneficial use thereof. The City of Manila is permanently restrained from levying on or selling at public auction the subject properties to satisfy the payment of the real property tax delinquency. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.

Footnotes
*

Additional member per Special Order No. 805 dated December 4, 2009.

1 2 3

Rollo, pp. 29-38. Penned by Judge Concepcion S. Alarcon-Vergara. Id. at 39.

Id. at 51-52, entitled "Amending Proclamation No. 78 dated October 13, 1954 by Transferring the Property Housing the Former Offices of the [GSIS] to the Supreme Court of the Philippines, Reserving the Same for the City of Manila Hall of Justice."
4 5 6 7 8 9

Id. at 40-41. Id. at 53, 54-55. Id. at 56-62. Id. at 63-76, dated October 7, 2002. Id. at 77-90. Id. at 38. Id. at 11.

10 11

Entitled "An Act to Create and Establish a Government Service Insurance System, to Provide for its Administration, and to Appropriate the Necessary Funds Therefor."
12

Entitled "Amending, Expanding, Increasing and Integrating the Social Security and Insurance Benefits of Government Employees and Facilitating the Payment Thereof Under

Commonwealth Act No. 186, as Amended, and for Other Purposes," approved on May 31, 1977.
13

Section 34. Implementing Body.The Government Service Insurance System as created and established under Commonwealth Act No. 186 shall implement the provisions of this Act.
14

Sec. 133(o) of the LGC provides that the taxing power of LGUs shall not extend to the levy of taxes, fees or charges of any kind on the National Government, its agencies and instrumentalities and LGUs.
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

G.R. No. 120082, September 11, 1996, 261 SCRA 667. G.R. No. 127383, 18 August 2005, 467 SCRA 280. Id. at 299. After its publication in the June 9, 1997 issue of the Philippine Star. City of Davao, supra note 16. G.R. No. 155650, July 20, 2006, 495 SCRA 591. Chapter 12, Book I.

Section 24. Accounts to be maintained. The System shall keep separate and distinct from one another the following funds: (a) x x x x

The Government of the Republic of the Philippines hereby guarantees the fulfillment of the obligations of the [GSIS] to the members thereof when and as they shall become due.
23

Section 8. Government Guarantee.The Government of the Republic of the Philippines hereby guarantees the fulfillment of the obligations of the System to its members as and when they fall due.
24

SEC. 8. Government Guarantee. The government of the Republic of the Philippines hereby guarantees the fulfillment of the obligations of the GSIS to its members as and when they fall due.
25 26 27 28

G.R. No. 114231, May 18, 2001, 357 SCRA 832 and June 29, 2004, 433 SCRA 11. G.R. No. 166651, December 9, 2005, 477 SCRA 324. Id at 333-334; citing Local Government Code, Sec. 199(b). Rollo, p. 48.

G.R. No. 178030 December 15, 2010 PHILIPPINE FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (PFDA), Petitioner, vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, LOCAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT

APPEALS OF LUCENA CITY, CITY OF LUCENA, LUCENA CITY ASSESSOR AND LUCENA CITY TREASURER, Respondents. DECISION CARPIO, J.: The Case This petition for review1 assails the 9 May 2007 Decision2 of the Court of Tax Appeals in C.T.A. EB No. 193, affirming the 5 October 2005 Decision of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals (CBAA) in CBAA Case No. L-33. The CBAA dismissed the appeal of petitioner Philippine Fisheries Development Authority (PFDA) from the Decision of the Local Board of Assessment Appeals (LBAA) of Lucena City, ordering PFDA to pay the real property taxes imposed by the City Government of Lucena on the Lucena Fishing Port Complex. The Facts The facts as found by the CBAA are as follows: The records show that the Lucena Fishing Port Complex (LFPC) is one of the fishery infrastructure projects undertaken by the National Government under the Nationwide Fish Port-Package. Located at Barangay Dalahican, Lucena City, the fish port was constructed on a reclaimed land with an area of 8.7 hectares more or less, at a total cost of PHP 296,764,618.77 financed through a loan (L/A PH-25 and 51) from the Overseas Economic Cooperation Fund (OECF) of Japan, dated November 9, 1978 and May 31, 1978, respectively.

The Philippine Fisheries Development Authority (PFDA) was created by virtue of P.D. 977 as amended by E.O. 772, with functions and powers to (m)anage, operate, and develop the Navotas Fishing Port Complex and such other fishing port complexes that may be established by the Authority. Pursuant thereto, Petitioner-Appellant PFDA took over the management and operation of LFPC in February 1992. On October 26, 1999, in a letter addressed to PFDA, the City Government of Lucena demanded payment of realty taxes on the LFPC property for the period from 1993 to 1999 in the total amount of P39,397,880.00. This was received by PFDA on November 24, 1999. On October 17, 2000 another demand letter was sent by the Government of Lucena City on the same LFPC property, this time in the amount of P45,660,080.00 covering the period from 1993 to 2000. On December 18, 2000 Petitioner-Appellant filed its Appeal before the Local Board of Assessment Appeals of Lucena City, which was dismissed for lack of merit. On November 6, 2001 PetitionerAppellant filed its motion for reconsideration; this was denied by the Appellee Local Board on December 10, 2001.3 PFDA appealed to the CBAA. In its Decision dated 5 October 2005, the CBAA dismissed the appeal for lack of merit. The CBAA ruled: Ownership of LFPC however has, before hand, been handed over to the PFDA, as provided for under Sec. 11 of P.D. No. 977, as amended, and declared under the MCIAA case [Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority v. Marcos, G.R. No. 120082, 11 September 1996, 261 SCRA 667]. The allegations therefore that PFDA is not the beneficial user of LFPC and not a taxable person are

rendered moot and academic by such ownership of PFDA over LFPC. xxx PFDAs Charter, P.D. 977, provided for exemption from income tax under Par. 2, Sec. 10 thereof: "(t)he Authority shall be exempted from the payment of income tax". Nothing was said however about PFDAs exemption from payment of real property tax: PFDA therefore was not to lay claim for realty tax exemption on its Fishing Port Complexes. Reading Sec. 40 of P.D. 464 and Sec. 234 of R.A. 7160 however, provided such ground: LFPC is owned by the Republic of the Philippines, PFDA is only tasked to manage, operate, and develop the same. Hence, LFPC is exempted from payment of realty tax. xxx The ownership of LFPC as passed on by the Republic of the Philippines to PFDA is bourne by Direct evidence: P.D. 977, as amended (supra). Therefore, Petitioner-Appellants claim for realty tax exemption on LFPC is untenable. WHEREFORE, for all of the foregoing, the herein Appeal is hereby dismissed for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.4 PFDA moved for reconsideration, which the CBAA denied in its Resolution dated 7 June 2006.5 On appeal, the Court of Tax Appeals denied PFDAs petition for review and affirmed the 5 October 2005 Decision of the CBAA. Hence, this petition for review.

The Ruling of the Court of Tax Appeals The Court of Tax Appeals held that PFDA is a government-owned or controlled corporation, and is therefore subject to the real property tax imposed by local government units pursuant to Section 232 in relation to Sections 193 and 234 of the Local Government Code. Furthermore, the Court of Tax Appeals ruled that PFDA failed to prove that it is exempt from real property tax pursuant to Section 234 of the Local Government Code or any of its provisions. The Issue The sole issue raised in this petition is whether PFDA is liable for the real property tax assessed on the Lucena Fishing Port Complex. The Ruling of the Court The petition is meritorious. In ruling that PFDA is not exempt from paying real property tax, the Court of Tax Appeals cited Sections 193, 232, and 234 of the Local Government Code which read: Section 193. Withdrawal of Tax Exemption Privileges. Unless otherwise provided in this Code, tax exemptions or incentives granted to, or presently enjoyed by all persons, whether natural or juridical, including government-owned or -controlled corporations, except local water districts, cooperatives duly registered under R.A. No. 6938, non-stock and non-profit hospitals and educational institutions, are hereby withdrawn upon the effectivity of this Code. Section 232. Power to Levy Real Property Tax. A province or city or a municipality within the

Metropolitan Manila Area may levy an annual ad valorem tax on real property such as land, building, machinery, and other improvement not hereinafter specifically exempted. Section 234. Exemptions from Real Property Tax. The following are exempted from payment of the real property tax: (a) Real property owned by the Republic of the Philippines or any of its political subdivision except when the beneficial use thereof has been granted, for consideration or otherwise, to a taxable person; (b) Charitable institutions, churches, parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, nonprofit or religious cemeteries and all lands, buildings and improvements actually, directly, and exclusively used for religious, charitable or educational purposes; (c) All machineries and equipment that are actually, directly and exclusively used by local water districts and government-owned or -controlled corporations engaged in the supply and distribution of water and/or generation and transmission of electric power; (d) All real property owned by duly registered cooperatives as provided for under R.A. No. 6938; and (e) Machinery and equipment used for pollution control and environmental protection. Except as provided herein, any exemption from payment of real property tax previously granted to, or presently enjoyed by, all persons, whether natural or juridical, including all government-owned or controlled corporations are hereby withdrawn upon the effectivity of this Code.

The Court of Tax Appeals held that as a government-owned or controlled corporation, PFDA is subject to real property tax imposed by local government units having jurisdiction over its real properties pursuant to Section 232 of the Local Government Code. According to the Court of Tax Appeals, Section 193 of the Local Government Code withdrew all tax exemptions granted to government-owned or controlled corporations. Furthermore, Section 234 of the Local Government Code explicitly provides that any exemption from payment of real property tax granted to government-owned or controlled corporations have already been withdrawn upon the effectivity of the Local Government Code. The ruling of the Court of Tax Appeals is anchored on the wrong premise that the PFDA is a government-owned or controlled corporation. On the contrary, this Court has already ruled that the PFDA is a government instrumentality and not a government-owned or controlled corporation. In the 2007 case of Philippine Fisheries Development Authority v. Court of Appeals,6 the Court resolved the issue of whether the PFDA is a government-owned or controlled corporation or an instrumentality of the national government. In that case, the City of Iloilo assessed real property taxes on the Iloilo Fishing Port Complex (IFPC), which was managed and operated by PFDA. The Court held that PFDA is an instrumentality of the government and is thus exempt from the payment of real property tax, thus: The Court rules that the Authority [PFDA] is not a GOCC but an instrumentality of the national government which is generally exempt from payment of real property tax. However, said exemption does not apply to the portions of the IFPC which the Authority leased to private

entities. With respect to these properties, the Authority is liable to pay property tax. Nonetheless, the IFPC, being a property of public dominion cannot be sold at public auction to satisfy the tax delinquency. xxx Indeed, the Authority is not a GOCC but an instrumentality of the government. The Authority has a capital stock but it is not divided into shares of stocks. Also, it has no stockholders or voting shares. Hence it is not a stock corporation. Neither is it a non-stock corporation because it has no members. The Authority is actually a national government instrumentality which is defined as an agency of the national government, not integrated within the department framework, vested with special functions or jurisdiction by law, endowed with some if not all corporate powers, administering special funds, and enjoying operational autonomy, usually through a charter. When the law vests in a government instrumentality corporate powers, the instrumentality does not become a corporation. Unless the government instrumentality is organized as a stock or non-stock corporation, it remains a government instrumentality exercising not only governmental but also corporate powers.7 (Emphasis supplied)1avvphi1 This ruling was affirmed by the Court in a subsequent PFDA case involving the Navotas Fishing Port Complex, which is also managed and operated by the PFDA. In consonance with the previous ruling, the Court held in the subsequent PFDA case that the PFDA is a government instrumentality not subject to real property tax except those portions of the Navotas Fishing Port Complex that were leased to taxable or private persons and entities for their beneficial use.8

Similarly, we hold that as a government instrumentality, the PFDA is exempt from real property tax imposed on the Lucena Fishing Port Complex, except those portions which are leased to private persons or entities. The exercise of the taxing power of local government units is subject to the limitations enumerated in Section 133 of the Local Government Code.9 Under Section 133(o)10 of the Local Government Code, local government units have no power to tax instrumentalities of the national government like the PFDA. Thus, PFDA is not liable to pay real property tax assessed by the Office of the City Treasurer of Lucena City on the Lucena Fishing Port Complex, except those portions which are leased to private persons or entities. Besides, the Lucena Fishing Port Complex is a property of public dominion intended for public use, and is therefore exempt from real property tax under Section 234(a)11 of the Local Government Code. Properties of public dominion are owned by the State or the Republic of the Philippines.12 Thus, Article 420 of the Civil Code provides: Art. 420. The following things are property of public dominion: (1) Those intended for public use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and bridges constructed by the State, banks, shores, roadsteads, and others of similar character; (2) Those which belong to the State, without being for public use, and are intended for some public service or for the development of the national wealth. (Emphasis supplied) The Lucena Fishing Port Complex, which is one of the major infrastructure projects undertaken by

the National Government under the Nationwide Fishing Ports Package, is devoted for public use and falls within the term "ports." The Lucena Fishing Port Complex "serves as PFDAs commitment to continuously provide post-harvest infrastructure support to the fishing industry, especially in areas where productivity among the various players in the fishing industry need to be enhanced." 13 As property of public dominion, the Lucena Fishing Port Complex is owned by the Republic of the Philippines and thus exempt from real estate tax. WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. We SET ASIDE the Decision dated 9 May 2007 of the Court of Tax Appeals in C.T.A. EB No. 193. We DECLARE the Lucena Fishing Port Complex EXEMPT from real property tax imposed by the City of Lucena. We declare VOID all the real property tax assessments issued by the City of Lucena on the Lucena Fishing Port Complex managed by Philippine Fisheries Development Authority, EXCEPT for the portions that the Philippine Fisheries Development Authority has leased to private parties. SO ORDERED. Footnotes
1 2

Under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

Rollo, pp. 65-90. Penned by Associate Justice Juanito C. Castaeda, Jr., with Presiding Justice Ernesto D. Acosta and Associate Justices Lovell R. Bautista, Erlinda P. Uy, Caesar A. Casanova, and Olga Palanca-Enriquez, concurring.

3 4 5 6 7 8

Id. at 215-216. CTA rollo, pp. 60-62. Id. at 68-71. G.R. No. 169836, 31 July 2007, 528 SCRA 706. Id. at 710, 712-714.

Philippine Fisheries Development Authority v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 150301, 2 October 2007, 534 SCRA 490.
9

Manila International Airport Authority v. City of Pasay, G.R. No. 163072, 2 April 2009, 583 SCRA 234.
10

Section 133(o) of the Local Government Code reads: SECTION 133. Common Limitations on the Taxing Powers of the Local Government Units. Unless otherwise provided herein, the exercise of the taxing powers of provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays shall not extend to the levy of the following: xxx (o) Taxes, fees or charges of any kind on the National Government, its agencies and instrumentalities, and local government units. Section 234. Exemptions from Real Property Tax. The following are exempted from

11

payment of the real property tax: (a) Real property owned by the Republic of the Philippines or any of its political subdivision except when the beneficial use thereof has been granted, for consideration or otherwise, to a taxable person;
12

Manila International Airport Authority v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 155650, 20 July 2006, 495 SCRA 591, 644.
13

Lucena Fish Port Complex, <http://www.pfda.da.gov.ph/lfpc.html> (visited 13 December 2010).

G.R. No. 118295 May 2, 1997 WIGBERTO E. TAADA and ANNA DOMINIQUE COSETENG, as members of the Philippine Senate and as taxpayers; GREGORIO ANDOLANA and JOKER ARROYO as members of the House of Representatives and as taxpayers; NICANOR P. PERLAS and HORACIO R. MORALES, both as taxpayers; CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, NATIONAL ECONOMIC PROTECTIONISM ASSOCIATION, CENTER FOR ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES, LIKAS-KAYANG KAUNLARAN FOUNDATION, INC., PHILIPPINE RURAL RECONSTRUCTION MOVEMENT, DEMOKRATIKONG KILUSAN NG MAGBUBUKID NG PILIPINAS, INC., and PHILIPPINE PEASANT INSTITUTE, in representation of various taxpayers and as non-governmental organizations, petitioners, vs. EDGARDO ANGARA, ALBERTO ROMULO, LETICIA RAMOS-SHAHANI, HEHERSON ALVAREZ, AGAPITO AQUINO, RODOLFO BIAZON, NEPTALI GONZALES, ERNESTO

HERRERA, JOSE LINA, GLORIA. MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, ORLANDO MERCADO, BLAS OPLE, JOHN OSMEA, SANTANINA RASUL, RAMON REVILLA, RAUL ROCO, FRANCISCO TATAD and FREDDIE WEBB, in their respective capacities as members of the Philippine Senate who concurred in the ratification by the President of the Philippines of the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization; SALVADOR ENRIQUEZ, in his capacity as Secretary of Budget and Management; CARIDAD VALDEHUESA, in her capacity as National Treasurer; RIZALINO NAVARRO, in his capacity as Secretary of Trade and Industry; ROBERTO SEBASTIAN, in his capacity as Secretary of Agriculture; ROBERTO DE OCAMPO, in his capacity as Secretary of Finance; ROBERTO ROMULO, in his capacity as Secretary of Foreign Affairs; and TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, in his capacity as Executive Secretary, respondents. PANGANIBAN, J.: The emergence on January 1, 1995 of the World Trade Organization, abetted by the membership thereto of the vast majority of countries has revolutionized international business and economic relations amongst states. It has irreversibly propelled the world towards trade liberalization and economic globalization. Liberalization, globalization, deregulation and privatization, the third-millennium buzz words, are ushering in a new borderless world of business by sweeping away as mere historical relics the heretofore traditional modes of promoting and protecting national economies like tariffs, export

subsidies, import quotas, quantitative restrictions, tax exemptions and currency controls. Finding market niches and becoming the best in specific industries in a market-driven and export-oriented global scenario are replacing age-old "beggar-thy-neighbor" policies that unilaterally protect weak and inefficient domestic producers of goods and services. In the words of Peter Drucker, the well-known management guru, "Increased participation in the world economy has become the key to domestic economic growth and prosperity." Brief Historical Background To hasten worldwide recovery from the devastation wrought by the Second World War, plans for the establishment of three multilateral institutions inspired by that grand political body, the United Nations were discussed at Dumbarton Oaks and Bretton Woods. The first was the World Bank (WB) which was to address the rehabilitation and reconstruction of war-ravaged and later developing countries; the second, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) which was to deal with currency problems; and the third, the International Trade Organization (ITO), which was to foster order and predictability in world trade and to minimize unilateral protectionist policies that invite challenge, even retaliation, from other states. However, for a variety of reasons, including its non-ratification by the United States, the ITO, unlike the IMF and WB, never took off. What remained was only GATT the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. GATT was a collection of treaties governing access to the economies of treaty adherents with no institutionalized body administering the agreements or dependable system of dispute settlement.

After half a century and several dizzying rounds of negotiations, principally the Kennedy Round, the Tokyo Round and the Uruguay Round, the world finally gave birth to that administering body the World Trade Organization with the signing of the "Final Act" in Marrakesh, Morocco and the ratification of the WTO Agreement by its members. 1 Like many other developing countries, the Philippines joined WTO as a founding member with the goal, as articulated by President Fidel V. Ramos in two letters to the Senate (infra), of improving "Philippine access to foreign markets, especially its major trading partners, through the reduction of tariffs on its exports, particularly agricultural and industrial products." The President also saw in the WTO the opening of "new opportunities for the services sector . . . , (the reduction of) costs and uncertainty associated with exporting . . . , and (the attraction of) more investments into the country." Although the Chief Executive did not expressly mention it in his letter, the Philippines and this is of special interest to the legal profession will benefit from the WTO system of dispute settlement by judicial adjudication through the independent WTO settlement bodies called (1) Dispute Settlement Panels and (2) Appellate Tribunal. Heretofore, trade disputes were settled mainly through negotiations where solutions were arrived at frequently on the basis of relative bargaining strengths, and where naturally, weak and underdeveloped countries were at a disadvantage. The Petition in Brief Arguing mainly (1) that the WTO requires the Philippines "to place nationals and products of member-countries on the same footing as Filipinos and local products" and (2) that the

WTO "intrudes, limits and/or impairs" the constitutional powers of both Congress and the Supreme Court, the instant petition before this Court assails the WTO Agreement for violating the mandate of the 1987 Constitution to "develop a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos . . . (to) give preference to qualified Filipinos (and to) promote the preferential use of Filipino labor, domestic materials and locally produced goods." Simply stated, does the Philippine Constitution prohibit Philippine participation in worldwide trade liberalization and economic globalization? Does it proscribe Philippine integration into a global economy that is liberalized, deregulated and privatized? These are the main questions raised in this petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court praying (1) for the nullification, on constitutional grounds, of the concurrence of the Philippine Senate in the ratification by the President of the Philippines of the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO Agreement, for brevity) and (2) for the prohibition of its implementation and enforcement through the release and utilization of public funds, the assignment of public officials and employees, as well as the use of government properties and resources by respondent-heads of various executive offices concerned therewith. This concurrence is embodied in Senate Resolution No. 97, dated December 14, 1994. The Facts On April 15, 1994, Respondent Rizalino Navarro, then Secretary of The Department of

Trade and Industry (Secretary Navarro, for brevity), representing the Government of the Republic of the Philippines, signed in Marrakesh, Morocco, the Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Negotiations (Final Act, for brevity). By signing the Final Act, 2 Secretary Navarro on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, agreed:
(a) to submit, as appropriate, the WTO Agreement for the consideration of their respective competent authorities, with a view to seeking approval of the Agreement in accordance with their procedures; and (b) to adopt the Ministerial Declarations and Decisions.

On August 12, 1994, the members of the Philippine Senate received a letter dated August 11, 1994 from the President of the Philippines, 3 stating among others that "the Uruguay Round Final Act is hereby submitted to the Senate for its concurrence pursuant to Section 21, Article VII of the Constitution." On August 13, 1994, the members of the Philippine Senate received another letter from the President of the Philippines 4 likewise dated August 11, 1994, which stated among others that "the Uruguay Round Final Act, the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, the Ministerial Declarations and Decisions, and the Understanding on Commitments in Financial Services are hereby submitted to the Senate for its concurrence pursuant to Section 21, Article VII of the Constitution."

On December 9, 1994, the President of the Philippines certified the necessity of the immediate adoption of P.S. 1083, a resolution entitled "Concurring in the Ratification of the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization." 5 On December 14, 1994, the Philippine Senate adopted Resolution No. 97 which "Resolved, as it is hereby resolved, that the Senate concur, as it hereby concurs, in the ratification by the President of the Philippines of the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization." 6 The text of the WTO Agreement is written on pages 137 et seq. of Volume I of the 36-volume Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations and includes various agreements and associated legal instruments (identified in the said Agreement as Annexes 1, 2 and 3 thereto and collectively referred to as Multilateral Trade Agreements, for brevity) as follows:
ANNEX 1 Annex 1A: Multilateral Agreement on Trade in Goods General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 Agreement on Agriculture Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Agreement on Textiles and Clothing Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of he

General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of the General on Tariffs and Trade 1994 Agreement on Pre-Shipment Inspection Agreement on Rules of Origin Agreement on Imports Licensing Procedures Agreement on Subsidies and Coordinating Measures Agreement on Safeguards Annex 1B: General Agreement on Trade in Services and Annexes Annex 1C: Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights ANNEX 2 Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes ANNEX 3 Trade Policy Review Mechanism

On December 16, 1994, the President of the Philippines signed 7 the Instrument of Ratification, declaring:
NOW THEREFORE, be it known that I, FIDEL V. RAMOS, President of the Republic of the

Philippines, after having seen and considered the aforementioned Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization and the agreements and associated legal instruments included in Annexes one (1), two (2) and three (3) of that Agreement which are integral parts thereof, signed at Marrakesh, Morocco on 15 April 1994, do hereby ratify and confirm the same and every Article and Clause thereof.

To emphasize, the WTO Agreement ratified by the President of the Philippines is composed of the Agreement Proper and "the associated legal instruments included in Annexes one (1), two (2) and three (3) of that Agreement which are integral parts thereof." On the other hand, the Final Act signed by Secretary Navarro embodies not only the WTO Agreement (and its integral annexes aforementioned) but also (1) the Ministerial Declarations and Decisions and (2) the Understanding on Commitments in Financial Services. In his Memorandum dated May 13, 1996, 8 the Solicitor General describes these two latter documents as follows:
The Ministerial Decisions and Declarations are twenty-five declarations and decisions on a wide range of matters, such as measures in favor of least developed countries, notification procedures, relationship of WTO with the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and agreements on technical barriers to trade and on dispute settlement. The Understanding on Commitments in Financial Services dwell on, among other things, standstill or limitations and qualifications of commitments to existing non-conforming measures, market access, national treatment, and definitions of non-resident supplier of financial services, commercial presence and new financial service.

On December 29, 1994, the present petition was filed. After careful deliberation on respondents' comment and petitioners' reply thereto, the Court resolved on December 12, 1995, to give due course to the petition, and the parties thereafter filed their respective memoranda. The court also requested the Honorable Lilia R. Bautista, the Philippine Ambassador to the United Nations stationed in Geneva, Switzerland, to submit a paper, hereafter referred to as "Bautista Paper," 9 for brevity, (1) providing a historical background of and (2) summarizing the said agreements. During the Oral Argument held on August 27, 1996, the Court directed:
(a) the petitioners to submit the (1) Senate Committee Report on the matter in controversy and (2) the transcript of proceedings/hearings in the Senate; and (b) the Solicitor General, as counsel for respondents, to file (1) a list of Philippine treaties signed prior to the Philippine adherence to the WTO Agreement, which derogate from Philippine sovereignty and (2) copies of the multi-volume WTO Agreement and other documents mentioned in the Final Act, as soon as possible.

After receipt of the foregoing documents, the Court said it would consider the case submitted for resolution. In a Compliance dated September 16, 1996, the Solicitor General submitted a printed copy of the 36-volume Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, and in another Compliance dated October 24, 1996, he listed the various "bilateral or multilateral treaties or international instruments involving derogation of Philippine sovereignty." Petitioners, on the other hand, submitted their Compliance dated January 28, 1997, on January 30, 1997.

The Issues In their Memorandum dated March 11, 1996, petitioners summarized the issues as follows:
A. Whether the petition presents a political question or is otherwise not justiciable. B. Whether the petitioner members of the Senate who participated in the deliberations and voting leading to the concurrence are estopped from impugning the validity of the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization or of the validity of the concurrence. C. Whether the provisions of the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization contravene the provisions of Sec. 19, Article II, and Secs. 10 and 12, Article XII, all of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. D. Whether provisions of the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization unduly limit, restrict and impair Philippine sovereignty specifically the legislative power which, under Sec. 2, Article VI, 1987 Philippine Constitution is "vested in the Congress of the Philippines"; E. Whether provisions of the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization interfere with the exercise of judicial power. F. Whether the respondent members of the Senate acted in grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when they voted for concurrence in the ratification of the constitutionally-infirm Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization. G. Whether the respondent members of the Senate acted in grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when they concurred only in the ratification of the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, and not with the Presidential submission which included the Final Act, Ministerial Declaration and Decisions, and the

Understanding on Commitments in Financial Services.

On the other hand, the Solicitor General as counsel for respondents "synthesized the several issues raised by petitioners into the following": 10
1. Whether or not the provisions of the "Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization and the Agreements and Associated Legal Instruments included in Annexes one (1), two (2) and three (3) of that agreement" cited by petitioners directly contravene or undermine the letter, spirit and intent of Section 19, Article II and Sections 10 and 12, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution. 2. Whether or not certain provisions of the Agreement unduly limit, restrict or impair the exercise of legislative power by Congress. 3. Whether or not certain provisions of the Agreement impair the exercise of judicial power by this Honorable Court in promulgating the rules of evidence. 4. Whether or not the concurrence of the Senate "in the ratification by the President of the Philippines of the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization" implied rejection of the treaty embodied in the Final Act.

By raising and arguing only four issues against the seven presented by petitioners, the Solicitor General has effectively ignored three, namely: (1) whether the petition presents a political question or is otherwise not justiciable; (2) whether petitioner-members of the Senate (Wigberto E. Taada and Anna Dominique Coseteng) are estopped from joining this suit; and (3) whether the respondent-members of the Senate acted in grave abuse of discretion when they voted for concurrence in the ratification of the WTO Agreement. The

foregoing notwithstanding, this Court resolved to deal with these three issues thus: (1) The "political question" issue being very fundamental and vital, and being a matter that probes into the very jurisdiction of this Court to hear and decide this case was deliberated upon by the Court and will thus be ruled upon as the first issue; (2) The matter of estoppel will not be taken up because this defense is waivable and the respondents have effectively waived it by not pursuing it in any of their pleadings; in any event, this issue, even if ruled in respondents' favor, will not cause the petition's dismissal as there are petitioners other than the two senators, who are not vulnerable to the defense of estoppel; and (3) The issue of alleged grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent senators will be taken up as an integral part of the disposition of the four issues raised by the Solicitor General. During its deliberations on the case, the Court noted that the respondents did not question the locus standi of petitioners. Hence, they are also deemed to have waived the benefit of such issue. They probably realized that grave constitutional issues, expenditures of public funds and serious international commitments of the nation are involved here, and that transcendental public interest requires that the substantive issues be met head on and decided on the merits, rather than skirted or deflected by procedural matters. 11 To recapitulate, the issues that will be ruled upon shortly are:

(1) DOES THE PETITION PRESENT A JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY? OTHERWISE STATED, DOES THE PETITION INVOLVE A POLITICAL QUESTION OVER WHICH THIS COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION? (2) DO THE PROVISIONS OF THE WTO AGREEMENT AND ITS THREE ANNEXES CONTRAVENE SEC. 19, ARTICLE II, AND SECS. 10 AND 12, ARTICLE XII, OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION? (3) DO THE PROVISIONS OF SAID AGREEMENT AND ITS ANNEXES LIMIT, RESTRICT, OR IMPAIR THE EXERCISE OF LEGISLATIVE POWER BY CONGRESS? (4) DO SAID PROVISIONS UNDULY IMPAIR OR INTERFERE WITH THE EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL POWER BY THIS COURT IN PROMULGATING RULES ON EVIDENCE? (5) WAS THE CONCURRENCE OF THE SENATE IN THE WTO AGREEMENT AND ITS ANNEXES SUFFICIENT AND/OR VALID, CONSIDERING THAT IT DID NOT INCLUDE THE FINAL ACT, MINISTERIAL DECLARATIONS AND DECISIONS, AND THE UNDERSTANDING ON COMMITMENTS IN FINANCIAL SERVICES?

The First Issue: Does the Court Have Jurisdiction Over the Controversy? In seeking to nullify an act of the Philippine Senate on the ground that it contravenes the Constitution, the petition no doubt raises a justiciable controversy. Where an action of the legislative branch is seriously alleged to have infringed the Constitution, it becomes not only the right but in fact the duty of the judiciary to settle the dispute. "The question thus posed is judicial rather than political. The duty (to adjudicate) remains to assure that the supremacy

of the Constitution is upheld." 12 Once a "controversy as to the application or interpretation of a constitutional provision is raised before this Court (as in the instant case), it becomes a legal issue which the Court is bound by constitutional mandate to decide." 13 The jurisdiction of this Court to adjudicate the matters 14 raised in the petition is clearly set out in the 1987 Constitution, 15 as follows:
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government.

The foregoing text emphasizes the judicial department's duty and power to strike down grave abuse of discretion on the part of any branch or instrumentality of government including Congress. It is an innovation in our political law. 16 As explained by former Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion, 17 "the judiciary is the final arbiter on the question of whether or not a branch of government or any of its officials has acted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction or so capriciously as to constitute an abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction. This is not only a judicial power but a duty to pass judgment on matters of this nature." As this Court has repeatedly and firmly emphasized in many cases, 18 it will not shirk, digress from or abandon its sacred duty and authority to uphold the Constitution in matters

that involve grave abuse of discretion brought before it in appropriate cases, committed by any officer, agency, instrumentality or department of the government. As the petition alleges grave abuse of discretion and as there is no other plain, speedy or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, we have no hesitation at all in holding that this petition should be given due course and the vital questions raised therein ruled upon under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Indeed, certiorari, prohibition and mandamus are appropriate remedies to raise constitutional issues and to review and/or prohibit/nullify, when proper, acts of legislative and executive officials. On this, we have no equivocation. We should stress that, in deciding to take jurisdiction over this petition, this Court will not review the wisdom of the decision of the President and the Senate in enlisting the country into the WTO, or pass upon the merits of trade liberalization as a policy espoused by said international body. Neither will it rule on the propriety of the government's economic policy of reducing/removing tariffs, taxes, subsidies, quantitative restrictions, and other import/trade barriers. Rather, it will only exercise its constitutional duty "to determine whether or not there had been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction" on the part of the Senate in ratifying the WTO Agreement and its three annexes. Second Issue: The WTO Agreement and Economic Nationalism This is the lis mota, the main issue, raised by the petition. Petitioners vigorously argue that the "letter, spirit and intent" of the Constitution mandating

"economic nationalism" are violated by the so-called "parity provisions" and "national treatment" clauses scattered in various parts not only of the WTO Agreement and its annexes but also in the Ministerial Decisions and Declarations and in the Understanding on Commitments in Financial Services. Specifically, the "flagship" constitutional provisions referred to are Sec 19, Article II, and Secs. 10 and 12, Article XII, of the Constitution, which are worded as follows:
Article II DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES xxx xxx xxx Sec. 19. The State shall develop a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos. xxx xxx xxx

Article XII NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY

xxx xxx xxx Sec. 10. . . . The Congress shall enact measures that will encourage the formation and operation of enterprises whose capital is wholly owned by Filipinos. In the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering the national economy and

patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos. xxx xxx xxx Sec. 12. The State shall promote the preferential use of Filipino labor, domestic materials and locally produced goods, and adopt measures that help make them competitive.

Petitioners aver that these sacred constitutional principles are desecrated by the following WTO provisions quoted in their memorandum: 19
a) In the area of investment measures related to trade in goods (TRIMS, for brevity): Article 2 National Treatment and Quantitative Restrictions. 1. Without prejudice to other rights and obligations under GATT 1994, no Member shall apply any TRIM that is inconsistent with the provisions of Article II or Article XI of GATT 1994. 2. An illustrative list of TRIMS that are inconsistent with the obligations of general elimination of quantitative restrictions provided for in paragraph I of Article XI of GATT 1994 is contained in the Annex to this Agreement." (Agreement on TradeRelated Investment Measures, Vol. 27, Uruguay Round, Legal Instruments, p. 22121, emphasis supplied).

The Annex referred to reads as follows:

ANNEX Illustrative List

1. TRIMS that are inconsistent with the obligation of national treatment provided for in paragraph 4 of Article III of GATT 1994 include those which are mandatory or enforceable under domestic law or under administrative rulings, or compliance with which is necessary to obtain an advantage, and which require: (a) the purchase or use by an enterprise of products of domestic origin or from any domestic source, whether specified in terms of particular products, in terms of volume or value of products, or in terms of proportion of volume or value of its local production; or (b) that an enterprise's purchases or use of imported products be limited to an amount related to the volume or value of local products that it exports. 2. TRIMS that are inconsistent with the obligations of general elimination of quantitative restrictions provided for in paragraph 1 of Article XI of GATT 1994 include those which are mandatory or enforceable under domestic laws or under administrative rulings, or compliance with which is necessary to obtain an advantage, and which restrict: (a) the importation by an enterprise of products used in or related to the local production that it exports; (b) the importation by an enterprise of products used in or related to its local production by restricting its access to foreign exchange inflows attributable to the enterprise; or (c) the exportation or sale for export specified in terms of particular products, in terms of volume or value of products, or in terms of a preparation of volume or value of its local production. (Annex to the Agreement on Trade-Related Investment

Measures, Vol. 27, Uruguay Round Legal Documents, p. 22125, emphasis supplied). The paragraph 4 of Article III of GATT 1994 referred to is quoted as follows: The products of the territory of any contracting party imported into the territory of any other contracting party shall be accorded treatment no less favorable than that accorded to like products of national origin in respect of laws, regulations and requirements affecting their internal sale, offering for sale, purchase, transportation, distribution or use, the provisions of this paragraph shall not prevent the application of differential internal transportation charges which are based exclusively on the economic operation of the means of transport and not on the nationality of the product." (Article III, GATT 1947, as amended by the Protocol Modifying Part II, and Article XXVI of GATT, 14 September 1948, 62 UMTS 82-84 in relation to paragraph 1(a) of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, Vol. 1, Uruguay Round, Legal Instruments p. 177, emphasis supplied). (b) In the area of trade related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPS, for brevity): Each Member shall accord to the nationals of other Members treatment no less favourable than that it accords to its own nationals with regard to the protection of intellectual property. . . (par. 1 Article 3, Agreement on Trade-Related Aspect of Intellectual Property rights, Vol. 31, Uruguay Round, Legal Instruments, p. 25432 (emphasis supplied) (c) In the area of the General Agreement on Trade in Services: National Treatment

1. In the sectors inscribed in its schedule, and subject to any conditions and qualifications set out therein, each Member shall accord to services and service suppliers of any other Member, in respect of all measures affecting the supply of services, treatment no less favourable than it accords to its own like services and service suppliers. 2. A Member may meet the requirement of paragraph I by according to services and service suppliers of any other Member, either formally suppliers of any other Member, either formally identical treatment or formally different treatment to that it accords to its own like services and service suppliers. 3. Formally identical or formally different treatment shall be considered to be less favourable if it modifies the conditions of completion in favour of services or service suppliers of the Member compared to like services or service suppliers of any other Member. (Article XVII, General Agreement on Trade in Services, Vol. 28, Uruguay Round Legal Instruments, p. 22610 emphasis supplied).

It is petitioners' position that the foregoing "national treatment" and "parity provisions" of the WTO Agreement "place nationals and products of member countries on the same footing as Filipinos and local products," in contravention of the "Filipino First" policy of the Constitution. They allegedly render meaningless the phrase "effectively controlled by Filipinos." The constitutional conflict becomes more manifest when viewed in the context of the clear duty imposed on the Philippines as a WTO member to ensure the conformity of its laws, regulations and administrative procedures with its obligations as provided in the annexed agreements. 20 Petitioners further argue that these provisions contravene constitutional

limitations on the role exports play in national development and negate the preferential treatment accorded to Filipino labor, domestic materials and locally produced goods. On the other hand, respondents through the Solicitor General counter (1) that such Charter provisions are not self-executing and merely set out general policies; (2) that these nationalistic portions of the Constitution invoked by petitioners should not be read in isolation but should be related to other relevant provisions of Art. XII, particularly Secs. 1 and 13 thereof; (3) that read properly, the cited WTO clauses do not conflict with Constitution; and (4) that the WTO Agreement contains sufficient provisions to protect developing countries like the Philippines from the harshness of sudden trade liberalization. We shall now discuss and rule on these arguments. Declaration of Principles Not Self-Executing By its very title, Article II of the Constitution is a "declaration of principles and state policies." The counterpart of this article in the 1935 Constitution 21 is called the "basic political creed of the nation" by Dean Vicente Sinco. 22 These principles in Article II are not intended to be self-executing principles ready for enforcement through the courts. 23 They are used by the judiciary as aids or as guides in the exercise of its power of judicial review, and by the legislature in its enactment of laws. As held in the leading case of Kilosbayan, Incorporated vs. Morato, 24 the principles and state policies enumerated in Article II and some sections of

Article XII are not "self-executing provisions, the disregard of which can give rise to a cause of action in the courts. They do not embody judicially enforceable constitutional rights but guidelines for legislation." In the same light, we held in Basco vs. Pagcor 25 that broad constitutional principles need legislative enactments to implement the, thus:
On petitioners' allegation that P.D. 1869 violates Sections 11 (Personal Dignity) 12 (Family) and 13 (Role of Youth) of Article II; Section 13 (Social Justice) of Article XIII and Section 2 (Educational Values) of Article XIV of the 1987 Constitution, suffice it to state also that these are merely statements of principles and policies. As such, they are basically not selfexecuting, meaning a law should be passed by Congress to clearly define and effectuate such principles. In general, therefore, the 1935 provisions were not intended to be self-executing principles ready for enforcement through the courts. They were rather directives addressed to the executive and to the legislature. If the executive and the legislature failed to heed the directives of the article, the available remedy was not judicial but political. The electorate could express their displeasure with the failure of the executive and the legislature through the language of the ballot. (Bernas, Vol. II, p. 2).

The reasons for denying a cause of action to an alleged infringement of board constitutional principles are sourced from basic considerations of due process and the lack of judicial authority to wade "into the uncharted ocean of social and economic policy making." Mr.

Justice Florentino P. Feliciano in his concurring opinion in Oposa vs. Factoran, Jr., 26 explained these reasons as follows:
My suggestion is simply that petitioners must, before the trial court, show a more specific legal right a right cast in language of a significantly lower order of generality than Article II (15) of the Constitution that is or may be violated by the actions, or failures to act, imputed to the public respondent by petitioners so that the trial court can validly render judgment grating all or part of the relief prayed for. To my mind, the court should be understood as simply saying that such a more specific legal right or rights may well exist in our corpus of law, considering the general policy principles found in the Constitution and the existence of the Philippine Environment Code, and that the trial court should have given petitioners an effective opportunity so to demonstrate, instead of aborting the proceedings on a motion to dismiss. It seems to me important that the legal right which is an essential component of a cause of action be a specific, operable legal right, rather than a constitutional or statutory policy, for at least two (2) reasons. One is that unless the legal right claimed to have been violated or disregarded is given specification in operational terms, defendants may well be unable to defend themselves intelligently and effectively; in other words, there are due process dimensions to this matter. The second is a broader-gauge consideration where a specific violation of law or applicable regulation is not alleged or proved, petitioners can be expected to fall back on the expanded conception of judicial power in the second paragraph of Section 1 of Article VIII of the Constitution which reads:

Sec. 1. . . . Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. (Emphasis supplied) When substantive standards as general as "the right to a balanced and healthy ecology" and "the right to health" are combined with remedial standards as broad ranging as "a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction," the result will be, it is respectfully submitted, to propel courts into the uncharted ocean of social and economic policy making. At least in respect of the vast area of environmental protection and management, our courts have no claim to special technical competence and experience and professional qualification. Where no specific, operable norms and standards are shown to exist, then the policy making departments the legislative and executive departments must be given a real and effective opportunity to fashion and promulgate those norms and standards, and to implement them before the courts should intervene.

Economic Nationalism Should Be Read with Other Constitutional Mandates to Attain Balanced Development of Economy On the other hand, Secs. 10 and 12 of Article XII, apart from merely laying down general principles relating to the national economy and patrimony, should be read and understood in relation to the other sections in said article, especially Secs. 1 and 13 thereof which read:

Sec. 1. The goals of the national economy are a more equitable distribution of opportunities, income, and wealth; a sustained increase in the amount of goods and services produced by the nation for the benefit of the people; and an expanding productivity as the key to raising the quality of life for all especially the underprivileged. The State shall promote industrialization and full employment based on sound agricultural development and agrarian reform, through industries that make full and efficient use of human and natural resources, and which are competitive in both domestic and foreign markets. However, the State shall protect Filipino enterprises against unfair foreign competition and trade practices. In the pursuit of these goals, all sectors of the economy and all regions of the country shall be given optimum opportunity to develop. . . . xxx xxx xxx Sec. 13. The State shall pursue a trade policy that serves the general welfare and utilizes all forms and arrangements of exchange on the basis of equality and reciprocity.

As pointed out by the Solicitor General, Sec. 1 lays down the basic goals of national economic development, as follows: 1. A more equitable distribution of opportunities, income and wealth; 2. A sustained increase in the amount of goods and services provided by the nation for the benefit of the people; and 3. An expanding productivity as the key to raising the quality of life for all especially the underprivileged.

With these goals in context, the Constitution then ordains the ideals of economic nationalism (1) by expressing preference in favor of qualified Filipinos "in the grant of rights, privileges and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony" 27 and in the use of "Filipino labor, domestic materials and locally-produced goods"; (2) by mandating the State to "adopt measures that help make them competitive; 28 and (3) by requiring the State to "develop a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos." 29 In similar language, the Constitution takes into account the realities of the outside world as it requires the pursuit of "a trade policy that serves the general welfare and utilizes all forms and arrangements of exchange on the basis of equality ad reciprocity"; 30 and speaks of industries "which are competitive in both domestic and foreign markets" as well as of the protection of "Filipino enterprises against unfair foreign competition and trade practices." It is true that in the recent case of Manila Prince Hotel vs. Government Service Insurance System, et al., 31 this Court held that "Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII of the 1987 Constitution is a mandatory, positive command which is complete in itself and which needs no further guidelines or implementing laws or rule for its enforcement. From its very words the provision does not require any legislation to put it in operation. It is per se judicially enforceable." However, as the constitutional provision itself states, it is enforceable only in regard to "the grants of rights, privileges and concessions covering national economy and patrimony" and not to every aspect of trade and commerce. It refers to exceptions rather

than the rule. The issue here is not whether this paragraph of Sec. 10 of Art. XII is selfexecuting or not. Rather, the issue is whether, as a rule, there are enough balancing provisions in the Constitution to allow the Senate to ratify the Philippine concurrence in the WTO Agreement. And we hold that there are. All told, while the Constitution indeed mandates a bias in favor of Filipino goods, services, labor and enterprises, at the same time, it recognizes the need for business exchange with the rest of the world on the bases of equality and reciprocity and limits protection of Filipino enterprises only against foreign competition and trade practices that are unfair. 32 In other words, the Constitution did not intend to pursue an isolationist policy. It did not shut out foreign investments, goods and services in the development of the Philippine economy. While the Constitution does not encourage the unlimited entry of foreign goods, services and investments into the country, it does not prohibit them either. In fact, it allows an exchange on the basis of equality and reciprocity, frowning only on foreign competition that is unfair. WTO Recognizes Need to Protect Weak Economies Upon the other hand, respondents maintain that the WTO itself has some built-in advantages to protect weak and developing economies, which comprise the vast majority of its members. Unlike in the UN where major states have permanent seats and veto powers in the Security Council, in the WTO, decisions are made on the basis of sovereign equality,

with each member's vote equal in weight to that of any other. There is no WTO equivalent of the UN Security Council.
WTO decides by consensus whenever possible, otherwise, decisions of the Ministerial Conference and the General Council shall be taken by the majority of the votes cast, except in cases of interpretation of the Agreement or waiver of the obligation of a member which would require three fourths vote. Amendments would require two thirds vote in general. Amendments to MFN provisions and the Amendments provision will require assent of all members. Any member may withdraw from the Agreement upon the expiration of six months from the date of notice of withdrawals. 33

Hence, poor countries can protect their common interests more effectively through the WTO than through one-on-one negotiations with developed countries. Within the WTO, developing countries can form powerful blocs to push their economic agenda more decisively than outside the Organization. This is not merely a matter of practical alliances but a negotiating strategy rooted in law. Thus, the basic principles underlying the WTO Agreement recognize the need of developing countries like the Philippines to "share in the growth in international trade commensurate with the needs of their economic development." These basic principles are found in the preamble 34 of the WTO Agreement as follows:
The Parties to this Agreement, Recognizing that their relations in the field of trade and economic endeavour should be conducted with a view to raising standards of living, ensuring full employment and a large and steadily growing volume of real income and effective demand, and expanding the production

of and trade in goods and services, while allowing for the optimal use of the world's resources in accordance with the objective of sustainable development, seeking both to protect and preserve the environment and to enhance the means for doing so in a manner consistent with their respective needs and concerns at different levels of economic development, Recognizing further that there is need for positive efforts designed to ensure that developing countries, and especially the least developed among them, secure a share in the growth in international trade commensurate with the needs of their economic development, Being desirous of contributing to these objectives by entering into reciprocal and mutually advantageous arrangements directed to the substantial reduction of tariffs and other barriers to trade and to the elimination of discriminatory treatment in international trade relations, Resolved, therefore, to develop an integrated, more viable and durable multilateral trading system encompassing the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the results of past trade liberalization efforts, and all of the results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, Determined to preserve the basic principles and to further the objectives underlying this multilateral trading system, . . . (emphasis supplied.)

Specific WTO Provisos Protect Developing Countries So too, the Solicitor General points out that pursuant to and consistent with the foregoing basic principles, the WTO Agreement grants developing countries a more lenient treatment, giving their domestic industries some protection from the rush of foreign competition. Thus,

with respect to tariffs in general, preferential treatment is given to developing countries in terms of the amount of tariff reduction and the period within which the reduction is to be spread out. Specifically, GATT requires an average tariff reduction rate of 36% for developed countries to be effected within a period of six (6) years while developing countries including the Philippines are required to effect an average tariff reduction of only 24% within ten (10) years. In respect to domestic subsidy, GATT requires developed countries to reduce domestic support to agricultural products by 20% over six (6) years, as compared to only 13% for developing countries to be effected within ten (10) years. In regard to export subsidy for agricultural products, GATT requires developed countries to reduce their budgetary outlays for export subsidy by 36% and export volumes receiving export subsidy by 21% within a period of six (6) years. For developing countries, however, the reduction rate is only two-thirds of that prescribed for developed countries and a longer period of ten (10) years within which to effect such reduction. Moreover, GATT itself has provided built-in protection from unfair foreign competition and trade practices including anti-dumping measures, countervailing measures and safeguards against import surges. Where local businesses are jeopardized by unfair foreign competition, the Philippines can avail of these measures. There is hardly therefore any basis for the statement that under the WTO, local industries and enterprises will all be wiped out and that Filipinos will be deprived of control of the economy. Quite the contrary, the weaker

situations of developing nations like the Philippines have been taken into account; thus, there would be no basis to say that in joining the WTO, the respondents have gravely abused their discretion. True, they have made a bold decision to steer the ship of state into the yet uncharted sea of economic liberalization. But such decision cannot be set aside on the ground of grave abuse of discretion, simply because we disagree with it or simply because we believe only in other economic policies. As earlier stated, the Court in taking jurisdiction of this case will not pass upon the advantages and disadvantages of trade liberalization as an economic policy. It will only perform its constitutional duty of determining whether the Senate committed grave abuse of discretion. Constitution Does Not Rule Out Foreign Competition Furthermore, the constitutional policy of a "self-reliant and independent national economy" 35 does not necessarily rule out the entry of foreign investments, goods and services. It contemplates neither "economic seclusion" nor "mendicancy in the international community." As explained by Constitutional Commissioner Bernardo Villegas, sponsor of this constitutional policy:
Economic self-reliance is a primary objective of a developing country that is keenly aware of overdependence on external assistance for even its most basic needs. It does not mean autarky or economic seclusion; rather, it means avoiding mendicancy in the international community. Independence refers to the freedom from undue foreign control of the national economy, especially in such strategic industries as in the development of natural resources

and public utilities. 36

The WTO reliance on "most favored nation," "national treatment," and "trade without discrimination" cannot be struck down as unconstitutional as in fact they are rules of equality and reciprocity that apply to all WTO members. Aside from envisioning a trade policy based on "equality and reciprocity," 37 the fundamental law encourages industries that are "competitive in both domestic and foreign markets," thereby demonstrating a clear policy against a sheltered domestic trade environment, but one in favor of the gradual development of robust industries that can compete with the best in the foreign markets. Indeed, Filipino managers and Filipino enterprises have shown capability and tenacity to compete internationally. And given a free trade environment, Filipino entrepreneurs and managers in Hongkong have demonstrated the Filipino capacity to grow and to prosper against the best offered under a policy of laissez faire. Constitution Favors Consumers, Not Industries or Enterprises The Constitution has not really shown any unbalanced bias in favor of any business or enterprise, nor does it contain any specific pronouncement that Filipino companies should be pampered with a total proscription of foreign competition. On the other hand, respondents claim that WTO/GATT aims to make available to the Filipino consumer the best goods and services obtainable anywhere in the world at the most reasonable prices. Consequently, the question boils down to whether WTO/GATT will favor the general welfare

of the public at large. Will adherence to the WTO treaty bring this ideal (of favoring the general welfare) to reality? Will WTO/GATT succeed in promoting the Filipinos' general welfare because it will as promised by its promoters expand the country's exports and generate more employment? Will it bring more prosperity, employment, purchasing power and quality products at the most reasonable rates to the Filipino public? The responses to these questions involve "judgment calls" by our policy makers, for which they are answerable to our people during appropriate electoral exercises. Such questions and the answers thereto are not subject to judicial pronouncements based on grave abuse of discretion. Constitution Designed to Meet Future Events and Contingencies No doubt, the WTO Agreement was not yet in existence when the Constitution was drafted and ratified in 1987. That does not mean however that the Charter is necessarily flawed in the sense that its framers might not have anticipated the advent of a borderless world of business. By the same token, the United Nations was not yet in existence when the 1935 Constitution became effective. Did that necessarily mean that the then Constitution might not have contemplated a diminution of the absoluteness of sovereignty when the Philippines signed the UN Charter, thereby effectively surrendering part of its control over its foreign relations to the decisions of various UN organs like the Security Council?

It is not difficult to answer this question. Constitutions are designed to meet not only the vagaries of contemporary events. They should be interpreted to cover even future and unknown circumstances. It is to the credit of its drafters that a Constitution can withstand the assaults of bigots and infidels but at the same time bend with the refreshing winds of change necessitated by unfolding events. As one eminent political law writer and respected jurist 38 explains:
The Constitution must be quintessential rather than superficial, the root and not the blossom, the base and frame-work only of the edifice that is yet to rise. It is but the core of the dream that must take shape, not in a twinkling by mandate of our delegates, but slowly "in the crucible of Filipino minds and hearts," where it will in time develop its sinews and gradually gather its strength and finally achieve its substance. In fine, the Constitution cannot, like the goddess Athena, rise full-grown from the brow of the Constitutional Convention, nor can it conjure by mere fiat an instant Utopia. It must grow with the society it seeks to re-structure and march apace with the progress of the race, drawing from the vicissitudes of history the dynamism and vitality that will keep it, far from becoming a petrified rule, a pulsing, living law attuned to the heartbeat of the nation.

Third Issue: The WTO Agreement and Legislative Power The WTO Agreement provides that "(e)ach Member shall ensure the conformity of its laws, regulations and administrative procedures with its obligations as provided in the annexed Agreements." 39 Petitioners maintain that this undertaking "unduly limits, restricts and impairs Philippine sovereignty, specifically the legislative power which under Sec. 2, Article

VI of the 1987 Philippine Constitution is vested in the Congress of the Philippines. It is an assault on the sovereign powers of the Philippines because this means that Congress could not pass legislation that will be good for our national interest and general welfare if such legislation will not conform with the WTO Agreement, which not only relates to the trade in goods . . . but also to the flow of investments and money . . . as well as to a whole slew of agreements on socio-cultural matters . . . 40 More specifically, petitioners claim that said WTO proviso derogates from the power to tax, which is lodged in the Congress. 41 And while the Constitution allows Congress to authorize the President to fix tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other duties or imposts, such authority is subject to "specified limits and . . . such limitations and restrictions" as Congress may provide, 42 as in fact it did under Sec. 401 of the Tariff and Customs Code. Sovereignty Limited by International Law and Treaties This Court notes and appreciates the ferocity and passion by which petitioners stressed their arguments on this issue. However, while sovereignty has traditionally been deemed absolute and all-encompassing on the domestic level, it is however subject to restrictions and limitations voluntarily agreed to by the Philippines, expressly or impliedly, as a member of the family of nations. Unquestionably, the Constitution did not envision a hermit-type isolation of the country from the rest of the world. In its Declaration of Principles and State

Policies, the Constitution "adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land, and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and amity, with all nations." 43 By the doctrine of incorporation, the country is bound by generally accepted principles of international law, which are considered to be automatically part of our own laws. 44 One of the oldest and most fundamental rules in international law is pacta sunt servanda international agreements must be performed in good faith. "A treaty engagement is not a mere moral obligation but creates a legally binding obligation on the parties . . . A state which has contracted valid international obligations is bound to make in its legislations such modifications as may be necessary to ensure the fulfillment of the obligations undertaken." 45 By their inherent nature, treaties really limit or restrict the absoluteness of sovereignty. By their voluntary act, nations may surrender some aspects of their state power in exchange for greater benefits granted by or derived from a convention or pact. After all, states, like individuals, live with coequals, and in pursuit of mutually covenanted objectives and benefits, they also commonly agree to limit the exercise of their otherwise absolute rights. Thus, treaties have been used to record agreements between States concerning such widely diverse matters as, for example, the lease of naval bases, the sale or cession of territory, the termination of war, the regulation of conduct of hostilities, the formation of alliances, the regulation of commercial relations, the settling of claims, the laying down of rules governing conduct in peace and the establishment of international organizations. 46 The sovereignty of

a state therefore cannot in fact and in reality be considered absolute. Certain restrictions enter into the picture: (1) limitations imposed by the very nature of membership in the family of nations and (2) limitations imposed by treaty stipulations. As aptly put by John F. Kennedy, "Today, no nation can build its destiny alone. The age of self-sufficient nationalism is over. The age of interdependence is here." 47 UN Charter and Other Treaties Limit Sovereignty Thus, when the Philippines joined the United Nations as one of its 51 charter members, it consented to restrict its sovereign rights under the "concept of sovereignty as autolimitation." 47-A Under Article 2 of the UN Charter, "(a)ll members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action." Such assistance includes payment of its corresponding share not merely in administrative expenses but also in expenditures for the peace-keeping operations of the organization. In its advisory opinion of July 20, 1961, the International Court of Justice held that money used by the United Nations Emergency Force in the Middle East and in the Congo were "expenses of the United Nations" under Article 17, paragraph 2, of the UN Charter. Hence, all its members must bear their corresponding share in such expenses. In this sense, the Philippine Congress is restricted in its power to appropriate. It is compelled to appropriate funds whether it agrees with such peace-keeping

expenses or not. So too, under Article 105 of the said Charter, the UN and its representatives enjoy diplomatic privileges and immunities, thereby limiting again the exercise of sovereignty of members within their own territory. Another example: although "sovereign equality" and "domestic jurisdiction" of all members are set forth as underlying principles in the UN Charter, such provisos are however subject to enforcement measures decided by the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security under Chapter VII of the Charter. A final example: under Article 103, "(i)n the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligation under the present charter shall prevail," thus unquestionably denying the Philippines as a member the sovereign power to make a choice as to which of conflicting obligations, if any, to honor. Apart from the UN Treaty, the Philippines has entered into many other international pacts both bilateral and multilateral that involve limitations on Philippine sovereignty. These are enumerated by the Solicitor General in his Compliance dated October 24, 1996, as follows:
(a) Bilateral convention with the United States regarding taxes on income, where the Philippines agreed, among others, to exempt from tax, income received in the Philippines by, among others, the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States, the Export/Import Bank of the United States, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation of the United States. Likewise, in said convention, wages, salaries and similar remunerations paid by the United States to its citizens for labor and personal services performed by them as employees or officials of the United States are exempt from income tax by the Philippines.

(b) Bilateral agreement with Belgium, providing, among others, for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to taxes on income. (c) Bilateral convention with the Kingdom of Sweden for the avoidance of double taxation. (d) Bilateral convention with the French Republic for the avoidance of double taxation. (e) Bilateral air transport agreement with Korea where the Philippines agreed to exempt from all customs duties, inspection fees and other duties or taxes aircrafts of South Korea and the regular equipment, spare parts and supplies arriving with said aircrafts. (f) Bilateral air service agreement with Japan, where the Philippines agreed to exempt from customs duties, excise taxes, inspection fees and other similar duties, taxes or charges fuel, lubricating oils, spare parts, regular equipment, stores on board Japanese aircrafts while on Philippine soil. (g) Bilateral air service agreement with Belgium where the Philippines granted Belgian air carriers the same privileges as those granted to Japanese and Korean air carriers under separate air service agreements. (h) Bilateral notes with Israel for the abolition of transit and visitor visas where the Philippines exempted Israeli nationals from the requirement of obtaining transit or visitor visas for a sojourn in the Philippines not exceeding 59 days. (i) Bilateral agreement with France exempting French nationals from the requirement of obtaining transit and visitor visa for a sojourn not exceeding 59 days. (j) Multilateral Convention on Special Missions, where the Philippines agreed that premises of Special Missions in the Philippines are inviolable and its agents can not enter said premises

without consent of the Head of Mission concerned. Special Missions are also exempted from customs duties, taxes and related charges. (k) Multilateral convention on the Law of Treaties. In this convention, the Philippines agreed to be governed by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. (l) Declaration of the President of the Philippines accepting compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. The International Court of Justice has jurisdiction in all legal disputes concerning the interpretation of a treaty, any question of international law, the existence of any fact which, if established, would constitute a breach "of international obligation."

In the foregoing treaties, the Philippines has effectively agreed to limit the exercise of its sovereign powers of taxation, eminent domain and police power. The underlying consideration in this partial surrender of sovereignty is the reciprocal commitment of the other contracting states in granting the same privilege and immunities to the Philippines, its officials and its citizens. The same reciprocity characterizes the Philippine commitments under WTO-GATT.
International treaties, whether relating to nuclear disarmament, human rights, the environment, the law of the sea, or trade, constrain domestic political sovereignty through the assumption of external obligations. But unless anarchy in international relations is preferred as an alternative, in most cases we accept that the benefits of the reciprocal obligations involved outweigh the costs associated with any loss of political sovereignty. (T)rade treaties that structure relations by reference to durable, well-defined substantive norms and objective dispute resolution procedures reduce the risks of larger countries exploiting raw economic

power to bully smaller countries, by subjecting power relations to some form of legal ordering. In addition, smaller countries typically stand to gain disproportionately from trade liberalization. This is due to the simple fact that liberalization will provide access to a larger set of potential new trading relationship than in case of the larger country gaining enhanced success to the smaller country's market. 48

The point is that, as shown by the foregoing treaties, a portion of sovereignty may be waived without violating the Constitution, based on the rationale that the Philippines "adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of . . . cooperation and amity with all nations." Fourth Issue: The WTO Agreement and Judicial Power Petitioners aver that paragraph 1, Article 34 of the General Provisions and Basic Principles of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) 49 intrudes on the power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice and procedures. 50 To understand the scope and meaning of Article 34, TRIPS, 51 it will be fruitful to restate its full text as follows:
Article 34 Process Patents: Burden of Proof 1. For the purposes of civil proceedings in respect of the infringement of the rights of the

owner referred to in paragraph 1 (b) of Article 28, if the subject matter of a patent is a process for obtaining a product, the judicial authorities shall have the authority to order the defendant to prove that the process to obtain an identical product is different from the patented process. Therefore, Members shall provide, in at least one of the following circumstances, that any identical product when produced without the consent of the patent owner shall, in the absence of proof to the contrary, be deemed to have been obtained by the patented process: (a) if the product obtained by the patented process is new; (b) if there is a substantial likelihood that the identical product was made by the process and the owner of the patent has been unable through reasonable efforts to determine the process actually used. 2. Any Member shall be free to provide that the burden of proof indicated in paragraph 1 shall be on the alleged infringer only if the condition referred to in subparagraph (a) is fulfilled or only if the condition referred to in subparagraph (b) is fulfilled. 3. In the adduction of proof to the contrary, the legitimate interests of defendants in protecting their manufacturing and business secrets shall be taken into account.

From the above, a WTO Member is required to provide a rule of disputable (not the words "in the absence of proof to the contrary") presumption that a product shown to be identical to one produced with the use of a patented process shall be deemed to have been obtained by the (illegal) use of the said patented process, (1) where such product obtained by the patented product is new, or (2) where there is "substantial likelihood" that the identical product was made with the use of the said patented process but the owner of the patent could not determine the exact process used in obtaining such identical product. Hence, the

"burden of proof" contemplated by Article 34 should actually be understood as the duty of the alleged patent infringer to overthrow such presumption. Such burden, properly understood, actually refers to the "burden of evidence" (burden of going forward) placed on the producer of the identical (or fake) product to show that his product was produced without the use of the patented process. The foregoing notwithstanding, the patent owner still has the "burden of proof" since, regardless of the presumption provided under paragraph 1 of Article 34, such owner still has to introduce evidence of the existence of the alleged identical product, the fact that it is "identical" to the genuine one produced by the patented process and the fact of "newness" of the genuine product or the fact of "substantial likelihood" that the identical product was made by the patented process. The foregoing should really present no problem in changing the rules of evidence as the present law on the subject, Republic Act No. 165, as amended, otherwise known as the Patent Law, provides a similar presumption in cases of infringement of patented design or utility model, thus:
Sec. 60. Infringement. Infringement of a design patent or of a patent for utility model shall consist in unauthorized copying of the patented design or utility model for the purpose of trade or industry in the article or product and in the making, using or selling of the article or product copying the patented design or utility model. Identity or substantial identity with the patented design or utility model shall constitute evidence of copying. (emphasis supplied)

Moreover, it should be noted that the requirement of Article 34 to provide a disputable

presumption applies only if (1) the product obtained by the patented process in NEW or (2) there is a substantial likelihood that the identical product was made by the process and the process owner has not been able through reasonable effort to determine the process used. Where either of these two provisos does not obtain, members shall be free to determine the appropriate method of implementing the provisions of TRIPS within their own internal systems and processes. By and large, the arguments adduced in connection with our disposition of the third issue derogation of legislative power will apply to this fourth issue also. Suffice it to say that the reciprocity clause more than justifies such intrusion, if any actually exists. Besides, Article 34 does not contain an unreasonable burden, consistent as it is with due process and the concept of adversarial dispute settlement inherent in our judicial system. So too, since the Philippine is a signatory to most international conventions on patents, trademarks and copyrights, the adjustment in legislation and rules of procedure will not be substantial. 52 Fifth Issue: Concurrence Only in the WTO Agreement and Not in Other Documents Contained in the Final Act Petitioners allege that the Senate concurrence in the WTO Agreement and its annexes but not in the other documents referred to in the Final Act, namely the Ministerial Declaration and Decisions and the Understanding on Commitments in Financial Services is defective and insufficient and thus constitutes abuse of discretion. They submit that such

concurrence in the WTO Agreement alone is flawed because it is in effect a rejection of the Final Act, which in turn was the document signed by Secretary Navarro, in representation of the Republic upon authority of the President. They contend that the second letter of the President to the Senate 53 which enumerated what constitutes the Final Act should have been the subject of concurrence of the Senate. "A final act, sometimes called protocol de cloture, is an instrument which records the winding up of the proceedings of a diplomatic conference and usually includes a reproduction of the texts of treaties, conventions, recommendations and other acts agreed upon and signed by the plenipotentiaries attending the conference." 54 It is not the treaty itself. It is rather a summary of the proceedings of a protracted conference which may have taken place over several years. The text of the "Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations" is contained in just one page 55 in Vol. I of the 36-volume Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations. By signing said Final Act, Secretary Navarro as representative of the Republic of the Philippines undertook:
(a) to submit, as appropriate, the WTO Agreement for the consideration of their respective competent authorities with a view to seeking approval of the Agreement in accordance with their procedures; and (b) to adopt the Ministerial Declarations and Decisions.

The assailed Senate Resolution No. 97 expressed concurrence in exactly what the Final Act required from its signatories, namely, concurrence of the Senate in the WTO Agreement.

The Ministerial Declarations and Decisions were deemed adopted without need for ratification. They were approved by the ministers by virtue of Article XXV: 1 of GATT which provides that representatives of the members can meet "to give effect to those provisions of this Agreement which invoke joint action, and generally with a view to facilitating the operation and furthering the objectives of this Agreement." 56 The Understanding on Commitments in Financial Services also approved in Marrakesh does not apply to the Philippines. It applies only to those 27 Members which "have indicated in their respective schedules of commitments on standstill, elimination of monopoly, expansion of operation of existing financial service suppliers, temporary entry of personnel, free transfer and processing of information, and national treatment with respect to access to payment, clearing systems and refinancing available in the normal course of business." 57 On the other hand, the WTO Agreement itself expresses what multilateral agreements are deemed included as its integral parts, 58 as follows:
Article II Scope of the WTO 1. The WTO shall provide the common institutional frame-work for the conduct of trade relations among its Members in matters to the agreements and associated legal instruments included in the Annexes to this Agreement. 2. The Agreements and associated legal instruments included in Annexes 1, 2, and 3, (hereinafter referred to as "Multilateral Agreements") are integral parts of this Agreement,

binding on all Members. 3. The Agreements and associated legal instruments included in Annex 4 (hereinafter referred to as "Plurilateral Trade Agreements") are also part of this Agreement for those Members that have accepted them, and are binding on those Members. The Plurilateral Trade Agreements do not create either obligation or rights for Members that have not accepted them. 4. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 as specified in annex 1A (hereinafter referred to as "GATT 1994") is legally distinct from the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, dated 30 October 1947, annexed to the Final Act adopted at the conclusion of the Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, as subsequently rectified, amended or modified (hereinafter referred to as "GATT 1947").

It should be added that the Senate was well-aware of what it was concurring in as shown by the members' deliberation on August 25, 1994. After reading the letter of President Ramos dated August 11, 1994, 59 the senators of the Republic minutely dissected what the Senate was concurring in, as follows: 60
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. Now, the question of the validity of the submission came up in the first day hearing of this Committee yesterday. Was the observation made by Senator Taada that what was submitted to the Senate was not the agreement on establishing the World Trade Organization by the final act of the Uruguay Round which is not the same as the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization? And on that basis, Senator Tolentino raised a point of order which, however, he agreed to withdraw upon understanding that his suggestion

for an alternative solution at that time was acceptable. That suggestion was to treat the proceedings of the Committee as being in the nature of briefings for Senators until the question of the submission could be clarified. And so, Secretary Romulo, in effect, is the President submitting a new . . . is he making a new submission which improves on the clarity of the first submission? MR. ROMULO: Mr. Chairman, to make sure that it is clear cut and there should be no misunderstanding, it was his intention to clarify all matters by giving this letter. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Can this Committee hear from Senator Taada and later on Senator Tolentino since they were the ones that raised this question yesterday? Senator Taada, please. SEN. TAADA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Based on what Secretary Romulo has read, it would now clearly appear that what is being submitted to the Senate for ratification is not the Final Act of the Uruguay Round, but rather the Agreement on the World Trade Organization as well as the Ministerial Declarations and Decisions, and the Understanding and Commitments in Financial Services. I am now satisfied with the wording of the new submission of President Ramos. SEN. TAADA. . . . of President Ramos, Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Taada. Can we hear from Senator Tolentino? And after him Senator Neptali Gonzales and Senator Lina.

SEN. TOLENTINO, Mr. Chairman, I have not seen the new submission actually transmitted to us but I saw the draft of his earlier, and I think it now complies with the provisions of the Constitution, and with the Final Act itself . The Constitution does not require us to ratify the Final Act. It requires us to ratify the Agreement which is now being submitted. The Final Act itself specifies what is going to be submitted to with the governments of the participants. In paragraph 2 of the Final Act, we read and I quote: By signing the present Final Act, the representatives agree: (a) to submit as appropriate the WTO Agreement for the consideration of the respective competent authorities with a view to seeking approval of the Agreement in accordance with their procedures. In other words, it is not the Final Act that was agreed to be submitted to the governments for ratification or acceptance as whatever their constitutional procedures may provide but it is the World Trade Organization Agreement. And if that is the one that is being submitted now, I think it satisfies both the Constitution and the Final Act itself . Thank you, Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Tolentino, May I call on Senator Gonzales. SEN. GONZALES. Mr. Chairman, my views on this matter are already a matter of record. And they had been adequately reflected in the journal of yesterday's session and I don't see any need for repeating the same. Now, I would consider the new submission as an act ex abudante cautela. THE CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Gonzales. Senator Lina, do you want to make any comment on this?

SEN. LINA. Mr. President, I agree with the observation just made by Senator Gonzales out of the abundance of question. Then the new submission is, I believe, stating the obvious and therefore I have no further comment to make.

Epilogue In praying for the nullification of the Philippine ratification of the WTO Agreement, petitioners are invoking this Court's constitutionally imposed duty "to determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction" on the part of the Senate in giving its concurrence therein via Senate Resolution No. 97. Procedurally, a writ of certiorari grounded on grave abuse of discretion may be issued by the Court under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court when it is amply shown that petitioners have no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. By grave abuse of discretion is meant such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. 61 Mere abuse of discretion is not enough. It must be grave abuse of discretion as when the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and must be so patent and so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. 62 Failure on the part of the petitioner to show grave abuse of discretion will result in the dismissal of the petition. 63 In rendering this Decision, this Court never forgets that the Senate, whose act is under review, is one of two sovereign houses of Congress and is thus entitled to great respect in

its actions. It is itself a constitutional body independent and coordinate, and thus its actions are presumed regular and done in good faith. Unless convincing proof and persuasive arguments are presented to overthrow such presumptions, this Court will resolve every doubt in its favor. Using the foregoing well-accepted definition of grave abuse of discretion and the presumption of regularity in the Senate's processes, this Court cannot find any cogent reason to impute grave abuse of discretion to the Senate's exercise of its power of concurrence in the WTO Agreement granted it by Sec. 21 of Article VII of the Constitution.
64

It is true, as alleged by petitioners, that broad constitutional principles require the State to develop an independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos; and to protect and/or prefer Filipino labor, products, domestic materials and locally produced goods. But it is equally true that such principles while serving as judicial and legislative guides are not in themselves sources of causes of action. Moreover, there are other equally fundamental constitutional principles relied upon by the Senate which mandate the pursuit of a "trade policy that serves the general welfare and utilizes all forms and arrangements of exchange on the basis of equality and reciprocity" and the promotion of industries "which are competitive in both domestic and foreign markets," thereby justifying its acceptance of said treaty. So too, the alleged impairment of sovereignty in the exercise of legislative and judicial powers is balanced by the adoption of the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and the adherence of the Constitution to the policy of cooperation and amity with all nations.

That the Senate, after deliberation and voting, voluntarily and overwhelmingly gave its consent to the WTO Agreement thereby making it "a part of the law of the land" is a legitimate exercise of its sovereign duty and power. We find no "patent and gross" arbitrariness or despotism "by reason of passion or personal hostility" in such exercise. It is not impossible to surmise that this Court, or at least some of its members, may even agree with petitioners that it is more advantageous to the national interest to strike down Senate Resolution No. 97. But that is not a legal reason to attribute grave abuse of discretion to the Senate and to nullify its decision. To do so would constitute grave abuse in the exercise of our own judicial power and duty. Ineludably, what the Senate did was a valid exercise of its authority. As to whether such exercise was wise, beneficial or viable is outside the realm of judicial inquiry and review. That is a matter between the elected policy makers and the people. As to whether the nation should join the worldwide march toward trade liberalization and economic globalization is a matter that our people should determine in electing their policy makers. After all, the WTO Agreement allows withdrawal of membership, should this be the political desire of a member. The eminent futurist John Naisbitt, author of the best seller Megatrends, predicts an Asian Renaissance 65 where "the East will become the dominant region of the world economically, politically and culturally in the next century." He refers to the "free market" espoused by WTO as the "catalyst" in this coming Asian ascendancy. There are at present about 31 countries including China, Russia and Saudi Arabia negotiating for membership in the WTO. Notwithstanding objections against possible limitations on national sovereignty, the WTO

remains as the only viable structure for multilateral trading and the veritable forum for the development of international trade law. The alternative to WTO is isolation, stagnation, if not economic self-destruction. Duly enriched with original membership, keenly aware of the advantages and disadvantages of globalization with its on-line experience, and endowed with a vision of the future, the Philippines now straddles the crossroads of an international strategy for economic prosperity and stability in the new millennium. Let the people, through their duly authorized elected officers, make their free choice. WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. Footnotes
1 In Annex "A" of her Memorandum, dated August 8, 1996, received by this Court on August 12, 1996, Philippine Ambassador to the United Nations, World Trade Organization and other international organizations Lilia R. Bautista (hereafter referred to as "Bautista Paper") submitted a "46-year Chronology" of GATT as follows: 1947 The birth of GATT. On 30 October 1947, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was signed by 23 nations at the Palais des Nations in Geneva. The Agreement contained tariff concessions agreed to in the first multilateral trade negotiations and a set of rules designed to prevent these concessions from being frustrated by restrictive trade measures.

The 23 founding contracting parties were members of the Preparatory Committee established by the United Nations Economic and Social Council in 1946 to draft the charter of the International Trade Organization (ITO). The ITO was envisaged as the final leg of a triad of post-War economic agencies (the other two were the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction later the World Bank). In parallel with this task, the Committee members decided to negotiate tariff concessions among themselves. From April to October 1947, the participants completed some 123 negotiations and established 20 schedules containing the tariff reductions and bindings which became an integral part of GATT. These schedules resulting from the first Round covered some 45,000 tariff concessions and about $10 billion in trade. GATT was conceived as an interim measure that put into effect the commercialpolicy provisions of the ITO. In November, delegations from 56 countries met in Havana, Cuba, to consider the to ITO draft as a whole. After long and difficult negotiations, some 53 countries signed the Final Act authenticating the text of the Havana Charter in March 1948. There was no commitment, however, from governments to ratification and, in the end, the ITO was stillborn, leaving GATT as the only international instrument governing the conduct of world trade. 1948 Entry into force. On 1 January 1948, GATT entered into force. The 23 founding members were: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Burma, Canada, Ceylon, Chile, China, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, France, India, Lebanon, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Southern Rhodesia, Syria, South Africa, United

Kingdom and the United States. The first Session of the Contracting Parties was held from February to March in Havana, Cuba. The secretariat of the Interim Commission for the ITO, which served as the ad hoc secretariat of GATT, moved from Lake Placid, New York, to Geneva. The Contracting Parties held their second session in Geneva from August to September. 1949 Second Round at Annecy. During the second Round of trade negotiations, held from April to August at Annecy, France, the contracting parties exchanged some 5,000 tariff concessions. At their third Session, they also dealt with the accession of ten more countries. 1950 Third Round at Torquay. From September 1950 to April 1951, the contracting parties exchanged some 8,700 tariff concessions in the English town, yielding tariff reduction of about 25 per cent in relation to the 1948 level. Four more countries acceded to GATT. During the fifth Session of the Contracting Parties, the United States indicated that the ITO Charter would not be re-submitted to the US Congress; this, in effect, meant that ITO would not come into operation. 1956 Fourth Round at Geneva. The fourth Round was completed in May and produced some $2.5 billion worth of tariff reductions. At the beginning of the year, the GATT commercial policy course for officials of developing countries was inaugurated. 1958 The Haberler Report. GATT published Trends in International Trade in October. Known as the "Haberler Report" in honour of Professor Gottfried Haberler, the chairman of the panel of eminent economists, it provided initial guidelines for the work of GATT. The Contracting Parties at their 13th Sessions, attended by

Ministers, subsequently established three committees in GATT: Committee I to convene a further tariff negotiating conference; Committee II to review the agricultural policies of member governments and Committee III to tackle the problem facing developing countries in their trade. The establishment of the European Economic Community during the previous year also demanded largescale tariff negotiations under Article XXIV: 6 of the General Agreement. 1960 The Dillon Round. The fifth Round opened in September and was divided into two phases: the first was concerned with negotiations with EEC member states for the creation of a single schedule of concessions for the Community based on its Common External Tariff; and the second was a further general round of tariff negotiations. Named in honour of US Under-Secretary of State Douglas Dillon who proposed the negotiations, the Round was concluded in July 1962 and resulted in about 4,400 tariff concessions covering $4.9 billion of trade. 1961 The Short-Term Arrangement covering cotton textiles was agreed as an exception to the GATT rules. The arrangement permitted the negotiation of quota restrictions affecting the exports of cotton-producing countries. In 1962 the "Short Term" Arrangement became the "Long term" Arrangement, lasting until 1974 when the Multifibre Arrangement entered into force. 1964 The Kennedy Round. Meeting at Ministerial level, a Trade Negotiations Committee formally opened the Kennedy Round in May. In June 1967, the Round's Final Act was signed by some 50 participating countries which together accounted for 75 per cent of world trade. For the first time, negotiations departed from the product-by-product approach used in the previous Rounds to an across-the-board

or linear method of cutting tariffs for industrial goods. The working hypothesis of a 50 per cent target cut in tariff levels was achieved in many areas. Concessions covered an estimated total value of trade of about $410 billion. Separate agreements were reached on grains, chemical products and a Code on AntiDumping. 1965 A New Chapter. The early 1960s marked the accession to the general Agreement of many newly-independent developing countries. In February, the Contracting Parties, meeting in a special session, adopted the text of Part IV on Trade and Development. The additional chapter to the GATT required developed countries to accord high priority to the reduction of trade barriers to products of developing countries. A Committee on Trade and Development was established to oversee the functioning of the new GATT provisions. In the preceding year, GATT had established the International Trade Centre (ITC) to help developing countries in trade promotion and identification of potential markets. Since 1968, the ITC had been jointly operated by GATT and the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). 1973 The Tokyo Round. The seventh Round was launched by Ministers in September at the Japanese capital. Some 99 countries participated in negotiating a comprehensive body of agreements covering both tariff and non-tariff matters. At the end of the Round in November 1979, participants exchanged tariff reductions and bindings which covered more than $300 billion of trade. As a result of these cuts, the weighted average tariff on manufactured goods in the world's nine major industrial markets declined from 7.0 to 4.7 per cent. Agreements were reached in

the following areas: subsidies and countervailing measures, technical barriers to trade, import licensing procedures, government procurement, customs valuation, a revised anti-dumping code, trade in bovine meat, trade in dairy products and trade in civil aircraft. The first concrete result of the Round was the reduction of import duties and other trade barriers by industrial countries on tropical products exported by developing countries. 1974 On 1 January 1974, the Arrangement Regarding International Trade in Textiles, otherwise known as the Multifibre Arrangement (MFA), entered into force. It superseded the arrangements that had been governing trade in cotton textiles since 1961. The MFA seeks to promote the expansion and progressive liberalization of trade in textile products while at the same time avoiding disruptive effects in individual markets and lines of production. The MFA was extended in 1978, 1982, 1986, 1991 and 1992. MFA members account for most of the world exports of textiles and clothing which in 1986 amounted to US$128 billion. 1982 Ministerial Meeting. Meeting for the first time in nearly ten years, the GATT Ministers in November at Geneva reaffirmed the validity of GATT rules for the conduct of international trade and committed themselves to combating protectionist pressures. They also established a wide-ranging work programme for the GATT which was to lay down the groundwork for a new Round 1986. The Uruguay Round. The GATT Trade Ministers meeting at Punta del Este, Uruguay, launched the eighth Round of trade negotiations on 20 September. The Punta del Este Declaration, while representing a single political undertaking, was divided into two sections. The first covered negotiations on trade in goods and the second initiated

negotiation on trade in services. In the area of trade in goods, the Ministers committed themselves to a "standstill" on new trade measures inconsistent with their GATT obligations and to a "rollback" programme aimed at phasing out existing inconsistent measures. Envisaged to last four years, negotiations started in early February 1987 in the following areas tariffs, non-tariff measures, tropical products, natural resource-based products, textiles and clothing, agriculture, subsidies, safeguards, trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights including trade in counterfeit goods, and trade-related investment measures. The work of other groups included a review of GATT articles, the GATT dispute settlement procedure, the Tokyo Round agreements, as well as the functioning of the GATT system as a whole. 1994 "GATT 1994" is the updated version of GATT 1947 and takes into account the substantive and institutional changes negotiated in the Uruguay Round GATT 1994 is an integral part of the World Trade Organization established on 1 January 1995. It is agreed that there be a one year transition period during which certain GATT 1947 bodies and commitments would co-exist with those of the World Trade Organization. 2 The Final Act was signed by representatives of 125 entities, namely Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentine Republic, Australia, Republic of Austria, State of Bahrain, People's Republic of Bangladesh, Barbados, The Kingdom of Belgium Belize, Republic of Benin, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, People's Republic of China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Republic of Cote d'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Kingdom of

Denmark, Commonwealth of Dominica, Dominican Republic, Arab Republic of Egypt, El Salvador, European Communities, Republic of Fiji, Finland, French Republic, Gabonese Republic, Gambia, Federal Republic of Germany, Ghana, Hellenic Republic, Grenada, Guatemala, Republic of Guinea-Bissau, Republic of Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hong Kong, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, State of Israel, Italian Republic, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Korea, State of Kuwait, Kingdom of Lesotho, Principality of Liechtenstein, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Macau, Republic of Madagascar, Republic of Malawi, Malaysia, Republic of Maldives, Republic of Mali, Republic of Malta, Islamic Republic of Mauritania, Republic of Mauritius, United Mexican States, Kingdom of Morocco, Republic of Mozambique, Union of Myanmar, Republic of Namibia, Kingdom of the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Republic of Niger, Federal Republic of Nigeria, Kingdom of Norway, Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Potuguese Republic, State of Qatar, Romania, Rwandese Republic, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovak Republic, South Africa, Kingdom of Spain, Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, Republic of Surinam, Kingdom of Swaziland, Kingdom of Sweden, Swiss Confederation, United Republic of Tanzania, Kingdom of Thailand, Togolese Republic, Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Eastern Republic of Uruguay, Venezuela, Republic of Zaire, Republic of Zambia, Republic of Zimbabwe; see pp. 6-25, Vol. 1, Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations. 3 11 August 1994 The Honorable Members

Senate Through Senate President Edgardo Angara Manila Ladies and Gentlemen: I have the honor to forward herewith an authenticated copy of the Uruguay Round Final Act signed by Department of Trade and Industry Secretary Rizalino S. Navarro for the Philippines on 15 April 1994 in Marrakesh, Morocco. The Uruguay Round Final Act aims to liberalize and expand world trade and strengthen the interrelationship between trade and economic policies affecting growth and development. The Final Act will improve Philippine access to foreign markets, especially its major trading partners through the reduction of tariffs on its exports particularly agricultural and industrial products. These concessions may be availed of by the Philippines, only if it is a member of the World Trade Organization. By GATT estimates, the Philippines can acquire additional export from $2.2 to $2.7 Billion annually under Uruguay Round. This will be on top of the normal increase in exports that the Philippines may experience. The Final Act will also open up new opportunities for the services sector in such areas as the movement of personnel, (e.g. professional services and construction services), cross-border supply (e.g. computer-related services), consumption abroad (e.g. tourism, convention services, etc.) and commercial presence. The clarified and improved rules and disciplines on anti-dumping and countervailing measures will also benefit Philippine exporters by reducing the costs ad uncertainty

associated with exporting while at the same time providing means for domestic industries to safeguard themselves against unfair imports. Likewise, the provision of adequate protection for intellectual property rights is expected to attract more investments into the country and to make it less vulnerable to unilateral actions by its trading partners (e.g. Sec. 301 of the United States' Omnibus Trade Law). In view of the foregoing, the Uruguay Round Final Act is hereby submitted to the Senate for its concurrence pursuant to Section 21, Article VII of the Constitution. A draft of a proposed Resolution giving its concurrence to the aforesaid Agreement is enclosed. Very truly yours, (SGD.) FIDEL V. RAMOS 4 11 August 1994 The Honorable Members Senate Through Senate President Edgardo Angara Manila Ladies and Gentlemen: I have the honor to forward herewith an authenticated copy of the Uruguay Round Final Act signed by Department of Trade and Industry Secretary Rizalino S. Navarro for the Philippines on 13 April 1994 in Marrakech (sic), Morocco.

Members of the trade negotiations committee, which included the Philippines, agreed that the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, the Ministerial Declarations and Decisions, and the Understanding on Commitments in Financial Services embody the results of their negotiations and form an integral part of the Uruguay Round Final Act. By signing the Uruguay Round Final Act, the Philippines, through Secretary Navarro, agreed: (a) To submit the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization to the Senate for its concurrence pursuant to Section 21, Article VII of the Constitution; and (b) To adopt the Ministerial Declarations and Decisions. The Uruguay Round Final Act aims to liberalize and expand world trade and strengthen the interrelationship between trade and economic policies affecting growth and development. The Final Act will improve Philippine access to foreign markets, especially its major trading partners through the reduction of tariffs on its exports particularly agricultural and industrial products. These concessions may be availed of by the Philippines, only if it is a member of the World Trade Organization. By GATT estimates, the Philippines can acquire additional export revenues from $2.2 to $2.7 Billion annually under Uruguay Round. This will be on top of the normal increase in the exports that the Philippines may experience. The Final Act will also open up new opportunities for the services sector in such areas as the movement of personnel, (e.g., professional services and construction services), cross-border supply (e.g., computer-related services), consumption abroad (e.g., tourism, convention services, etc.) and commercial presence. The clarified and improved rules ad disciplines on anti-dumping and countervailing measures will also benefit Philippine exporters by reducing the costs and uncertainty associated with

exporting while at the same time providing a means for domestic industries to safeguard themselves against unfair imports. Likewise, the provision of adequate protection for intellectual property rights is expected to attract more investments into the country and to make it a less vulnerable to unilateral actions by its trading partners (e.g., Sec. 301 of the United States Omnibus Trade Law). In view of the foregoing, the Uruguay Round Final Act, the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, the Ministerial Declarations and Decisions, and the Understanding on Commitments in Financial Services, as embodied in the Uruguay Round Final Act and forming and integral part thereof are hereby submitted to the Senate for its concurrence pursuant to Section 21, Article VII of the Constitution. A draft of a proposed Resolution giving its concurrence to the aforesaid Agreement is enclosed. Very truly yours, (SGD.) FIDEL V. RAMOS

5 December 9, 1994 HON. EDGARDO J. ANGARA Senate President Senate Manila

Dear Senate President Angara: Pursuant to the provisions of Sec. 26 (2) Article VI of the Constitution, I hereby certify to the necessity of the immediate adoption of P.S. 1083 entitled: CONCURRING IN THE RATIFICATION OF THE AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION to meet a public emergency consisting of the need for immediate membership in the WTO in order to assure the benefits to the Philippine economy arising from such membership. Very truly yours, (SGD.) FIDEL V. RAMOS 6 Attached as Annex A, Petition; rollo, p. 52. P.S. 1083 is the forerunner of assailed Senate Resolution No. 97. It was prepared by the Committee of the Whole on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade chaired by Sen. Blas F. Ople and co-chaired by Sen. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo; see Annex C, Compliance of petitioners dated January 28, 1997. 7 The Philippines is thus considered an original or founding member of WTO, which as of July 26, 1996 had 123 members as follows: Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belguim, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic, Chili, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, European Community, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Honkong, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Korea, Kuwait, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Macau,

Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Netherlands for the Kingdom in Europe and for the Netherlands Antilles, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent & the Grenadines, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Surinam, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. See Annex A, Bautista Paper, infra. 8 Page 6; rollo p. 261. 9 In compliance, Ambassador Bautista submitted to the Court on August 12, 1996, a Memorandum (the "Bautista Paper") consisting of 56 pages excluding annexes. This is the same document mentioned in footnote no. 1. 10 Memorandum for Respondents, p. 13; rollo, p. 268. 11 Cf . Kilosbayan Incorporated vs. Morato, 246 SCRA 540, July 17, 1995 for a discussion on locus standi. See also the Concurring Opinion of Mr. Justice Vicente V. Mendoza in Tatad vs. Garcia, Jr., 243 SCRA 473, April 6, 1995, as well as Kilusang Mayo Uno Labor Center vs. Garcia, Jr., 239 SCRA 386, 414, December 23, 1994. 12 Aquino, Jr. vs. Ponce Enrile, 59 SCRA 183, 196, September 17, 1974, cited in Bondoc vs. Pineda, 201 SCRA 792, 795, September 26, 1991. 13 Guingona, Jr. vs. Gonzales, 219 SCRA 326, 337, March 1, 1993. 14 See Taada and Macapagal vs. Cuenco, et al., 103 Phil. 1051 for a discussion on the

scope of "political question." 15 Section 1, Article VIII, (par. 2). 16 In a privilege speech on May 17, 1993, entitled "Supreme Court Potential Tyrant?" Senator Arturo Tolentino concedes that this new provision gives the Supreme Court a duty "to intrude into the jurisdiction of the Congress or the President." 17 I Record of the Constitutional Commission 436. 18 Cf . Daza vs. Singson, 180 SCRA 496, December 21, 1989. 19 Memorandum for Petitioners, pp. 14-16; rollo, pp. 204-206. 20 Par. 4, Article XVI, WTO Agreement, Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, Vol. 1. p. 146. 21 Also entitled "Declaration of Principles." The nomenclature in the 1973 Charter is identical with that in the 1987's. 22 Philippine Political Law, 1962 Ed., p. 116. 23 Bernas, The Constitution of the Philippines: A Commentary, Vol. II, 1988 Ed., p. 2. In the very recent case of Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, G.R. No. 122156, February 3, 1997, p. 8, it was held that "A provision which lays down a general principle, such as those found in Art. II of the 1987 Constitution, is usually not self-executing." 24 246 SCRA 540, 564, July 17, 1995. See also Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance, G.R. No. 115455 and consolidated cases, August 25, 1995. 25 197 SCRA 52, 68, May 14, 1991.

26 224 SCRA 792, 817, July 30, 1993. 27 Sec. 10, Article XII. 28 Sec. 12, Article XII. 29 Sec. 19, Art. II. 30 Sec. 13, Art. XII. 31 G.R. No. 122156, February 3, 1997, pp. 13-14. 32 Sec. 1, Art. XII. 33 Bautista Paper, p. 19. 34 Preamble, WTO Agreement p. 137, Vol. 1, Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations. Emphasis supplied. 35 Sec. 19, Article II, Constitution. 36 III Records of the Constitutional Commission 252. 37 Sec. 13, Article XII, Constitution. 38 Justice Isagani A. Cruz, Philippine Political Law, 1995 Ed., p. 13, quoting his own article entitled, "A Quintessential Constitution" earlier published in the San Beda Law Journal, April 1972; emphasis supplied. 39 Par. 4, Article XVI (Miscellaneous Provisions), WTO Agreement, p. 146, Vol. 1, Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations. 40 Memorandum for the Petitioners, p. 29; rollo, p. 219.

41 Sec. 24, Article VI, Constitution. 42 Subsection (2), Sec. 28, Article VI, Constitution. 43 Sec. 2, Article II, Constitution. 44 Cruz, Philippine Political Law, 1995 Ed., p. 55. 45 Salonga and Yap, op cit 305. 46 Salonga, op. cit., p. 287. 47 Quoted in Paras and Paras, Jr., International Law and World Politics, 1994 Ed., p. 178. 47-A Reagan vs. Commission of Internal Revenue, 30 SCRA 968, 973, December 27, 1969. 48 Trebilcock and Howse. The Regulation of International Trade, p. 14, London, 1995, cited on p. 55-56, Bautista Paper. 49 Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, Vol. 31, p. 25445. 50 Item 5, Sec. 5, Article VIII, Constitution. 51 Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, Vol. 31, p. 25445. 52 Bautista Paper, p. 13. 53 See footnote 3 of the text of this letter. 54 Salonga and Yap, op cit., pp. 289-290. 55 The full text, without the signatures, of the Final Act is as follows: Final Act Embodying the Results of the

Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations 1. Having met in order to conclude the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, representatives of the governments and of the European Communities, members of the Trade Negotiations Committee, agree that the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (referred to in the Final Act as the "WTO Agreement"), the Ministerial Declarations and Decisions, and the Understanding on Commitments in Financial Services, as annexed hereto, embody the results of their negotiations and form an integral part of this Final Act. 2. By signing to the present Final Act, the representatives agree. (a) to submit, as appropriate, the WTO Agreement for the consideration of their respective competent authorities with a view to seeking approval of the Agreement in accordance with their procedures; and (b) to adopt the Ministerial Declarations and Decisions. 3. The representatives agree on the desirability of acceptance of the WTO Agreement by all participants in the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations (hereinafter referred to as "participants") with a view to its entry into force by 1 January 1995, or as early as possible thereafter. Not later than late 1994, Ministers will meet, in accordance with the final paragraph of the Punta del Este Ministerial Declarations, to decide on the international implementation of the results, including the timing of their entry into force. 4. the representatives agree that the WTO Agreement shall be open for acceptance as a whole, by signature or otherwise, by all participants pursuant to Article XIV thereof. The acceptance and entry into force of a Plurilateral Trade Agreement included in Annex 4 of the

WTO Agreement shall be governed by the provisions of that Plurilateral Trade Agreement. 5. Before accepting the WTO Agreement, participants which are not contracting parties to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade must first have concluded negotiations for their accession to the General Agreement and become contracting parties thereto. For participants which are not contracting parties to the general Agreement as of the date of the Final Act, the Schedules are not definitive and shall be subsequently completed for the purpose of their accession to the General Agreement and acceptance of the WTO Agreement. 6. This Final Act and the texts annexed hereto shall be deposited with the Director-General to the CONTRACTING PARTIES to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade who shall promptly furnish to each participant a certified copy thereof. DONE at Marrakesh this fifteenth day of April one thousand nine hundred and ninety-four, in a single copy, in the English, French and Spanish languages, each text being authentic. 56 Bautista Paper, p. 16. 57 Baustista Paper, p. 16. 58 Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, Vol. I, pp. 137-138. 59 See footnote 3 for complete text. 60 Taken from pp. 63-85, "Respondent" Memorandum. 61 Zarate vs. Olegario, G.R. No. 90655, October 7, 1996. 62 San Sebastian College vs. Court of Appeals, 197 SCRA 138, 144, May 15, 1991; Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Court of Tax Appeals, 195 SCRA 444, 458 March 20, 1991; Simon vs. Civil Service Commission, 215 SCRA 410, November 5, 1992; Bustamante

vs. Commissioner on Audit, 216 SCRA 134, 136, November 27, 1992. 63 Paredes vs. Civil Service Commission, 192 SCRA 84, 94, December 4, 1990. 64 Sec. 21. No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate." 65 Reader's Digest, December 1996 issue, p. 28.

G.R. No. 88291 June 8, 1993 ERNESTO M. MACEDA, petitioner,

vs. HON. CATALINO MACARAIG, JR., in his capacity as Executive Secretary, Office of the President, HON. VICENTE JAYME, ETC., ET AL., respondents.

NOCON, J.: Just like lightning which does strike the same place twice in some instances, this matter of indirect tax exemption of the private respondent National Power Corporation (NPC) is brought to this Court a second time. Unfazed by the Decision We promulgated on May 31, 1991 1 petitioner Ernesto Maceda asks this Court to reconsider said Decision. Lest We be criticized for denying due process to the petitioner. We have decided to take a second look at the issues. In the process, a hearing was held on July 9, 1992 where all parties presented their respective arguments. Etched in this Court's mind are the paradoxical claims by both petitioner and private respondents that their respective positions are for the benefit of the Filipino people. I A Chronological review of the relevant NPC laws, specially with respect to its tax exemption provisions, at the risk of being repetitious is, therefore, in order. On November 3, 1936, Commonwealth Act No. 120 was enacted creating the National

Power Corporation, a public corporation, mainly to develop hydraulic power from all water sources in the Philippines. 2 The sum of P250,000.00 was appropriated out of the funds in the Philippine Treasury for the purpose of organizing the NPC and conducting its preliminary work. 3 The main source of funds for the NPC was the flotation of bonds in the capital markets 4 and these bonds
. . . issued under the authority of this Act shall be exempt from the payment of all taxes by the Commonwealth of the Philippines, or by any authority, branch, division or political subdivision thereof and subject to the provisions of the Act of Congress, approved March 24, 1934, otherwise known as the Tydings McDuffle Law, which facts shall be stated upon the face of said bonds. . . . . 5

On June 24, 1938, C.A. No. 344 was enacted increasing to P550,000.00 the funds needed for the initial operations of the NPC and reiterating the provision of the flotation of bonds as soon as the first construction of any hydraulic power project was to be decided by the NPC Board. 6 The provision on tax exemption in relation to the issuance of the NPC bonds was neither amended nor deleted. On September 30, 1939, C.A. No. 495 was enacted removing the provision on the payment of the bond's principal and interest in "gold coins" but adding that payment could be made in United States dollars. 7 The provision on tax exemption in relation to the issuance of the NPC bonds was neither amended nor deleted.

On June 4, 1949, Republic Act No. 357 was enacted authorizing the President of the Philippines to guarantee, absolutely and unconditionally, as primary obligor, the payment of any and all NPC loans. 8 He was also authorized to contract on behalf of the NPC with the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) for NPC loans for the accomplishment of NPC's corporate objectives 9 and for the reconstruction and development of the economy of the country. 10 It was expressly stated that:
Any such loan or loans shall be exempt from taxes, duties, fees, imposts, charges, contributions and restrictions of the Republic of the Philippines, its provinces, cities and municipalities. 11

On the same date, R.A. No. 358 was enacted expressly authorizing the NPC, for the first time, to incur other types of indebtedness, aside from indebtedness incurred by flotation of bonds. 12 As to the pertinent tax exemption provision, the law stated as follows:
To facilitate payment of its indebtedness, the National Power Corporation shall be exempt from all taxes, duties, fees, imposts, charges, and restrictions of the Republic of the Philippines, its provinces, cities and municipalities. 13

On July 10, 1952, R.A. No. 813 was enacted amending R.A. No. 357 in that, aside from the IBRD, the President of the Philippines was authorized to negotiate, contract and guarantee loans with the Export-Import Bank of of Washigton, D.C., U.S.A., or any other international financial institution. 14 The tax provision for repayment of these loans, as stated in R.A. No.

357, was not amended. On June 2, 1954, R.A. No. 987 was enacted specifically to withdraw NPC's tax exemption for real estate taxes. As enacted, the law states as follows:
To facilitate payment of its indebtedness, the National Power Corporation shall be exempt from all taxes, except real property tax, and from all duties, fees, imposts, charges, and restrictions of the Republic of the Philippines, its provinces, cities, and municipalities. 15

On September 8, 1955, R.A. No. 1397 was enacted directing that the NPC projects to be funded by the increased indebtedness 16 should bear the National Economic Council's stamp of approval. The tax exemption provision related to the payment of this total indebtedness was not amended nor deleted. On June 13, 1958, R.A. No. 2055 was enacted increasing the total amount of foreign loans NPC was authorized to incur to US$100,000,000.00 from the US$50,000,000.00 ceiling in R.A. No. 357. 17 The tax provision related to the repayment of these loans was not amended nor deleted. On June 13, 1958, R.A. No. 2058 was enacting fixing the corporate life of NPC to December 31, 2000. 18 All laws or provisions of laws and executive orders contrary to said R.A. No. 2058 were expressly repealed. 19 On June 18, 1960, R.A. No 2641 was enacted converting the NPC from a public corporation into a stock corporation with an authorized capital stock of P100,000,000.00 divided into

1,000.000 shares having a par value of P100.00 each, with said capital stock wholly subscribed to by the Government. 20 No tax exemption was incorporated in said Act. On June 17, 1961, R.A. No. 3043 was enacted increasing the above-mentioned authorized capital stock to P250,000,000.00 with the increase to be wholly subscribed by the Government. 21 No tax provision was incorporated in said Act. On June 17, 1967, R.A. No 4897 was enacted. NPC's capital stock was increased again to P300,000,000.00, the increase to be wholly subscribed by the Government. No tax provision was incorporated in said Act. 22 On September 10, 1971, R.A. No. 6395 was enacted revising the charter of the NPC, C.A. No. 120, as amended. Declared as primary objectives of the nation were:
Declaration of Policy. Congress hereby declares that (1) the comprehensive development, utilization and conservation of Philippine water resources for all beneficial uses, including power generation, and (2) the total electrification of the Philippines through the development of power from all sources to meet the needs of industrial development and dispersal and the needs of rural electrification are primary objectives of the nation which shall be pursued coordinately and supported by all instrumentalities and agencies of the government, including the financial institutions. 23

Section 4 of C.A. No. 120, was renumbered as Section 8, and divided into sections 8 (a) (Authority to incur Domestic Indebtedness) and Section 8 (b) (Authority to Incur Foreign Loans).

As to the issuance of bonds by the NPC, Paragraph No. 3 of Section 8(a), states as follows:
The bonds issued under the authority of this subsection shall be exempt from the payment of all taxes by the Republic of the Philippines, or by any authority, branch, division or political subdivision thereof which facts shall be stated upon the face of said bonds. . . . 24

As to the foreign loans the NPC was authorized to contract, Paragraph No. 5, Section 8(b), states as follows:
The loans, credits and indebtedness contracted under this subsection and the payment of the principal, interest and other charges thereon, as well as the importation of machinery, equipment, materials and supplies by the Corporation, paid from the proceeds of any loan, credit or indebtedeness incurred under this Act, shall also be exempt from all taxes, fees, imposts, other charges and restrictions, including import restrictions, by the Republic of the Philippines, or any of its agencies and political subdivisions. 25

A new section was added to the charter, now known as Section 13, R.A. No. 6395, which declares the non-profit character and tax exemptions of NPC as follows:
The Corporation shall be non-profit and shall devote all its returns from its capital investment, as well as excess revenues from its operation, for expansion. To enable the Corporation to pay its indebtedness and obligations and in furtherance and effective implementation of the policy enunciated in Section one of this Act, the Corporation is hereby declared exempt: (a) From the payment of all taxes, duties, fees, imposts, charges costs and service fees in any court or administrative proceedings in which it may be a party, restrictions and duties to the Republic of the Philippines, its provinces, cities, and municipalities and other government

agencies and instrumentalities; (b) From all income taxes, franchise taxes and realty taxes to be paid to the National Government, its provinces, cities, municipalities and other government agencies and instrumentalities; (c) From all import duties, compensating taxes and advanced sales tax, and wharfage fees on import of foreign goods required for its operations and projects; and (d) From all taxes, duties, fees, imposts and all other charges its provinces, cities, municipalities and other government agencies and instrumentalities, on all petroleum products used by the Corporation in the generation, transmission, utilization, and sale of electric power. 26 On November 7, 1972, Presidential Decree No. 40 was issued declaring that the electrification of the entire country was one of the primary concerns of the country. And in connection with this, it was specifically stated that: The setting up of transmission line grids and the construction of associated generation facilities in Luzon, Mindanao and major islands of the country, including the Visayas, shall be the responsibility of the National Power Corporation (NPC) as the authorized implementing agency of the State. 27 xxx xxx xxx It is the ultimate objective of the State for the NPC to own and operate as a single integrated system all generating facilities supplying electric power to the entire area embraced by any grid set up by the NPC. 28

On January 22, 1974, P.D. No. 380 was issued giving extra powers to the NPC to enable it to fulfill its role under aforesaid P.D. No. 40. Its authorized capital stock was raised to P2,000,000,000.00, 29 its total domestic indebtedness was pegged at a maximum of P3,000,000,000.00 at any one time, 30 and the NPC was authorized to borrow a total of US$1,000,000,000.00 31 in foreign loans. The relevant tax exemption provision for these foreign loans states as follows:
The loans, credits and indebtedness contracted under this subsection and the payment of the principal, interest and other charges thereon, as well as the importation of machinery, equipment, materials, supplies and services, by the Corporation, paid from the proceeds of any loan, credit or indebtedness incurred under this Act, shall also be exempt from all direct and indirect taxes, fees, imposts, other charges and restrictions, including import restrictions previously and presently imposed, and to be imposed by the Republic of the Philippines, or any of its agencies and political subdivisions. 32 (Emphasis supplied)

Section 13(a) and 13(d) of R.A. No 6395 were amended to read as follows:
(a) From the payment of all taxes, duties, fees, imposts, charges and restrictions to the Republic of the Philippines, its provinces, cities, municipalities and other government agencies and instrumentalities including the taxes, duties, fees, imposts and other charges provided for under the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines, Republic Act Numbered Nineteen Hundred Thirty-Seven, as amended, and as further amended by Presidential Decree No. 34 dated October 27, 1972, and Presidential Decree No. 69, dated November 24, 1972, and costs and service fees in any court or administrative proceedings in which it may

be a party; xxx xxx xxx (d) From all taxes, duties, fees, imposts, and all other charges imposed directly or indirectly by the Republic of the Philippines, its provinces, cities, municipalities and other government agencies and instrumentalities, on all petroleum products used by the Corporation in the generation, transmission, utilization and sale of electric power. 33 (Emphasis supplied)

On February 26, 1970, P.D. No. 395 was issued removing certain restrictions in the NPC's sale of electricity to its different customers. 34 No tax exemption provision was amended, deleted or added. On July 31, 1975, P.D. No. 758 was issued directing that P200,000,000.00 would be appropriated annually to cover the unpaid subscription of the Government in the NPC authorized capital stock, which amount would be taken from taxes accruing to the General Funds of the Government, proceeds from loans, issuance of bonds, treasury bills or notes to be issued by the Secretary of Finance for this particular purpose. 35 On May 27, 1976 P.D. No. 938 was issued
(I)n view of the accelerated expansion programs for generation and transmission facilities which includes nuclear power generation, the present capitalization of National Power Corporation (NPC) and the ceilings for domestic and foreign borrowings are deemed insufficient; 36

xxx xxx xxx (I)n the application of the tax exemption provisions of the Revised Charter, the non-profit character of NPC has not been fully utilized because of restrictive interpretation of the taxing agencies of the government on said provisions; 37 xxx xxx xxx (I)n order to effect the accelerated expansion program and attain the declared objective of total electrification of the country, further amendments of certain sections of Republic Act No. 6395, as amended by Presidential Decrees Nos. 380, 395 and 758, have become imperative; 38

Thus NPC's capital stock was raised to P8,000,000,000.00, 39 the total domestic indebtedness ceiling was increased to P12,000,000,000.00, 40 the total foreign loan ceiling was raised to US$4,000,000,000.00 41 and Section 13 of R.A. No. 6395, was amended to read as follows:
The Corporation shall be non-profit and shall devote all its returns from its capital investment as well as excess revenues from its operation, for expansion. To enable the Corporation to pay to its indebtedness and obligations and in furtherance and effective implementation of the policy enunciated in Section one of this Act, the Corporation, including its subsidiaries, is hereby declared exempt from the payment of all forms of taxes, duties, fees, imposts as well as costs and service fees including filing fees, appeal bonds, supersedeas bonds, in any court or administrative proceedings. 42

II On the other hand, the pertinent tax laws involved in this controversy are P.D. Nos. 882, 1177, 1931 and Executive Order No. 93 (S'86). On January 30, 1976, P.D. No. 882 was issued withdrawing the tax exemption of NPC with regard to imports as follows:
WHEREAS, importations by certain government agencies, including government-owned or controlled corporation, are exempt from the payment of customs duties and compensating tax; and WHEREAS, in order to reduce foreign exchange spending and to protect domestic industries, it is necessary to restrict and regulate such tax-free importations. NOW THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution, and do hereby decree and order the following: Sec. 1. All importations of any government agency, including government-owned or controlled corporations which are exempt from the payment of customs duties and internal revenue taxes, shall be subject to the prior approval of an Inter-Agency Committee which shall insure compliance with the following conditions: (a) That no such article of local manufacture are available in sufficient quantity and comparable quality at reasonable prices; (b) That the articles to be imported are directly and actually needed and will be used exclusively by the grantee of the exemption for its operations and projects or in the conduct of its functions; and

(c) The shipping documents covering the importation are in the name of the grantee to whom the goods shall be delivered directly by customs authorities. xxx xxx xxx Sec. 3. The Committee shall have the power to regulate and control the tax-free importation of government agencies in accordance with the conditions set forth in Section 1 hereof and the regulations to be promulgated to implement the provisions of this Decree. Provided, however, That any government agency or government-owned or controlled corporation, or any local manufacturer or business firm adversely affected by any decision or ruling of the Inter-Agency Committee may file an appeal with the Office of the President within ten days from the date of notice thereof. . . . . xxx xxx xxx Sec. 6. . . . . Section 13 of Republic Act No. 6395; . . .. and all similar provisions of all general and special laws and decrees are hereby amended accordingly. xxx xxx xxx

On July 30, 1977, P.D. 1177 was issued as it was

. . . declared the policy of the State to formulate and implement a National Budget that is an instrument of national development, reflective of national objectives, strategies and plans. The budget shall be supportive of and consistent with the socio-economic development plan and shall be oriented towards the achievement of explicit objectives and expected results, to ensure that funds are utilized and operations are conducted effectively, economically and efficiently. The national budget shall be formulated within a context of a regionalized government structure and of the totality of revenues and other receipts, expenditures and

borrowings of all levels of government-owned or controlled corporations. The budget shall likewise be prepared within the context of the national long-term plan and of a long-term budget program. 43

In line with such policy, the law decreed that All units of government, including government-owned or controlled corporations, shall pay income taxes, customs duties and other taxes and fees are imposed under revenues laws: provided, that organizations otherwise exempted by law from the payment of such taxes/duties may ask for a subsidy from the General Fund in the exact amount of taxes/duties due: provided, further, that a procedure shall be established by the Secretary of Finance and the Commissioner of the Budget, whereby such subsidies shall automatically be considered as both revenue and expenditure of the General Fund. 44 The law also declared that
[A]ll laws, decrees, executive orders, rules and regulations or parts thereof which are inconsistent with the provisions of the Decree are hereby repealed and/or modified accordingly. 45

On July 11, 1984, most likely due to the economic morass the Government found itself in after the Aquino assassination, P.D. No. 1931 was issued to reiterate that:
WHEREAS, Presidential Decree No. 1177 has already expressly repealed the grant of tax privileges to any government-owned or controlled corporation and all other units of

government; 46

and since there was a

. . . need for government-owned or controlled corporations and all other units of government enjoying tax privileges to share in the requirements of development, fiscal or otherwise, by paying the duties, taxes and other charges due from them. 47

it was decreed that:

Sec. 1. The provisions of special on general law to the contrary notwithstanding, all exemptions from the payment of duties, taxes, fees, imposts and other charges heretofore granted in favor of government-owned or controlled corporations including their subsidiaries, are hereby withdrawn. Sec. 2. The President of the Philippines and/or the Minister of Finance, upon the recommendation of the Fiscal Incentives Review Board created under Presidential Decree No. 776, is hereby empowered to restore, partially or totally, the exemptions withdrawn by Section 1 above, any applicable tax and duty, taking into account, among others, any or all of the following: 1) The effect on the relative price levels; 2) The relative contribution of the corporation to the revenue generation effort; 3) The nature of the activity in which the corporation is engaged in; or 4) In general the greater national interest to be served. xxx xxx xxx

Sec. 5. The provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1177 as well as all other laws, decrees, executive orders, administrative orders, rules, regulations or parts thereof which are inconsistent with this Decree are hereby repealed, amended or modified accordingly.

On December 17, 1986, E.O. No. 93 (S'86) was issued with a view to correct presidential restoration or grant of tax exemption to other government and private entities without benefit of review by the Fiscal Incentives Review Board, to wit:
WHEREAS, Presidential Decree Nos. 1931 and 1955 issued on June 11, 1984 and October 14, 1984, respectively, withdrew the tax and duty exemption privileges, including the preferential tax treatment, of government and private entities with certain exceptions, in order that the requirements of national economic development, in terms of fiscals and other resources, may be met more adequately; xxx xxx xxx WHEREAS, in addition to those tax and duty exemption privileges were restored by the Fiscal Incentives Review Board (FIRB), a number of affected entities, government and private, had their tax and duty exemption privileges restored or granted by Presidential action without benefit or review by the Fiscal Incentives Review Board (FIRB); xxx xxx xxx

Since it was decided that:

[A]ssistance to government and private entities may be better provided where necessary by explicit subsidy and budgetary support rather than tax and duty exemption privileges if only to improve the fiscal monitoring aspects of government operations.

It was thus ordered that:

Sec. 1. The Provisions of any general or special law to the contrary notwithstanding, all tax and duty incentives granted to government and private entities are hereby withdrawn, except: a) those covered by the non-impairment clause of the Constitution; b) those conferred by effective internation agreement to which the Government of the Republic of the Philippines is a signatory; c) those enjoyed by enterprises registered with: (i) the Board of Investment pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1789, as amended; (ii) the Export Processing Zone Authority, pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 66 as amended; (iii) the Philippine Veterans Investment Development Corporation Industrial Authority pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 538, was amended. d) those enjoyed by the copper mining industry pursuant to the provisions of Letter of Instructions No. 1416; e) those conferred under the four basic codes namely: (i) the Tariff and Customs Code, as amended; (ii) the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended; (iii) the Local Tax Code, as amended; (iv) the Real Property Tax Code, as amended;

f) those approved by the President upon the recommendation of the Fiscal Incentives Review Board. Sec. 2. The Fiscal Incentives Review Board created under Presidential Decree No. 776, as amended, is hereby authorized to: a) restore tax and/or duty exemptions withdrawn hereunder in whole or in part; b) revise the scope and coverage of tax and/or duty exemption that may be restored; c) impose conditions for the restoration of tax and/or duty exemption; d) prescribe the date of period of effectivity of the restoration of tax and/or duty exemption; e) formulate and submit to the President for approval, a complete system for the grant of subsidies to deserving beneficiaries, in lieu of or in combination with the restoration of tax and duty exemptions or preferential treatment in taxation, indicating the source of funding therefor, eligible beneficiaries and the terms and conditions for the grant thereof taking into consideration the international commitment of the Philippines and the necessary precautions such that the grant of subsidies does not become the basis for countervailing action. Sec. 3. In the discharge of its authority hereunder, the Fiscal Incentives Review Board shall take into account any or all of the following considerations: a) the effect on relative price levels; b) relative contribution of the beneficiary to the revenue generation effort; c) nature of the activity the beneficiary is engaged; and d) in general, the greater national interest to be served.

xxx xxx xxx Sec. 5. All laws, orders, issuances, rules and regulations or parts thereof inconsistent with this Executive Order are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.

E.O. No. 93 (S'86) was decreed to be effective 48 upon the promulgation of the rules and regulations, to be issued by the Ministry of Finance. 49 Said rules and regulations were promulgated and published in the Official Gazette on February 23, 1987. These became effective on the 15th day after promulgation 50 in the Official Gasetter, 51 which 15th day was March 10, 1987. III Now to some definitions. We refer to the very simplistic approach that all would-be lawyers, learn in their TAXATION I course, which fro convenient reference, is as follows: Classifications or kinds of Taxes:
According to Persons who pay or who bear the burden: a. Direct Tax the where the person supposed to pay the tax really pays it. WITHOUT transferring the burden to someone else. Examples: Individual income tax, corporate income tax, transfer taxes (estate tax, donor's tax), residence tax, immigration tax b. Indirect Tax that where the tax is imposed upon goods BEFORE reaching the consumer who ultimately pays for it, not as a tax, but as a part of the purchase price.

Examples: the internal revenue indirect taxes (specific tax, percentage taxes, (VAT) and the tariff and customs indirect taxes (import duties, special import tax and other dues) 52

IV To simply matter, the issues raised by petitioner in his motion for reconsideration can be reduced to the following: (1) What kind of tax exemption privileges did NPC have? (2) For what periods in time were these privileges being enjoyed? (3) If there are taxes to be paid, who shall pay for these taxes? V Petitioner contends that P.D. No. 938 repealed the indirect tax exemption of NPC as the phrase "all forms of taxes etc.," in its section 10, amending Section 13, R.A. No. 6395, as amended by P.D. No. 380, does not expressly include "indirect taxes." His point is not well-taken. A chronological review of the NPC laws will show that it has been the lawmaker's intention that the NPC was to be completely tax exempt from all forms of taxes direct and indirect. NPC's tax exemptions at first applied to the bonds it was authorized to float to finance its operations upon its creation by virtue of C.A. No. 120. When the NPC was authorized to contract with the IBRD for foreign financing, any loans

obtained were to be completely tax exempt. After the NPC was authorized to borrow from other sources of funds aside issuance of bonds it was again specifically exempted from all types of taxes "to facilitate payment of its indebtedness." Even when the ceilings for domestic and foreign borrowings were periodically increased, the tax exemption privileges of the NPC were maintained. NPC's tax exemption from real estate taxes was, however, specifically withdrawn by Rep. Act No. 987, as above stated. The exemption was, however, restored by R.A. No. 6395. Section 13, R.A. No. 6395, was very comprehensive in its enumeration of the tax exemptions allowed NPC. Its section 13(d) is the starting point of this bone of contention among the parties. For easy reference, it is reproduced as follows:
[T]he Corporation is hereby declared exempt: xxx xxx xxx (d) From all taxes, duties, fees, imposts and all other charges imposed by the Republic of the Philippines, its provinces, cities, municipalities and other government agencies and instrumentalities, on all petroleum products used by the Corporation in the generation, transmission, utilization, and sale of electric power.

P.D. No. 380 added phrase "directly or indirectly" to said Section 13(d), which now reads as follows:
xxx xxx xxx (d) From all taxes, duties, fees, imposts, and all other charges imposed directly or indirectly

by the Republic of the Philippines, its provinces, cities, municipalities and other government agencies and instrumentalities, on all petroleum products used by the Corporation in the generation, transmission, utilization and sale of electric power. (Emphasis supplied)

Then came P.D. No. 938 which amended Sec. 13(a), (b), (c) and (d) into one very simple paragraph as follows:
The Corporation shall be non-profit and shall devote all its returns from its capital investment as well as excess revenues from its operation, for expansion. To enable the Corporation to pay its indebtedness and obligations and in furtherance and effective implementation of the policy enunciated in Section one of this Act, the Corporation, including its subsidiaries, is hereby declared exempt from the payment of ALL FORMS OF taxes, duties, fees, imposts as well as costs and service fees including filing fees, appeal bonds, supersedeas bonds, in any court or administrative proceedings. (Emphasis supplied)

Petitioner reminds Us that:

[I]t must be borne in mind that Presidential Decree Nos. 380 and 938 were issued by one man, acting as such the Executive and Legislative. 53 xxx xxx xxx [S]ince both presidential decrees were made by the same person, it would have been very easy for him to retain the same or similar language used in P.D. No. 380 P.D. No. 938 if his intention were to preserve the indirect tax exemption of NPC. 54

Actually, P.D. No. 938 attests to the ingenuousness of then President Marcos no matter

what his fault were. It should be noted that section 13, R.A. No. 6395, provided for tax exemptions for the following items:
13(a) : court or administrative proceedings; 13(b) : income, franchise, realty taxes; 13(c) : import of foreign goods required for its operations and projects; 13(d) : petroleum products used in generation of electric power.

P.D. No. 938 lumped up 13(b), 13(c), and 13(d) into the phrase "ALL FORMS OF TAXES, ETC.,", included 13(a) under the "as well as" clause and added PNOC subsidiaries as qualified for tax exemptions. This is the only conclusion one can arrive at if he has read all the NPC laws in the order of enactment or issuance as narrated above in part I hereof. President Marcos must have considered all the NPC statutes from C.A. No. 120 up to its latest amendments, P.D. No. 380, P.D. No. 395 and P.D. No. 759, AND came up 55 with a very simple Section 13, R.A. No. 6395, as amended by P.D. No. 938. One common theme in all these laws is that the NPC must be enable to pay its indebtedness 56 which, as of P.D. No. 938, was P12 Billion in total domestic indebtedness, at any one time, and U$4 Billion in total foreign loans at any one time. The NPC must be and has to be exempt from all forms of taxes if this goal is to be achieved. By virtue of P.D. No. 938 NPC's capital stock was raised to P8 Billion. It must be

remembered that to pay the government share in its capital stock P.D. No. 758 was issued mandating that P200 Million would be appropriated annually to cover the said unpaid subscription of the Government in NPC's authorized capital stock. And significantly one of the sources of this annual appropriation of P200 million is TAX MONEY accruing to the General Fund of the Government. It does not stand to reason then that former President Marcos would order P200 Million to be taken partially or totally from tax money to be used to pay the Government subscription in the NPC, on one hand, and then order the NPC to pay all its indirect taxes, on the other. The above conclusion that then President Marcos lumped up Sections 13 (b), 13 (c) and (d) into the phrase "All FORMS OF" is supported by the fact that he did not do the same for the tax exemption provision for the foreign loans to be incurred. The tax exemption on foreign loans found in Section 8(b), R.A. No. 6395, reads as follows:
The loans, credits and indebtedness contracted under this subsection and the payment of the principal, interest and other charges thereon, as well as the importation of machinery, equipment, materials and supplies by the Corporation, paid from the proceeds of any loan, credit or indebtedness incurred under this Act, shall also be exempt from all taxes, fees, imposts, other charges and restrictions, including import restrictions, by the Republic of the Philippines, or any of its agencies and political subdivisions. 57

The same was amended by P.D. No. 380 as follows:

The loans, credits and indebtedness contracted this subsection and the payment of the

principal, interest and other charges thereon, as well as the importation of machinery, equipment, materials, supplies and services, by the Corporation, paid from the proceeds of any loan, credit or indebtedness incurred under this Act, shall also be exempt from all direct and indirect taxes, fees, imposts, other charges and restrictions, including import restrictions previously and presently imposed, and to be imposed by the Republic of the Philippines, or any of its agencies and political subdivisions. 58 (Emphasis supplied)

P.D. No. 938 did not amend the same 59 and so the tax exemption provision in Section 8 (b), R.A. No. 6395, as amended by P.D. No. 380, still stands. Since the subject matter of this particular Section 8 (b) had to do only with loans and machinery imported, paid for from the proceeds of these foreign loans, THERE WAS NO OTHER SUBJECT MATTER TO LUMP IT UP WITH, and so, the tax exemption stood as is with the express mention of "direct and indirect" tax exemptions. And this "direct and indirect" tax exemption privilege extended to "taxes, fees, imposts, other charges . . . to be imposed" in the future surely, an indication that the lawmakers wanted the NPC to be exempt from ALL FORMS of taxes direct and indirect. It is crystal clear, therefore, that NPC had been granted tax exemption privileges for both direct and indirect taxes under P.D. No. 938. VI Five (5) years on into the now discredited New Society, the Government decided to rationalize government receipts and expenditures by formulating and implementing a

National Budget. 60 The NPC, being a government owned and controlled corporation had to be shed off its tax exemption status privileges under P.D. No. 1177. It was, however, allowed to ask for a subsidy from the General Fund in the exact amount of taxes/duties due. Actually, much earlier, P.D. No. 882 had already repealed NPC's tax-free importation privileges. It allowed, however, NPC to appeal said repeal with the Office of the President and to avail of tax-free importation privileges under its Section 1, subject to the prior approval of an Inter-Agency Committed created by virtue of said P.D. No. 882. It is presumed that the NPC, being the special creation of the State, was allowed to continue its tax-free importations. This Court notes that petitioner brought to the attention of this Court, the matter of the abolition of NPC's tax exemption privileges by P.D. No. 1177 61 only in his Common Reply/Comment to private Respondents' "Opposition" and "Comment" to Motion for Reconsideration, four (4) months AFTER the motion for Reconsideration had been filed. During oral arguments heard on July 9, 1992, he proceeded to discuss this tax exemption withdrawal as explained by then Secretary of Justice Vicente Abad Santos in opinion No. 133 (S '77). 62 A careful perusal of petitioner's senate Blue Ribbon Committee Report No. 474, the basis of the petition at bar, fails to yield any mention of said P.D. No. 1177's effect on NPC's tax exemption privileges. 63 Applying by analogy Pulido vs. Pablo, 64 the court declares that the matter of P.D. No. 1177 abolishing NPC's tax exemption privileges was

not seasonably invoked 65 by the petitioner. Be that as it may, the Court still has to discuss the effect of P.D. No. 1177 on the NPC tax exemption privileges as this statute has been reiterated twice in P.D. No. 1931. The express repeal of tax privileges of any government-owned or controlled corporation (GOCC). NPC included, was reiterated in the fourth whereas clause of P.D. No. 1931's preamble. The subsidy provided for in Section 23, P.D. No. 1177, being inconsistent with Section 2, P.D. No. 1931, was deemed repealed as the Fiscal Incentives Revenue Board was tasked with recommending the partial or total restoration of tax exemptions withdrawn by Section 1, P.D. No. 1931. The records before Us do not indicate whether or not NPC asked for the subsidy contemplated in Section 23, P.D. No. 1177. Considering, however, that under Section 16 of P.D. No. 1177, NPC had to submit to the Office of the President its request for the P200 million mandated by P.D. No. 758 to be appropriated annually by the Government to cover its unpaid subscription to the NPC authorized capital stock and that under Section 22, of the same P.D. No. NPC had to likewise submit to the Office of the President its internal operating budget for review due to capital inputs of the government (P.D. No. 758) and to the national government's guarantee of the domestic and foreign indebtedness of the NPC, it is clear that NPC was covered by P.D. No. 1177. There is reason to believe that NPC availed of subsidy granted to exempt GOCC's that suddenly found themselves having to pay taxes. It will be noted that Section 23, P.D. No.

1177, mandated that the Secretary of Finance and the Commissioner of the Budget had to establish the necessary procedure to accomplish the tax payment/tax subsidy scheme of the Government. In effect, NPC, did not put any cash to pay any tax as it got from the General Fund the amounts necessary to pay different revenue collectors for the taxes it had to pay. In his memorandum filed July 16, 1992, petitioner submits:
[T]hat with the enactment of P.D. No. 1177 on July 30, 1977, the NPC lost all its duty and tax exemptions, whether direct or indirect. And so there was nothing to be withdrawn or to be restored under P.D. No. 1931, issued on June 11, 1984. This is evident from sections 1 and 2 of said P.D. No. 1931, which reads: "Section 1. The provisions of special or general law to the contrary notwithstanding, all exemptions from the payment of duties, taxes, fees, imports and other charges heretofore granted in favor of government-owned or controlled corporations including their subsidiaries are hereby withdrawn." Sec. 2. The President of the Philippines and/or the Minister of Finance, upon the recommendation of the Fiscal Incentives Review Board created under P.D. No. 776, is hereby empowered to restore partially or totally, the exemptions withdrawn by section 1 above. . . . Hence, P.D. No. 1931 did not have any effect or did it change NPC's status. Since it had already lost all its tax exemptions privilege with the issuance of P.D. No. 1177 seven (7) years earlier or on July 30, 1977, there were no tax exemptions to be withdrawn by section 1 which could later be restored by the Minister of Finance upon the recommendation of the

FIRB under Section 2 of P.D. No. 1931. Consequently, FIRB resolutions No. 10-85, and 1-86, were all illegally and validly issued since FIRB acted beyond their statutory authority by creating and not merely restoring the tax exempt status of NPC. The same is true for FIRB Res. No. 17-87 which restored NPC's tax exemption under E.O. No. 93 which likewise abolished all duties and tax exemptions but allowed the President upon recommendation of the FIRB to restore those abolished.

The Court disagrees. Applying by analogy the weight of authority that:

When a revised and consolidated act re-enacts in the same or substantially the same terms the provisions of the act or acts so revised and consolidated, the revision and consolidation shall be taken to be a continuation of the former act or acts, although the former act or acts may be expressly repealed by the revised and consolidated act; and all rights and liabilities under the former act or acts are preserved and may be enforced. 66

the Court rules that when P.D. No. 1931 basically reenacted in its Section 1 the first half of Section 23, P.D. No. 1177, on withdrawal of tax exemption privileges of all GOCC's said Section 1, P.D. No. 1931 was deemed to be a continuation of the first half of Section 23, P.D. No. 1177, although the second half of Section 23, P.D. No. 177, on the subsidy scheme for former tax exempt GOCCs had been expressly repealed by Section 2 with its institution of the FIRB recommendation of partial/total restoration of tax exemption privileges. The NPC tax privileges withdrawn by Section 1. P.D. No. 1931, were, therefore, the same NPC tax exemption privileges withdrawn by Section 23, P.D. No. 1177. NPC could no

longer obtain a subsidy for the taxes it had to pay. It could, however, under P.D. No. 1931, ask for a total restoration of its tax exemption privileges, which, it did, and the same were granted under FIRB Resolutions Nos. 10-85 67 and 1-86 68 as approved by the Minister of Finance. Consequently, contrary to petitioner's submission, FIRB Resolutions Nos. 10-85 and 1-86 were both legally and validly issued by the FIRB pursuant to P.D. No. 1931. FIRB did not created NPC's tax exemption status but merely restored it. 69 Some quarters have expressed the view that P.D. No. 1931 was illegally issued under the now rather infamous Amendment No. 6 70 as there was no showing that President Marcos' encroachment on legislative prerogatives was justified under the then prevailing condition that he could legislate "only if the Batasang Pambansa 'failed or was unable to act inadequately on any matter that in his judgment required immediate action' to meet the 'exigency'. 71 Actually under said Amendment No. 6, then President Marcos could issue decrees not only when the Interim Batasang Pambansa failed or was unable to act adequately on any matter for any reason that in his (Marcos') judgment required immediate action, but also when there existed a grave emergency or a threat or thereof. It must be remembered that said Presidential Decree was issued only around nine (9) months after the Philippines unilaterally declared a moratorium on its foreign debt payments 72 as a result of the

economic crisis triggered by loss of confidence in the government brought about by the Aquino assassination. The Philippines was then trying to reschedule its debt payments. 73 One of the big borrowers was the NPC 74 which had a US$ 2.1 billion white elephant of a Bataan Nuclear Power Plant on its back. 75 From all indications, it must have been this grave emergency of a debt rescheduling which compelled Marcos to issue P.D. No. 1931, under his Amendment 6 power. 76 The rule, therefore, that under the 1973 Constitution "no law granting a tax exemption shall be passed without the concurrence of a majority of all the members of the Batasang Pambansa" 77 does not apply as said P.D. No. 1931 was not passed by the Interim Batasang Pambansa but by then President Marcos under His Amendment No. 6 power. P.D. No. 1931 was, therefore, validly issued by then President Marcos under his Amendment No. 6 authority. Under E.O No. 93 (S'86) NPC's tax exemption privileges were again clipped by, this time, President Aquino. Its section 2 allowed the NPC to apply for the restoration of its tax exemption privileges. The same was granted under FIRB Resolution No. 17-87 78 dated June 24, 1987 which restored NPC's tax exemption privileges effective, starting March 10, 1987, the date of effectivity of E.O. No. 93 (S'86). FIRB Resolution No. 17-87 was approved by the President on October 5, 1987. 79 There is

no indication, however, from the records of the case whether or not similar approvals were given by then President Marcos for FIRB Resolutions Nos. 10-85 and 1- 86. This has led some quarters to believe that a "travesty of justice" might have occurred when the Minister of Finance approved his own recommendation as Chairman of the Fiscal Incentives Review Board as what happened in Zambales Chromate vs. Court of Appeals 80 when the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources approved a decision earlier rendered by him when he was the Director of Mines, 81 and in Anzaldo vs. Clave 82 where Presidential Executive Assistant Clave affirmed, on appeal to Malacaang, his own decision as Chairman of the Civil Service Commission. 83 Upon deeper analysis, the question arises as to whether one can talk about "due process" being violated when FIRB Resolutions Nos. 10-85 and 1-86 were approved by the Minister of Finance when the same were recommended by him in his capacity as Chairman of the Fiscal Incentives Review Board. 84 In Zambales Chromite and Anzaldo, two (2) different parties were involved: mining groups and scientist-doctors, respectively. Thus, there was a need for procedural due process to be followed. In the case of the tax exemption restoration of NPC, there is no other comparable entity not even a single public or private corporation whose rights would be violated if NPC's tax exemption privileges were to be restored. While there might have been a MERALCO

before Martial Law, it is of public knowledge that the MERALCO generating plants were sold to the NPC in line with the State policy that NPC was to be the State implementing arm for the electrification of the entire country. Besides, MERALCO was limited to Manila and its environs. And as of 1984, there was no more MERALCO as a producer of electricity which could have objected to the restoration of NPC's tax exemption privileges. It should be noted that NPC was not asking to be granted tax exemption privileges for the first time. It was just asking that its tax exemption privileges be restored. It is for these reasons that, at least in NPC's case, the recommendation and approval of NPC's tax exemption privileges under FIRB Resolution Nos. 10-85 and 1-86, done by the same person acting in his dual capacities as Chairman of the Fiscal Incentives Review Board and Minister of Finance, respectively, do not violate procedural due process. While as above-mentioned, FIRB Resolution No. 17-87 was approved by President Aquino on October 5, 1987, the view has been expressed that President Aquino, at least with regard to E.O. 93 (S'86), had no authority to sub-delegate to the FIRB, which was allegedly not a delegate of the legislature, the power delegated to her thereunder. A misconception must be cleared up. When E.O No. 93 (S'86) was issued, President Aquino was exercising both Executive and Legislative powers. Thus, there was no power delegated to her, rather it was she who was delegating her power. She delegated it to the FIRB, which, for purposes of E.O No. 93 (S'86), is a delegate of the legislature. Clearly, she was not sub-delegating her power.

And E.O. No. 93 (S'86), as a delegating law, was complete in itself it set forth the policy to be carried out 85 and it fixed the standard to which the delegate had to conform in the performance of his functions, 86 both qualities having been enunciated by this Court in Pelaez vs. Auditor General. 87 Thus, after all has been said, it is clear that the NPC had its tax exemption privileges restored from June 11, 1984 up to the present. VII The next question that projects itself is who pays the tax? The answer to the question could be gleamed from the manner by which the Commissaries of the Armed Forces of the Philippines sell their goods. By virtue of P.D. No. 83, 88 veterans, members of the Armed of the Philippines, and their defendants but groceries and other goods free of all taxes and duties if bought from any AFP Commissaries. In practice, the AFP Commissary suppliers probably treat the unchargeable specific, ad valorem and other taxes on the goods earmarked for AFP Commissaries as an added cost of operation and distribute it over the total units of goods sold as it would any other cost. Thus, even the ordinary supermarket buyer probably pays for the specific, ad valorem and other taxes which theses suppliers do not charge the AFP Commissaries. 89

IN MUCH THE SAME MANNER, it is clear that private respondents-oil companies have to absorb the taxes they add to the bunker fuel oil they sell to NPC. It should be stated at this juncture that, as early as May 14, 1954, the Secretary of Justice renders an opinion, 90 wherein he stated and We quote:
xxx xxx xxx Republic Act No. 358 exempts the National Power Corporation from "all taxes, duties, fees, imposts, charges, and restrictions of the Republic of the Philippines and its provinces, cities, and municipalities." This exemption is broad enough to include all taxes, whether direct or indirect, which the National Power Corporation may be required to pay, such as the specific tax on petroleum products. That it is indirect or is of no amount [should be of no moment], for it is the corporation that ultimately pays it. The view which refuses to accord the exemption because the tax is first paid by the seller disregards realities and gives more importance to form than to substance. Equity and law always exalt substance over from. xxx xxx xxx Tax exemptions are undoubtedly to be construed strictly but not so grudgingly as knowledge that many impositions taxpayers have to pay are in the nature of indirect taxes. To limit the exemption granted the National Power Corporation to direct taxes notwithstanding the general and broad language of the statue will be to thwrat the legislative intention in giving exemption from all forms of taxes and impositions without distinguishing between those that are direct and those that are not. (Emphasis supplied)

In view of all the foregoing, the Court rules and declares that the oil companies which

supply bunker fuel oil to NPC have to pay the taxes imposed upon said bunker fuel oil sold to NPC. By the very nature of indirect taxation, the economic burden of such taxation is expected to be passed on through the channels of commerce to the user or consumer of the goods sold. Because, however, the NPC has been exempted from both direct and indirect taxation, the NPC must beheld exempted from absorbing the economic burden of indirect taxation. This means, on the one hand, that the oil companies which wish to sell to NPC absorb all or part of the economic burden of the taxes previously paid to BIR, which could they shift to NPC if NPC did not enjoy exemption from indirect taxes. This means also, on the other hand, that the NPC may refuse to pay the part of the "normal" purchase price of bunker fuel oil which represents all or part of the taxes previously paid by the oil companies to BIR. If NPC nonetheless purchases such oil from the oil companies because to do so may be more convenient and ultimately less costly for NPC than NPC itself importing and hauling and storing the oil from overseas NPC is entitled to be reimbursed by the BIR for that part of the buying price of NPC which verifiably represents the tax already paid by the oil company-vendor to the BIR. It should be noted at this point in time that the whole issue of who WILL pay these indirect taxes HAS BEEN RENDERED moot and academic by E.O. No. 195 issued on June 16, 1987 by virtue of which the ad valorem tax rate on bunker fuel oil was reduced to ZERO (0%) PER CENTUM. Said E.O. no. 195 reads as follows:
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 195 AMENDING PARAGRAPH (b) OF SECTION 128 OF THE NATIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE

CODE, AS AMENDED BY REVISING THE EXCISE TAX RATES OF CERTAIN PETROLEUM PRODUCTS. xxx xxx xxx Sec. 1. Paragraph (b) of Section 128 of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows: Par. (b) For products subject to ad valorem tax only: PRODUCT AD VALOREM TAX RATE 1. . . . 2. . . . 3. . . . 4. Fuel oil, commercially known as bunker oil and on similar fuel oils having more or less the same generating power 0% xxx xxx xxx Sec. 3. This Executive Order shall take effect immediately. Done in the city of Manila, this 17th day of June, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and eighty-seven. (Emphasis supplied)

The oil companies can now deliver bunker fuel oil to NPC without having to worry about who is going to bear the economic burden of the ad valorem taxes. What this Court will now dispose of are petitioner's complaints that some indirect tax money has been illegally refunded by the Bureau of Internal Revenue to the NPC and that more claims for refunds by

the NPC are being processed for payment by the BIR. A case in point is the Tax Credit Memo issued by the Bureau of Internal Revenue in favor of the NPC last July 7, 1986 for P58.020.110.79 which were for "erroneously paid specific and ad valorem taxes during the period from October 31, 1984 to April 27, 1985. 91 Petitioner asks Us to declare this Tax Credit Memo illegal as the PNC did not have indirect tax exemptions with the enactment of P.D. No. 938. As We have already ruled otherwise, the only questions left are whether NPC Is entitled to a tax refund for the tax component of the price of the bunker fuel oil purchased from Caltex (Phils.) Inc. and whether the Bureau of Internal Revenue properly refunded the amount to NPC. After P.D. No. 1931 was issued on June 11, 1984 withdrawing the tax exemptions of all GOCCs NPC included, it was only on May 8, 1985 when the BIR issues its letter authority to the NPC authorizing it to withdraw tax-free bunker fuel oil from the oil companies pursuant to FIRB Resolution No. 10-85. 92 Since the tax exemption restoration was retroactive to June 11, 1984 there was a need. therefore, to recover said amount as Caltex (PhiIs.) Inc. had already paid the BIR the specific and ad valorem taxes on the bunker oil it sold NPC during the period above indicated and had billed NPC correspondingly. 93 It should be noted that the NPC, in its letter-claim dated September 11, 1985 to the Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue DID NOT CATEGORICALLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY STATE that itself paid the P58.020,110.79 as part of the bunker fuel oil price it purchased from Caltex (Phils) Inc. 94

The law governing recovery of erroneously or illegally, collected taxes is section 230 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1977, as amended which reads as follows:
Sec. 230. Recover of tax erroneously or illegally collected. No suit or proceeding shall be maintained in any court for the recovery of any national internal revenue tax hereafter alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or of any penalty claimed to have been collected without authority, or of any sum alleged to have been excessive or in any Manner wrongfully collected. until a claim for refund or credit has been duly filed with the Commissioner; but such suit or proceeding may be maintained, whether or not such tax, penalty, or sum has been paid under protest or duress. In any case, no such suit or proceeding shall be begun after the expiration of two years from the date of payment of the tax or penalty regardless of any supervening cause that may arise after payment; Provided, however, That the Commissioner may, even without a written claim therefor, refund or credit any tax, where on the face of the return upon which payment was made, such payment appears clearly, to have been erroneously paid. xxx xxx xxx

Inasmuch as NPC filled its claim for P58.020,110.79 on September 11, 1985, 95 the Commissioner correctly issued the Tax Credit Memo in view of NPC's indirect tax exemption. Petitioner, however, asks Us to restrain the Commissioner from acting favorably on NPC's claim for P410.580,000.00 which represents specific and ad valorem taxes paid by the oil companies to the BIR from June 11, 1984 to the early part of 1986. 96

A careful examination of petitioner's pleadings and annexes attached thereto does not reveal when the alleged claim for a P410,580,000.00 tax refund was filed. It is only stated In paragraph No. 2 of the Deed of Assignment 97 executed by and between NPC and Caltex (Phils.) Inc., as follows:
That the ASSIGNOR(NPC) has a pending tax credit claim with the Bureau of Internal Revenue amounting to P442,887,716.16. P58.020,110.79 of which is due to Assignor's oil purchases from the Assignee (Caltex [Phils.] Inc.)

Actually, as the Court sees it, this is a clear case of a "Mexican standoff." We cannot restrain the BIR from refunding said amount because of Our ruling that NPC has both direct and indirect tax exemption privileges. Neither can We order the BIR to refund said amount to NPC as there is no pending petition for review on certiorari of a suit for its collection before Us. At any rate, at this point in time, NPC can no longer file any suit to collect said amount EVEN IF lt has previously filed a claim with the BIR because it is time-barred under Section 230 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1977. as amended, which states:
In any case, no such suit or proceeding shall be begun after the expiration of two years from the date of payment of the tax or penalty REGARDLESS of any supervening cause that may arise after payment. . . . (Emphasis supplied)

The date of the Deed of Assignment is June 6. 1986. Even if We were to assume that payment by NPC for the amount of P410,580,000.00 had been made on said date. it is clear that more than two (2) years had already elapsed from said date. At the same time, We should note that there is no legal obstacle to the BIR granting, even without a suit by

NPC, the tax credit or refund claimed by NPC, assuming that NPC's claim had been made seasonably, and assuming the amounts covered had actually been paid previously by the oil companies to the BIR. WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Motion for Reconsideration of petitioner is hereby DENIED for lack of merit and the decision of this Court promulgated on May 31, 1991 is hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.

Footnotes
1 Penned by Justice Gancayo, concurred in by Justices Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Feliciano, Bidin, Medialdea, and Regalado; separate dissenting opinions by Justices Cruz, Paras, and Sarmiento, with justices Grio-Aquino and Davide joining in the dissent of Justice Sarmiento while Justice Gutierrez joined in the dissents. Chief Justice Gutierrez joined in the dissents. Chief Justice Fernan and Justice Padilla took no part. 2 Com. Act No. 120, secs. 1, & 2 (g). 3 Com. Act No. 120, sec. 11. 4 Com. Act No. 120, sec. 2(k). 5 Com. Act No. 120, sec. 4, par. 3.

6 Com. Act No. 344, sec. 1. 7 Com. Act No. 495, sec. 1. 8 Rep. Act No. 357, sec. 3. 9 Rep. Act No. 357, sec. 1. 10 Rep. Act No. 357, sec. 2. 11 Rep. Act No. 357, sec. 8. 12 Rep. Act No. 358, sec. 1. 13 Rep. Act No. 358, sec. 2. 14 Rep. Act No. 813, sec. 1. 15 Rep. Act No. 987, sec. 2. 16 Increased to P500,000,000.00 from P170,500,000.00 in Rep. Act No. 358 (Rep. Act No. 1397, sec. 1). 17 Rep Act No. 2055, secs. 1 and 2. 18 Rep Act No. 2058, sec. 1. 19 Rep Act No. 2058, sec. 2. 20 Rep Act No. 2641, sec. 1. 21 Rep Act No. 3043, sec. 1. 22 Rep Act No. 4897, sec. 1.

23 Rep Act No. 6395, sec. 2. 24 Rep Act No. 6395, sec. 8(a). 25 Rep Act No. 6395, sec. 8(b). 26 Rep Act No. 6395, sec. 13. 27 Pres. Dec. No. 40, par. 2. 28 Pres. Dec. No. 40, par. 5. 29 Pres. Dec. No. 380, sec. 5. 30 Pres. Dec. No. 380, sec. 8. 31 Pres. Dec. No. 380, sec. 9, par. 1. 32 Pres. Dec. No. 380, sec. 9, par. 4. 33 Pres. Dec. No. 380, sec. 10. 34 Pres. Dec. No. 395, par. 1. 35 Pres. Dec. No. 758, sec. 1. 36 Pres. Dec. No. 938, 1st Whereas clause. 37 Pres. Dec. No. 938, 4th Whereas clause. 38 Pres. Dec. No. 938, 6th Whereas clause. 39 Pres. Dec. No. 938, sec. 5. 40 Pres. Dec. No. 938, sec. 6.

41 Pres. Dec. No. 938, sec. 8. 42 Pres. Dec. No. 938, sec. 10. 43 Pres. Dec. No. 1177, sec. 4. 44 Pres. Dec. No. 1177, sec. 23. 45 Pres. Dec. No. 1177, sec. 90. 46 Pres. Dec. No. 1931, Fourth Whereas clause. 47 Pres. Dec. No. 1931, Fifth Whereas clause. 48 Exec. Order No. 93 (S'86). sec. 6. 49 Exec. Order No. 93, sec. 4. 50 Rule V, Rules and Regulations to Implement Exec. Order No. 93. 51 83 O.G. 8, pp. 722-725. 52 PARAS, TAXATION FUNDAMENTALS, 24-25 (1966) 53 Rollo, p. 687; Motion for Reconsideration, p. 12. 54 Rollo, p. 688; Motion for Reconsideration, p. 13. 55 "Statutes are considered to be in pari materia to pertain to the same subject matter when they relate to the same person or thing, or to the same class of persons of things, or have the same purpose or object. They may be independent or amendatory in form; they may be complete enactments dealing with a single, limited subject matter or sections of code or revision; or they may be combination of these. (2 Sutherland Statutory Construction, 2nd Ed.,

sec. 5202, p. 535) xxx xxx xxx Statutes in pari materia, although some may be special and some general, in the event one of them is ambiguous or uncertain, are to be construed together, even if the various statutes have not been enacted simultaneously, and do not refer to each other expressly, and although some of them have been repealed or have expired, or held unconstitutional, or invalid. (Crawford, Statutory Construction, sec. 231, p. 431.) xxx xxx xxx The reasons which support this rule are twofold. In the first place, all the enactments of the same legislature on the general subject-matter are to be regarded as parts of one uniform system. Later statutes are considered as supplementary or complementary to the earlier enactments. In the passage of each act, the legislative body must be supposed to have had in mind and in contemplation the existing legislation on the same subject, and to have shaped its new enactment with reference thereto. Secondly, the rule derives support from the principle which requires the interpretation of a statute shall be such, if possible, as to avoid any repugnancy or inconsistency between different enactments of the same legislature. To achieve this result, it is necessary to consider all previous acts relating to the same matters, and to construe the act in hand so as to avoid, as far as it may be possible, any conflict between them. Hence for example, when the legislature has used a word in a statute in one sense and with one meaning, and subsequently uses the same word in legislating on the same subject matter, it will be understood as using the word in the same sense, unless there is something in the context or in the nature of things to indicate that it intended a different meaning thereby. (Black on Interpretation of Laws, 2nd Ed., pp. 232-234) FRANCISCO,

STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION, 287-288 (1986). 56 The NPC is the implementing arm of the State in its policy of electrification of the entire country. Its authorized capital stock and total local and foreign debt ceiling have, therefore, been regularly raised to provide NPC with massive fund flows to achieve said policy. 57 Rep. Act No. 6395. sec. 8 (b), par. 5. 58 Rep. Act No. 6395, sec. 8 (b), par. 5. was deleted and paragraph 5, sec. 8(b) became paragraph 4, Section 8(b), as amended by Pres. Dec. 380. 59 "Sec. 8. The first paragraph of Section 8(b) of the same Act is hereby further amended and a new paragraph shall be inserted between the third and fourth paragraph of said section which shall both read as follows: . . .." 60 See Pres. Dec. No. 1177, sec. 4. 61 Rollo, p. 783. 62 T.S.N., July 9, 1992, pp. 19-21. 63 Rollo, pp. 53-119. In the report submitted to the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, the discussion centered on NPC's tax exemption privileges being abolished by Pres. Dec. No. 1931 in paragraphs 11, 37, 81, 83.1 and F.1 Pres. Dec. No. 1177 was mentioned in paragraph C(2) in the Recommendation portion but only by way of its state policy being made a model for a future bill to be filled by the Senators involved in the investigation. 64 117 SCRA 16 (1980). 65 In this case, Judge Magno Pulido of then CFI of Alaminos, Pangasinan, Branch XIII, promulgated a decision on May 17, 1974 in Criminal Case No. 266-A entitled "People vs.

Bantolino." Bantolino filed a complaint against the judge charging him with ignorance of the law because his sentence was "with subsidiary imprisonment." The case dismissed after respondent judge therein state that he had corrected "with" to "without" but Bantolino's lawyer, Atty. Pulido, refused to return his (Atty. Pulido) copy for a corrected copy. Later, Atty. Pulido filed another charge against Judge Pablo, this time, for falsifying a Court of Appeals' decision (re Bantolino's appeal with the Com. Act No.) and minutes of court hearings as well as insertions in the record of a false commitment order. Respondent judge pleaded, among others, res adjudicata. The Court made a distinction between the two administrative complaints and concluded that there was no res adjudicata. On the procedural aspect involved, the Court stated: "Furthermore, the defense of res adjudicata was not seasonably invoked. "It may be noted that respondent Judge initially raised the defense of res adjudicata only in the motion for reconsideration dated November 8, 1981. Atty. Pulido filed this complaint on April 6, 1978. Respondent failed to set up the defense of res adjudicata when he filed his comment dated June 19, 1974 in compliance with the first indorsement dated June 3, 1974 of the then Assistant to the Judicial Consultant, now Deputy Court Administrator Arturo B. Buena. Such failure to interpose the defense of res adjudicata at the earliest opportunity is fatal as it deemed waived." 66 73 Am Jur 2d 518, sec. 410, citing United States v. Grainger 346 US 235, 97 L Ed 1575, 73 S Ct 1069; State v Bean 159 Me 455, 195 A2d 68; States v. Holland, 202 Or 656, 277 P2d 386. For example, State vs. Bean was an action by the State ton recover for goods and services

rendered an inmate of a state hospital. The defendant was committed to the Augusta State Hospital on September 21, 1949 by order of court after he had been found not guilty of the commission of a crime by reason of insanity. The defendant was confined when the prevailing laws were R.S. Ch. 27, Sec. 121 which provided that the person so committed shall be there supported at his own expense, if he has sufficient means; otherwise at the expense of the State,' and R.S. Ch. 27 Sec. 139 which provided that "The state may recover from the insane, if able, or from persons legally liable for his support, the reasonable expenses of his support in either insane hospital.' R.S. Ch. 27, Sec 121, was expressly repealed by P.L. 1961, Ch. 304, Sec 17 while R.S. Ch. 27, Sec. 139 was expressly repealed by P.L. 1961, Ch. 304, Sec. 26. However, by P.L. 1961, Ch. 304, Secs. 4 and 5, the legislature simultaneously enacted amendments which in the case of Sec. 4 thereof charged the Department of Mental Health and Corrections with the duty of determining the ability of the patient to pay for his support and of establishing rates and fees therefor, and in the case of sec. 5, it provided that "such fees charges shall be a debt of the patient or any person legally liable for his support." It was only on January 20,1960 that the hospital billed the defendant for his stay from September 21, 1949 in the amount of $6651.72. Plaintiff filed on October 26, 1962 a case to recover said amount. Defendant disclaimed liability by arguing that the enactment of P.L. 1961, Ch. 304 was to terminate his liability for board and care furnished prior to its enactment. The State of Maine's Supreme Judicial Court rebuffed the defendant and held that: "[I]n the instant case P.L. 1961, Ch. 304 was intended to be a revision and condensation of the statutes relating to the Department of Mental Health and Corrections by which the

substance of the right of the State of Maine to reimbursement for care and support from the criminally insane in accordance with "means" or "ability" to pay remained undisturbed. We are satisfied that it was the intention of the Legislature that there should be no moment when the right to such reimbursement did not exist. We think, the governing principle was well stated in 50 Am. Jur. 559, Sec. 555; "It is a general rule of law that where a statute is repealed and all or some of its provisions are not the same time re-enacted, the re-enactment is considered a reaffirmance of the old law, and a neutralization of the repeal, so that the provisions of the repealed act which are thus re-enacted continue in force without interruption, and all rights and liabilities incurred thereunder are preserved and may be enforced. Similarly, the rule of construction applicable to acts which revise and consolidate other acts is, that when the revised and consolidated act re-enacts in the same or substantially the same terms the provisions of the act or acts so revised and consolidated, the revision and consolidation shall be taken to be a continuation of the former act or acts, although the former act or acts may be expressly repealed by the revised and consolidated act; and all rights and liabilities under the former act or acts are preserved and may be enforced." (State vs. Bean, 195 A2d 68, 71, 72; Emphasis supplied) 67 BE IT RESOLVED, AS IT HEREBY RESOLVED, That: 1. Effective June 11, 1984, the tax and duty exemption privileges enjoyed by the National Power Corporation under Com. Act No. No. 120 as amended are restored up to June 30, 1985. 2. Provided, That this restoration does not apply to the following: a. importations of fuel oil (crude equivalent) and coal as per FIRB Resolutions No. 1-84;

b. commercially-funded importations; and c. interest income derived from any investment source. 3. Provided further, That in the case of importations funded by international financing agreements, the NPC is hereby required to furnish the FIRB on a periodic basis the particulars of items received or to be received through such arrangements, for purposes of tax and duty exemption privileges. (SGD.) ALFREDO PIO DE RODA, JR. Acting Minister of Finance Acting Chairman, FIRB SUBJECT: National Power Corporation (NPC)" 68 BE IT RESOLVED, AS IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED: That 1. Effective July 1, 1985, the tax and duty exemption privileges enjoyed by the National Power Corporation (NPC) under Commonwealth Act No. 120, as amended, are restored; Provided, That importations of fuel oil (crude oil equivalent) and coal of the herein grantee shall be subject to the basic and additional imports duties; Provided, further, That the following shall remain fully taxable: a. Commercially funded importations; and b. Interest income derived by said grantee from bank deposits and yield or any other monetary benefits from deposits substitutes, trust funds and other similar arrangements. 2. The NPC as a government corporation is exempt from the real property tax on land and

improvements owned by it provided that the beneficial use of the property is not transferred to another pursuant to the provisions of Sec. 10(a) of the Real Property Tax Code, as amended. (SGD.) CESAR E.A. VIRATA Minister of Finance Chairman, FIRB SUBJECT: National Power Corporation." 69 Note should be taken that FIRB Resolution No. 10-85 covered the period from June 11, 1984 up to June 30, 1985 while FIRB Resolution No. 1-86 covered the period from July 1, 1985 up to March 10, 1987. 70 "Whenever in the judgment of the President, there exists a grave emergency or a threat or imminence thereof, or whenever the interim Batasang Pambansa or the regular National Assembly fails or is unable to act adequately on any matter for any reason that in his judgment requires immediate action, he may in order to meet the exigency, issued the necessary decrees, orders, or letters of instruction, which shall form part of the law of the land." 71 Rollo, p. 652. 72 "The Philippines and International Monetary Fund (IMF) have failed in talks here to finalize an agreement on a $630 million standby credit badly needed by the Philippines, informed sources close to the talks told Reuters yesterday. xxx xxx xxx "Talks on the credit began in October when the Philippines declared a moratorium on

repayments on its $26-billion foreign debt and asked creditor banks to reschedule some of the debt." (Times Journal, June 21, 1984) 73 The Philippines will not default in the payment of its $25-billion foreign debt because it could be branded as an outlaw in the international community, President Marcos said yesterday." (Times Journal, June 18, 1984) 74 WASHINGTON, D.C. The Philippines and a consortium of international banks have signed in New York an agreement restructuring $2.9 billion in maturing short and medium terms loans of the Central Bank and six other government corporations. "The amount restructed represents 90 percent of the public sector loans to be restructured with international banks. Included in the restructuring were the loans of the Philippine National Bank (PNB), National Investment Development Corp. (NIDC), Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP), Philippine National Oil Corp. (PNOC), National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR) and Philippine Airlines (PAL)." (Express, January 12, 1986) 75 "The $2.1-billion BNPP, nestled on a plateau hugging the South China Sea, is planned to generate 620 megawatts for the Luzon grid. The 'people power' revolt in 1986, however, toppled the plant's proponent, then President Marcos, from power. "So many technical defects were said to have been discovered in the plant, and this "most prodigious" project of the government-owned National Power Corp. was mothballed and has remained so up to the present. It is a "white elephant" and the country continues to pay a huge interests to its builder, Westinghouse, every month." (Manila Bulletin, July 15, 1992) 76 President Marcos issued for decrees yesterday, among them Decree No. 1934 (should be

1939 amending Rep. Act No. 4850 (should be Rep. Act No. 4850 (should be Rep. Act. No. 4860) to allow an increase in the ceiling on direct foreign borrowings of the government from $5 billion to $10 billion. "It would allow him to exclude specific categories of external debt from the debt service limitation whenever necessary in connection with the general rescheduling or refinancing of foreign credits. "The decree also increases the ceiling on the government's guarantee from the present $2.5 billion to $7.5 billion. "It authorizes the government's guarantee of external debts of government corporations. "He also issued: 1. Decree No. 1932 (should be No. 1937) amending the Central Bank Charter to allow it greater flexibility in administering the monetary, banking and credit system and to give a policy direction in the areas of money, banking and credit. 2. Decree No 1933 (should be no. 1938) clothing the government with expanded authority to guarantee foreign loans of the Central Bank. 3. Decree no. 1936 (should be No. 1939) authorizing the Credit Information Bureau, to secure credit information on individuals and institutions in the possession of government and private entities. (Manila Bulletin, June 29, 1984) 77 "Section 17(4), Article VIII, 1973 Constitution. 78 "BE IT RESOLVED, AS IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, That the tax and duty exemption

privileges of the National Power Corporation, including those pertaining to its domestic purchases of petroleum and petroleum products, granted under the terms and conditions of Commonwealth Act No. 120 (Creating the National Power Corporation, defining its powers, objectives and functions, and for other purposes), as amended, are restored effective March 10, 1987, subject to the following conditions: 1. The restoration of the tax and duty exemption privileges does not apply to the following: 1.1. Importations of fuel oil (crude equivalent) and coal; 1.2. Commercially-funded importations (i.e., importations which include but are not limited to those financed by the NPC's own internal funds, domestic borrowings from any source whatsoever, borrowings from foreign-based private financial institutions, etc.); and 1.3. Interest income derived from any source. 2. The NPC shall submit to the FIRB a report of its expansion of relieved program, including details of disposition of relieved tax and duty payments for such expansion on an annual basis or as often as the FIRB may require it to do so. This report shall be in addition to the usual FIRB reporting requirements on incentive availment. (SGD.) ALFREDO PIO DE RODA, JR. Acting Secretary of Finance Chairman, FIRB" 79 Rollo, p. 233; Annex "M" of the Petition. 80 94 SCRA 261 (1974).

81 In order that the review of the decision of a subordinate officer might not turn out to be a farce, the reviewing officer must perforce be other than the officer whose decision is under review; otherwise, there could be no different view or there would be no real view of the case. The decision of the reviewing officer would be biased view; inevitably, it would be the same view since being human, he would not admit that he was mistaken in his first view of the case." (Ibid., p. 267) 82 119 SCRA 353 (1982). 83 "Due process of law means fundamental fairness It is not fair to Doctor Anzaldo that Presidential Executive Assistant Clave should decide whether his own recommendation as Chairman of the Civil Service Commission, as to who between Doctor Anzaldo and Doctor Venzon should be appointed Science Research Supervisor II, should be adopted by the President of the Philippines." (Ibid. p. 357). 84 "A Fiscal Incentive Review Board is hereby created for the purpose of determining what subsidies and tax exemptions should be modified, withdrawn, revoked and suspended, which shall be composed of the following officials: Chairman Secretary of Finance Members Secretary of Industry

Director General of the National

Economic and Development Authority

Commissioner of Internal Revenue Commissioner of Customs

"The Board may recommend to the President of the Philippines and for reasons of compatibility with the declared economic policy, the withdrawal, modification revocation or suspension of the enforceability of any of the above-cited statutory or tax exemption grants, except those granted by the Constitution. To attain its objectives, the Board may require the assistance of any appropriate government agency or entity. The Board shall meet once a month, or oftener at the call of Secretary of Finance." (Sec. 2, Pres. Dec. No. 776) 85 WITHDRAWING ALL TAX AND DUTY INCENTIVES, SUBJECT TO CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS, EXPANDING THE POWERS OF THE FISCAL INCENTIVES REVIEW BOARD AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES." 86 In the discharge of its authority hereunder the Fiscal Incentives Review Board shall take into account or any of the following considerations: a) the effect on relative price levels; b) relative contribution of the beneficiary to the revenue generation effort; c) nature of the activity the beneficiary is engaged; and d) in general, the greater national interest to be served." 87 15 SCRA 569 (1965). 88 "WHEREAS, pursuant to Proclamation No. 1081, dated September 21, 1972, martial law is in effect throughout the land; "WHEREAS, in order to extend further assistance to the Veterans of the Philippines in World War II, and their windows and orphans, as well as to the members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (who are now carrying the greater part of the burden of suppressing the activities

of groups of men actively engaged in a criminal conspiracy to seize political and state powers in the Philippines and of eradicating lawlessness, anarchy, disorder and wanton destruction of lives and property) and their dependents, I ordered the Philippine Veterans Bank to set aside the sum of five million pesos (P5,000,000.00) in Letter of Instruction No. 31, October 23, 1972, as amended, for the operation and maintenance of commissary and PX facilities for the aforementioned veterans, their widows and orphans, and the members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and their dependents; "WHEREAS, to better realize the objectives of the aforementioned Leter Instructions and in order to render fuller meaning to said objectives, it is necessary that certain commodities which are to be sold by the commissary from local producers, manufacturers or suppliers be free of all taxes, duties and/or charges imposed by the Government; NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers in me vested by the Constitution as Commander-in-Chief of all the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and pursuant to the Letter of Instruction cited above, do hereby promulgate and decree as part of the law of the land that all purchases from local sources, manufacturers, suppliers and producers of commodities or items decided by the AFP Exchange and Commissary Service to be sold to persons entitled to commissary and PX privileges under Letter of Instruction No. 31, dated October 23, 1972, as amended, shall be free of all taxes, duties and other charges prescribed for similar commodities or items under existing revenue and other laws and regulations. The Chief of Staff, AFP, with approval of December, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and seventy-two." (Emphasis Supplied) 89 Footnote No. 15 Philippine Acetylene Co., Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 20

SCRA 1056, at 1064: "In the long run a sales tax is probably shifted to the consumer, but during the period when supply is being adjusted to changes in demand it must be in part absorbed. In practice the business man will treat the levy as an added cost of operation and distribute it over his sales as he would any other cost, increasing by more than the amount of tax prices of goods demand for which will be least affected and leaving other prices unchanged." [47 Harv. Ld. Rev. 860, 869 (1934)]. 90 Opinion No. 106, S'54. 91 Rollo, p. 212; Petition, Annex "F". 92 Rollo, p. 124 Petition, Annex "D" of Annex "A". 93 Rollo, p. 156; Petition, Annex "N-1" of Annex "A". 94 Rollo, p. 128; Petition, Annex "G" of Annex "A". 95 Ibid. 96 Rollo, p. 12. 97 Rollo, p. 213, Petition, Annex "G".

G.R. No. 96266 July 18, 1991

ERNESTO M. MACEDA, petitioner, vs. ENERGY REGULATORY BOARD, CALTEX (Philippines), INC., PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION AND PETRON CORPORATION, respondents. G.R. No. 96349 July 18, 1991 EUGENIO O. ORIGINAL, IRENEO N. AARON, JR., RENE LEDESMA, ROLANDO VALLE, ORLANDO MONTANO, STEVE ABITANG, NERI JINON, WILFREDO DELEONIO, RENATO BORRO, RODRIGO DE VERA, ALVIN BAYUANG, JESUS MELENDEZ, NUMERIANO CAJILIG JR., RUFINO DE LA CRUZ AND JOVELINO G. TIPON, petitioners, vs. ENERGY REGULATORY BOARD, CALTEX (Philippines), INC., PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION AND PETRON CORPORATION, respondents. G.R. No. 96284 July 18,1991 CEFERINO S. PAREDES, JR., petitioner, vs. ENERGY REGULATORY BOARD, CALTEX (Philippines), INC., PILIPINAS SHELL, INC. AND PETROPHIL CORPORATION, respondents. RESOLUTION

MEDIALDEA, J.:p In G.R. No. 96266, petitioner Maceda seeks nullification of the Energy Regulatory Board (ERB) Orders dated December 5 and 6, 1990 on the ground that the hearings conducted on the second provisional increase in oil prices did not allow him substantial cross-examination, in effect, allegedly, a denial of due process. The facts of the case are as follows: Upon the outbreak of the Persian Gulf conflict on August 2, 1990, private respondents oil companies filed with the ERB their respective applications on oil price increases (docketed as ERB Case Nos. 90-106, 90-382 and 90-384, respectively). On September 21, 1990, the ERB issued an order granting a provisional increase of P1.42 per liter. Petitioner Maceda filed a petition for Prohibition on September 26, 1990 (E. Maceda v. ERB, et al., G.R. No. 95203), seeking to nullify the provisional increase. We dismissed the petition on December 18, 1990, reaffirming ERB's authority to grant provisional increase even without prior hearing, pursuant to Sec. 8 of E.O. No. 172, clarifying as follows:
What must be stressed is that while under Executive Order No. 172, a hearing is indispensable, it does not preclude the Board from ordering, ex-parte, a provisional increase, as it did here, subject to its final disposition of whether or not: (1) to make it permanent; (2) to reduce or increase it further; or (3) to deny the application. Section 3, paragraph (e) is akin to a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary attachment issued by the courts, which are given ex-parte and which are subject to the resolution of the main case.

Section 3, paragraph (e) and Section 8 do not negate each other, or otherwise, operate exclusively of the other, in that the Board may resort to one but not to both at the same time. Section 3(e) outlines the jurisdiction of the Board and the grounds for which it may decree a price adjustment, subject to the requirements of notice and hearing. Pending that, however, it may order, under Section 8, an authority to increase provisionally, without need of a hearing, subject to the final outcome of the proceeding. The Board, of course, is not prevented from conducting a hearing on the grant of provisional authority-which is of course, the better procedure however, it cannot be stigmatized later if it failed to conduct one. (pp. 129-130, Rollo) (Emphasis supplied)

In the same order of September 21, 1990, authorizing provisional increase, the ERB set the applications for hearing with due notice to all interested parties on October 16, 1990. Petitioner Maceda failed to appear at said hearing as well as on the second hearing on October 17, 1990. To afford registered oppositors the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, the ERB set the continuation of the hearing to October 24, 1990. This was postponed to November 5, 1990, on written notice of petitioner Maceda. On November 5, 1990, the three oil companies filed their respective motions for leave to file or admit amended/supplemental applications to further increase the prices of petroleum products. The ERB admitted the respective supplemental/amended petitions on November 6, 1990 at the same time requiring applicants to publish the corresponding Notices of Public Hearing in

two newspapers of general circulation (p. 4, Rollo and Annexes "F" and "G," pp. 60 and 62, Rollo). Hearing for the presentation of the evidence-in-chief commenced on November 21, 1990 with ERB ruling that testimonies of witnesses were to be in the form of Affidavits (p. 6, Rollo). ERB subsequently outlined the procedure to be observed in the reception of evidence, as follows:
CHAIRMAN FERNANDO: Well, at the last hearing, applicant Caltex presented its evidence-in-chief and there is an understanding or it is the Board's wish that for purposes of good order in the presentation of the evidence considering that these are being heard together, we will defer the crossexamination of applicant Caltex's witness and ask the other applicants to present their evidence-in-chief so that the oppositors win have a better Idea of what an of these will lead to because as I mentioned earlier, it has been traditional and it is the intention of the Board to act on these applications on an industry-wide basis, whether to accept, reject, modify or whatever, the Board win do it on an industry wide basis, so, the best way to have (sic) the oppositors and the Board a clear picture of what the applicants are asking for is to have all the evidence-in-chief to be placed on record first and then the examination will come later, the cross-examination will come later. . . . (pp. 5-6, tsn., November 23, 1990, ERB Cases Nos. 90-106, 90382 and 90-384). (p. 162, Rollo)

Petitioner Maceda maintains that this order of proof deprived him of his right to finish his cross-examination of Petron's witnesses and denied him his right to cross-examine each of the witnesses of Caltex and Shell. He points out that this relaxed procedure

resulted in the denial of due process. We disagree. The Solicitor General has pointed out:
. . . The order of testimony both with respect to the examination of the particular witness and to the general course of the trial is within the discretion of the court and the exercise of this discretion in permitting to be introduced out of the order prescribed by the rules is not improper (88 C.J.S. 206-207). Such a relaxed procedure is especially true in administrative bodies, such as the ERB which in matters of rate or price fixing is considered as exercising a quasi-legislative, not quasijudicial, function As such administrative agency, it is not bound by the strict or technical rules of evidence governing court proceedings (Sec. 29, Public Service Act; Dickenson v. United States, 346, U.S. 389, 98 L. ed. 132, 74 S. St. 152). (Emphasis supplied) In fact, Section 2, Rule I of the Rules of Practice and Procedure Governing Hearings Before the ERB provides that These Rules shall govern pleadings, practice and procedure before the Energy Regulatory Board in all matters of inquiry, study, hearing, investigation and/or any other proceedings within the jurisdiction of the Board. However, in the broader interest of justice, the Board may, in any particular matter, except itself from these rules and apply such suitable procedure as shall promote the objectives of the Order. (pp. 163-164, Rollo)

Petitioner Maceda also claims that there is no substantial evidence on record to support the provisional relief.

We have, in G.R. Nos. 95203-05, previously taken judicial notice of matters and events related to the oil industry, as follows:
. . . (1) as of June 30, 1990, the OPSF has incurred a deficit of P6.1 Billion; (2) the exchange rate has fallen to P28.00 to $1.00; (3) the country's balance of payments is expected to reach $1 Billion; (4) our trade deficit is at P2.855 Billion as of the first nine months of the year. . . . (p. 150, Rollo)

The Solicitor General likewise commented:

Among the pieces of evidence considered by ERB in the grant of the contested provisional relief were: (1) certified copies of bins of lading issued by crude oil suppliers to the private respondents; (2) reports of the Bankers Association of the Philippines on the peso-dollar exchange rate at the BAP oil pit; and (3) OPSF status reports of the Office of Energy Affairs. The ERB was likewise guided in the determination of international crude oil prices by traditional authoritative sources of information on crude oil and petroleum products, such as Platt's Oilgram and Petroleum Intelligence Weekly. (p. 158, Rollo)

Thus, We concede ERB's authority to grant the provisional increase in oil price, as We note that the Order of December 5, 1990 explicitly stated:
in the light, therefore, of the rise in crude oil importation costs, which as earlier mentioned, reached an average of $30.3318 per barrel at $25.551/US $ in September-October 1990; the huge OPSF deficit which, as reported by the Office of Energy Affairs, has amounted to P5.7 Billion (based on filed claims only and net of the P5 Billion OPSF) as of September 30, 1990, and is estimated to further increase to over P10 Billion by end December 1990; the decision

of the government to discontinue subsidizing oil prices in view of inflationary pressures; the apparent inadequacy of the proposed additional P5.1 Billion government appropriation for the OPSF and the sharp drop in the value of the peso in relation to the US dollar to P28/US $, this Board is left with no other recourse but to grant applicants oil companies further relief by increasing the prices of petroleum products sold by them. (p. 161, Rollo)

Petitioner Maceda together with petitioner Original (G.R. No. 96349) also claim that the provisional increase involved amounts over and above that sought by the petitioning oil companies. The Solicitor General has pointed out that aside from the increase in crude oil prices, all the applications of the respondent oil companies filed with the ERB covered claims from the OPSF. We shall thus respect the ERB's Order of December 5, 1990 granting a provisional price increase on petroleum products premised on the oil companies' OPSF claims, crude cost peso differentials, forex risk for a subsidy on sale to NPC (p. 167, Rollo), since the oil companies are "entitled to as much relief as the fact alleged constituting the course of action may warrant," (Javellana v. D.O. Plaza Enterprises, Inc., G.R. No. L-28297, March 30, 1970, 32 SCRA 261 citing Rosales v. Reyes, 25 Phil. 495; Aguilar v. Rubiato, 40 Phil. 470) as follows:
Per Liter Weighted

Petron Shell Caltex Average Crude Cost P3.11 P3.6047 P2.9248 P3.1523 Peso Cost Diffn'l 2.1747 1.5203 1.5669 1.8123 Forex Risk Fee -0.1089 -0,0719 -0.0790 -0.0896 Subsidy on Sales to NPC 0.1955 0.0685 0.0590 0.1203 Total Price Increase Applied for P59.3713 P5.1216 P4.4717 P4.9954 Less: September 21 Price Relief Actual Price Increase P1.42 Actual Tax Reduction: Ad Valorem Tax (per Sept. 1, 1990 price build-up) P1.3333

Specific Tax (per Oct. 5, 1990 price build-up) .6264 .7069 2.1269 Net Price Increase Applied for 2.8685

Nonetheless, it is relevant to point out that on December 10, 1990, the ERB, in response to the President's appeal, brought back the increases in Premium and Regular gasoline to the levels mandated by the December 5, 1990 Order (P6.9600 and P6.3900, respectively), as follows:
Product In Pesos Per Liter OPSF Premium Gasoline 6.9600 Regular Gasoline 6.3900 Avturbo 4.9950 Kerosene 1.4100 Diesel Oil 1.4100 Fuel Oil/Feedstock 0.2405 LPG 1.2200 Asphalt 2.5000

Thinner 2.5000

In G.R. No. 96349, petitioner Original additionally claims that if the price increase will be used to augment the OPSF this will constitute illegal taxation. In the Maceda case, (G.R. Nos. 95203-05, supra) this Court has already ruled that "the Board Order authorizing the proceeds generated by the increase to be deposited to the OPSF is not an act of taxation but is authorized by Presidential Decree No. 1956, as amended by Executive Order No. 137. The petitions of E.O. Original et al. (G.R. No. 96349) and C.S. Povedas, Jr. (G.R. No. 96284), insofar as they question the ERB's authority under Sec. 8 of E.O. 172, have become moot and academic. We lament Our helplessness over this second provisional increase in oil price. We have stated that this "is a question best judged by the political leadership" (G.R. Nos. 95203-05, G.R. Nos. 95119-21, supra). We wish to reiterate Our previous pronouncements therein that while the government is able to justify a provisional increase, these findings "are not final, and it is up to petitioners to demonstrate that the present economic picture does not warrant a permanent increase." In this regard, We also note the Solicitor General's comments that "the ERB is not averse to the idea of a presidential review of its decision," except that there is no law at present authorizing the same. Perhaps, as pointed out by Justice Padilla, our lawmakers may see the wisdom of allowing presidential review of the decisions of the ERB since, despite its being a quasi-judicial body, it is still "an administrative body under the Office of the

President whose decisions should be appealed to the President under the established principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies," especially on a matter as transcendental as oil price increases which affect the lives of almost an Filipinos. ACCORDINGLY, the petitions are hereby DISMISSED. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 119761 August 29, 1996 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. COURT OF TAX APPEALS and FORTUNE TOBACCO CORPORATION, respondents. VITUG, J.:p

The Commissioner of Internal Revenue ("CIR") disputes the decision, dated 31 March 1995, of respondent Court of Appeals 1 affirming the 10th August 1994 decision and the 11th October 1994 resolution of the Court of Tax Appeals 2 ("CTA") in C.T.A. Case No. 5015, entitled "Fortune Tobacco Corporation vs. Liwayway Vinzons-Chato in her capacity as Commissioner of Internal Revenue." The facts, by and large, are not in dispute. Fortune Tobacco Corporation ("Fortune Tobacco") is engaged in the manufacture of different brands of cigarettes. On various dates, the Philippine Patent Office issued to the corporation separate certificates of trademark registration over "Champion," "Hope," and "More" cigarettes. In a letter, dated 06 January 1987, of then Commissioner of Internal Revenue Bienvenido A. Tan, Jr., to Deputy Minister Ramon Diaz of the Presidential Commission on Good Government, "the initial position of the Commission was to classify 'Champion,' 'Hope,' and 'More' as foreign brands since they were listed in the World Tobacco Directory as belonging to foreign companies. However, Fortune Tobacco changed the names of 'Hope' to 'Hope Luxury' and 'More' to 'Premium More,' thereby removing the said brands from the foreign brand category. Proof was also submitted to the Bureau (of Internal Revenue ['BIR']) that 'Champion' was an original Fortune Tobacco Corporation register and therefore a local brand." 3 Ad Valorem taxes were imposed on these brands, 4 at the following rates:

BRAND AD VALOREM TAX RATE E.O. 22 and E.O. 273 RA 6956 06-23-86 07-25-87 06-18-90 07-01-86 01-01-88 07-05-90 Hope Luxury M. 100's Sec. 142, (c), (2) 40% 45% Hope Luxury M. King Sec. 142, (c), (2) 40% 45% More Premium M. 100's Sec. 142, (c), (2) 40% 45% More Premium International Sec. 142, (c), (2) 40% 45% Champion Int'l. M. 100's Sec. 142, (c), (2) 40% 45% Champion M. 100's Sec. 142, (c), (2) 40% 45% Champion M. King Sec. 142, (c), last par. 15% 20% Champion Lights Sec. 142, (c), last par. 15% 20% 5

A bill, which later became Republic Act ("RA") No. 7654, 6 was enacted, on 10 June 1993, by the legislature and signed into law, on 14 June 1993, by the President of the Philippines.

The new law became effective on 03 July 1993. It amended Section 142(c)(1) of the National Internal Revenue Code ("NIRC") to read; as follows:
Sec. 142. Cigars and Cigarettes. xxx xxx xxx (c) Cigarettes packed by machine. There shall be levied, assessed and collected on cigarettes packed by machine a tax at the rates prescribed below based on the constructive manufacturer's wholesale price or the actual manufacturer's wholesale price, whichever is higher: (1) On locally manufactured cigarettes which are currently classified and taxed at fifty-five percent (55%) or the exportation of which is not authorized by contract or otherwise, fifty-five (55%) provided that the minimum tax shall not be less than Five Pesos (P5.00) per pack. (2) On other locally manufactured cigarettes, forty-five percent (45%) provided that the minimum tax shall not be less than Three Pesos (P3.00) per pack. xxx xxx xxx When the registered manufacturer's wholesale price or the actual manufacturer's wholesale price whichever is higher of existing brands of cigarettes, including the amounts intended to cover the taxes, of cigarettes packed in twenties does not exceed Four Pesos and eighty centavos (P4.80) per pack, the rate shall be twenty percent (20%). 7 (Emphasis supplied)

About a month after the enactment and two (2) days before the effectivity of RA 7654, Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 37-93 ("RMC 37-93"), was issued by the BIR the

full text of which expressed:

REPUBLIKA NG PILIPINAS KAGAWARAN NG PANANALAPI KAWANIHAN NG RENTAS INTERNAS July 1, 1993 REVENUE MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. 37-93 SUBJECT: Reclassification of Cigarettes Subject to Excise Tax TO: All Internal Revenue Officers and Others Concerned. In view of the issues raised on whether "HOPE," "MORE" and "CHAMPION" cigarettes which are locally manufactured are appropriately considered as locally manufactured cigarettes bearing a foreign brand, this Office is compelled to review the previous rulings on the matter. Section 142 (c)(1) National Internal Revenue Code, as amended by R.A. No. 6956, provides: On locally manufactured cigarettes bearing a foreign brand, fifty-five percent (55%) Provided, That this rate shall apply regardless of whether or not the right to use or title to the foreign brand was sold or transferred by its owner to the local manufacturer. Whenever it has to be determined whether or not a cigarette bears a foreign brand, the listing of brands manufactured in foreign countries appearing in the current World Tobacco Directory shall govern. Under the foregoing, the test for imposition of the 55% ad valorem tax on cigarettes is that the locally manufactured cigarettes bear a foreign brand regardless of whether or not the right to use or title to the foreign brand was sold or transferred by its owner to the local manufacturer.

The brand must be originally owned by a foreign manufacturer or producer. If ownership of the cigarette brand is, however, not definitely determinable, ". . . the listing of brands manufactured in foreign countries appearing in the current World Tobacco Directory shall govern. . . ." "HOPE" is listed in the World Tobacco Directory as being manufactured by (a) Japan Tobacco, Japan and (b) Fortune Tobacco, Philippines. "MORE" is listed in the said directory as being manufactured by: (a) Fills de Julia Reig, Andorra; (b) Rothmans, Australia; (c) RJRMacdonald Canada; (d) Rettig-Strenberg, Finland; (e) Karellas, Greece; (f) R.J. Reynolds, Malaysia; (g) Rothmans, New Zealand; (h) Fortune Tobacco, Philippines; (i) R.J. Reynolds, Puerto Rico; (j) R.J. Reynolds, Spain; (k) Tabacalera, Spain; (l) R.J. Reynolds, Switzerland; and (m) R.J. Reynolds, USA. "Champion" is registered in the said directory as being manufactured by (a) Commonwealth Bangladesh; (b) Sudan, Brazil; (c) Japan Tobacco, Japan; (d) Fortune Tobacco, Philippines; (e) Haggar, Sudan; and (f) Tabac Reunies, Switzerland. Since there is no showing who among the above-listed manufacturers of the cigarettes bearing the said brands are the real owner/s thereof, then it follows that the same shall be considered foreign brand for purposes of determining the ad valorem tax pursuant to Section 142 of the National Internal Revenue Code. As held in BIR Ruling No. 410-88, dated August 24, 1988, "in cases where it cannot be established or there is dearth of evidence as to whether a brand is foreign or not, resort to the World Tobacco Directory should be made." In view of the foregoing, the aforesaid brands of cigarettes, viz: "HOPE," "MORE" and "CHAMPION" being manufactured by Fortune Tobacco Corporation are hereby considered locally manufactured cigarettes bearing a foreign brand subject to the 55% ad valorem tax on

cigarettes. Any ruling inconsistent herewith is revoked or modified accordingly. (SGD) LIWAYWAY VINZONS-CHATO Commissioner

On 02 July 1993, at about 17:50 hours, BIR Deputy Commissioner Victor A. Deoferio, Jr., sent via telefax a copy of RMC 37-93 to Fortune Tobacco but it was addressed to no one in particular. On 15 July 1993, Fortune Tobacco received, by ordinary mail, a certified xerox copy of RMC 37-93. In a letter, dated 19 July 1993, addressed to the appellate division of the BIR, Fortune Tobacco requested for a review, reconsideration and recall of RMC 37-93. The request was denied on 29 July 1993. The following day, or on 30 July 1993, the CIR assessed Fortune Tobacco for ad valorem tax deficiency amounting to P9,598,334.00. On 03 August 1993, Fortune Tobacco filed a petition for review with the CTA. 8 On 10 August 1994, the CTA upheld the position of Fortune Tobacco and adjudged:
WHEREFORE, Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 37-93 reclassifying the brands of cigarettes, viz: "HOPE," "MORE" and "CHAMPION" being manufactured by Fortune Tobacco Corporation as locally manufactured cigarettes bearing a foreign brand subject to the 55% ad valorem tax on cigarettes is found to be defective, invalid and unenforceable, such that when R.A. No. 7654 took effect on July 3, 1993, the brands in question were not CURRENTLY CLASSIFIED AND TAXED at 55% pursuant to Section 1142(c)(1) of the Tax Code, as

amended by R.A. No. 7654 and were therefore still classified as other locally manufactured cigarettes and taxed at 45% or 20% as the case may be. Accordingly, the deficiency ad valorem tax assessment issued on petitioner Fortune Tobacco Corporation in the amount of P9,598,334.00, exclusive of surcharge and interest, is hereby canceled for lack of legal basis. Respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue is hereby enjoined from collecting the deficiency tax assessment made and issued on petitioner in relation to the implementation of RMC No. 37-93. SO ORDERED. 9

In its resolution, dated 11 October 1994, the CTA dismissed for lack of merit the motion for reconsideration. The CIR forthwith filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals, questioning the CTA's 10th August 1994 decision and 11th October 1994 resolution. On 31 March 1993, the appellate court's Special Thirteenth Division affirmed in all respects the assailed decision and resolution. In the instant petition, the Solicitor General argues: That
I. RMC 37-93 IS A RULING OR OPINION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE INTERPRETING THE PROVISIONS OF THE TAX CODE. II. BEING AN INTERPRETATIVE RULING OR OPINION, THE PUBLICATION OF RMC 37-93, FILING OF COPIES THEREOF WITH THE UP LAW CENTER AND

PRIOR HEARING ARE NOT NECESSARY TO ITS VALIDITY, EFFECTIVITY AND ENFORCEABILITY. III. PRIVATE RESPONDENT IS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED OR RMC 37-93 ON JULY 2, 1993. IV. RMC 37-93 IS NOT DISCRIMINATORY SINCE IT APPLIES TO ALL LOCALLY MANUFACTURED CIGARETTES SIMILARLY SITUATED AS "HOPE," "MORE" AND "CHAMPION" CIGARETTES. V. PETITIONER WAS NOT LEGALLY PROSCRIBED FROM RECLASSIFYING "HOPE," "MORE" AND "CHAMPION" CIGARETTES BEFORE THE EFFECTIVITY OF R.A. NO. 7654. VI. SINCE RMC 37-93 IS AN INTERPRETATIVE RULE, THE INQUIRY IS NOT INTO ITS VALIDITY, EFFECTIVITY OR ENFORCEABILITY BUT INTO ITS CORRECTNESS OR PROPRIETY; RMC 37-93 IS CORRECT. 10

In fine, petitioner opines that RMC 37-93 is merely an interpretative ruling of the BIR which can thus become effective without any prior need for notice and hearing, nor publication, and that its issuance is not discriminatory since it would apply under similar circumstances to all locally manufactured cigarettes. The Court must sustain both the appellate court and the tax court. Petitioner stresses on the wide and ample authority of the BIR in the issuance of rulings for the effective implementation of the provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code.

Let it be made clear that such authority of the Commissioner is not here doubted. Like any other government agency, however, the CIR may not disregard legal requirements or applicable principles in the exercise of its quasi-legislative powers. Let us first distinguish between two kinds of administrative issuances a legislative rule and an interpretative rule. In Misamis Oriental Association of Coco Traders, Inc., vs. Department of Finance Secretary, 11 the Court expressed:
. . . a legislative rule is in the nature of subordinate legislation, designed to implement a primary legislation by providing the details thereof . In the same way that laws must have the benefit of public hearing, it is generally required that before a legislative rule is adopted there must be hearing. In this connection, the Administrative Code of 1987 provides: Public Participation. If not otherwise required by law, an agency shall, as far as practicable, publish or circulate notices of proposed rules and afford interested parties the opportunity to submit their views prior to the adoption of any rule. (2) In the fixing of rates, no rule or final order shall be valid unless the proposed rates shall have been published in a newspaper of general circulation at least two (2) weeks before the first hearing thereon. (3) In case of opposition, the rules on contested cases shall be observed. In addition such rule must be published. On the other hand, interpretative rules are designed to provide guidelines to the law which the administrative agency is in charge of enforcing. 12

It should be understandable that when an administrative rule is merely interpretative in nature, its applicability needs nothing further than its bare issuance for it gives no real consequence more than what the law itself has already prescribed. When, upon the other hand, the administrative rule goes beyond merely providing for the means that can facilitate or render least cumbersome the implementation of the law but substantially adds to or increases the burden of those governed, it behooves the agency to accord at least to those directly affected a chance to be heard, and thereafter to be duly informed, before that new issuance is given the force and effect of law. A reading of RMC 37-93, particularly considering the circumstances under which it has been issued, convinces us that the circular cannot be viewed simply as a corrective measure (revoking in the process the previous holdings of past Commissioners) or merely as construing Section 142(c)(1) of the NIRC, as amended, but has, in fact and most importantly, been made in order to place "Hope Luxury," "Premium More" and "Champion" within the classification of locally manufactured cigarettes bearing foreign brands and to thereby have them covered by RA 7654. Specifically, the new law would have its amendatory provisions applied to locally manufactured cigarettes which at the time of its effectivity were not so classified as bearing foreign brands. Prior to the issuance of the questioned circular, "Hope Luxury," "Premium More," and "Champion" cigarettes were in the category of locally manufactured cigarettes not bearing foreign brand subject to 45% ad valorem tax. Hence, without RMC 37-93, the enactment of RA 7654, would have had no new tax rate consequence on private respondent's products.

Evidently, in order to place "Hope Luxury," "Premium More," and "Champion" cigarettes within the scope of the amendatory law and subject them to an increased tax rate, the now disputed RMC 37-93 had to be issued. In so doing, the BIR not simply intrepreted the law; verily, it legislated under its quasi-legislative authority. The due observance of the requirements of notice, of hearing, and of publication should not have been then ignored. Indeed, the BIR itself, in its RMC 10-86, has observed and provided:
RMC NO. 10-86 Effectivity of Internal Revenue Rules and Regulations It has been observed that one of the problem areas bearing on compliance with Internal Revenue Tax rules and regulations is lack or insufficiency of due notice to the tax paying public. Unless there is due notice, due compliance therewith may not be reasonably expected. And most importantly, their strict enforcement could possibly suffer from legal infirmity in the light of the constitutional provision on "due process of law" and the essence of the Civil Code provision concerning effectivity of laws, whereby due notice is a basic requirement (Sec. 1, Art. IV, Constitution; Art. 2, New Civil Code). In order that there shall be a just enforcement of rules and regulations, in conformity with the basic element of due process, the following procedures are hereby prescribed for the drafting, issuance and implementation of the said Revenue Tax Issuances: (1) This Circular shall apply only to (a) Revenue Regulations; (b) Revenue Audit Memorandum Orders; and (c) Revenue Memorandum Circulars and Revenue Memorandum Orders bearing on internal revenue tax rules and regulations.

(2) Except when the law otherwise expressly provides, the aforesaid internal revenue tax issuances shall not begin to be operative until after due notice thereof may be fairly presumed. Due notice of the said issuances may be fairly presumed only after the following procedures have been taken; xxx xxx xxx (5) Strict compliance with the foregoing procedures is enjoined. 13

Nothing on record could tell us that it was either impossible or impracticable for the BIR to observe and comply with the above requirements before giving effect to its questioned circular. Not insignificantly, RMC 37-93 might have likewise infringed on uniformity of taxation. Article VI, Section 28, paragraph 1, of the 1987 Constitution mandates taxation to be uniform and equitable. Uniformity requires that all subjects or objects of taxation, similarly situated, are to be treated alike or put on equal footing both in privileges and liabilities. 14 Thus, all taxable articles or kinds of property of the same class must be taxed at the same rate 15 and the tax must operate with the same force and effect in every place where the subject may be found. Apparently, RMC 37-93 would only apply to "Hope Luxury," "Premium More" and

"Champion" cigarettes and, unless petitioner would be willing to concede to the submission of private respondent that the circular should, as in fact my esteemed colleague Mr. Justice Bellosillo so expresses in his separate opinion, be considered adjudicatory in nature and thus violative of due process following the Ang Tibay 16 doctrine, the measure suffers from lack of uniformity of taxation. In its decision, the CTA has keenly noted that other cigarettes bearing foreign brands have not been similarly included within the scope of the circular, such as
1. Locally manufactured by ALHAMBRA INDUSTRIES, INC. (a) "PALM TREE" is listed as manufactured by office of Monopoly, Korea (Exhibit "R") 2. Locally manufactured by LA SUERTE CIGAR and CIGARETTE COMPANY (a) "GOLDEN KEY" is listed being manufactured by United Tobacco, Pakistan (Exhibit "S") (b) "CANNON" is listed as being manufactured by Alpha Tobacco, Bangladesh (Exhibit "T") 3. Locally manufactured by LA PERLA INDUSTRIES, INC. (a) "WHITE HORSE" is listed as being manufactured by Rothman's, Malaysia (Exhibit "U") (b) "RIGHT" is listed as being manufactured by SVENSKA, Tobaks, Sweden (Exhibit "V-1")

4. Locally manufactured by MIGHTY CORPORATION (a) "WHITE HORSE" is listed as being manufactured by Rothman's, Malaysia (Exhibit "U-1") 5. Locally manufactured by STERLING TOBACCO CORPORATION (a) "UNION" is listed as being manufactured by Sumatra Tobacco, Indonesia and Brown and Williamson, USA (Exhibit "U-3") (b) "WINNER" is listed as being manufactured by Alpha Tobacco, Bangladesh; Nangyang, Hongkong; Joo Lan, Malaysia; Pakistan Tobacco Co., Pakistan; Premier Tobacco, Pakistan and Haggar, Sudan (Exhibit "U-4"). 17

The court quoted at length from the transcript of the hearing conducted on 10 August 1993 by the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives; viz:
THE CHAIRMAN. So you have specific information on Fortune Tobacco alone. You don't have specific information on other tobacco manufacturers. Now, there are other brands which are similarly situated. They are locally manufactured bearing foreign brands. And may I enumerate to you all these brands, which are also listed in the World Tobacco Directory . . . Why were these brand not reclassified at 55 if your want to give a level playing filed to foreign manufacturers? MS. CHATO. Mr. Chairman, in fact, we have already prepared a Revenue Memorandum Circular that was supposed to come after RMC No. 37-93 which have really named specifically the list of locally manufactured cigarettes bearing a foreign brand for excise tax purposes and includes all these brands that you mentioned at 55 percent except that at that

time, when we had to come up with this, we were forced to study the brands of Hope, More and Champion because we were given documents that would indicate the that these brands were actually being claimed or patented in other countries because we went by Revenue Memorandum Circular 1488 and we wanted to give some rationality to how it came about but we couldn't find the rationale there. And we really found based on our own interpretation that the only test that is given by that existing law would be registration in the World Tobacco Directory. So we came out with this proposed revenue memorandum circular which we forwarded to the Secretary of Finance except that at that point in time, we went by the Republic Act 7654 in Section 1 which amended Section 142, C-1, it said, that on locally manufactured cigarettes which are currently classified and taxed at 55 percent. So we were saying that when this law took effect in July 3 and if we are going to come up with this revenue circular thereafter, then I think our action would really be subject to question but we feel that . . . Memorandum Circular Number 37-93 would really cover even similarly situated brands. And in fact, it was really because of the study, the short time that we were given to study the matter that we could not include all the rest of the other brands that would have been really classified as foreign brand if we went by the law itself. I am sure that by the reading of the law, you would without that ruling by Commissioner Tan they would really have been included in the definition or in the classification of foregoing brands. These brands that you referred to or just read to us and in fact just for your information, we really came out with a proposed revenue memorandum circular for those brands. (Emphasis supplied) (Exhibit "FF-2-C," pp. V-5 TO V-6, VI-1 to VI-3). xxx xxx xxx MS. CHATO. . . . But I do agree with you now that it cannot and in fact that is why I felt that

we . . . I wanted to come up with a more extensive coverage and precisely why I asked that revenue memorandum circular that would cover all those similarly situated would be prepared but because of the lack of time and I came out with a study of RA 7654, it would not have been possible to really come up with the reclassification or the proper classification of all brands that are listed there. . . (emphasis supplied) (Exhibit "FF-2d," page IX-1) xxx xxx xxx HON. DIAZ. But did you not consider that there are similarly situated? MS. CHATO. That is precisely why, Sir, after we have come up with this Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 37-93, the other brands came about the would have also clarified RMC 37-93 by I was saying really because of the fact that I was just recently appointed and the lack of time, the period that was allotted to us to come up with the right actions on the matter, we were really caught by the July 3 deadline. But in fact, We have already prepared a revenue memorandum circular clarifying with the other . . . does not yet, would have been a list of locally manufactured cigarettes bearing a foreign brand for excise tax purposes which would include all the other brands that were mentioned by the Honorable Chairman. (Emphasis supplied) (Exhibit "FF-2-d," par. IX-4). 18

All taken, the Court is convinced that the hastily promulgated RMC 37-93 has fallen short of a valid and effective administrative issuance. WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals, sustaining that of the Court of Tax Appeals, is AFFIRMED. No costs. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 120082 September 11, 1996 MACTAN CEBU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, petitioner, vs. HON. FERDINAND J. MARCOS, in his capacity as the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Cebu City, THE CITY OF CEBU, represented by its Mayor HON. TOMAS R. OSMEA, and EUSTAQUIO B. CESA, respondents. DAVIDE, JR., J.: For review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court on a pure question of law are the decision of 22 March 1995 1 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 20, dismissing the petition for declaratory relief in Civil Case No. CEB16900 entitled "Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority vs. City of Cebu", and its order of 4, May 1995 2 denying the motion to reconsider the decision. We resolved to give due course to this petition for its raises issues dwelling on the scope of the taxing power of local government-owned and controlled corporations. The uncontradicted factual antecedents are summarized in the instant petition as follows:
Petitioner Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA) was created by virtue of

Republic Act No. 6958, mandated to "principally undertake the economical, efficient and effective control, management and supervision of the Mactan International Airport in the Province of Cebu and the Lahug Airport in Cebu City, . . . and such other Airports as may be established in the Province of Cebu . . . (Sec. 3, RA 6958). It is also mandated to: a) encourage, promote and develop international and domestic air traffic in the Central Visayas and Mindanao regions as a means of making the regions centers of international trade and tourism, and accelerating the development of the means of transportation and communication in the country; and b) upgrade the services and facilities of the airports and to formulate internationally acceptable standards of airport accommodation and service. Since the time of its creation, petitioner MCIAA enjoyed the privilege of exemption from payment of realty taxes in accordance with Section 14 of its Charter. Sec. 14. Tax Exemptions. The authority shall be exempt from realty taxes imposed by the National Government or any of its political subdivisions, agencies and instrumentalities . . . On October 11, 1994, however, Mr. Eustaquio B. Cesa, Officer-in-Charge, Office of the Treasurer of the City of Cebu, demanded payment for realty taxes on several parcels of land belonging to the petitioner (Lot Nos. 913-G, 743, 88 SWO, 948-A, 989-A, 474, 109(931), I-M, 918, 919, 913-F, 941, 942, 947, 77 Psd., 746 and 991-A), located at

Barrio Apas and Barrio Kasambagan, Lahug, Cebu City, in the total amount of P2,229,078.79. Petitioner objected to such demand for payment as baseless and unjustified, claiming in its favor the aforecited Section 14 of RA 6958 which exempt it from payment of realty taxes. It was also asserted that it is an instrumentality of the government performing governmental functions, citing section 133 of the Local Government Code of 1991 which puts limitations on the taxing powers of local government units: Sec. 133. Common Limitations on the Taxing Powers of Local Government Units. Unless otherwise provided herein, the exercise of the taxing powers of provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangay shall not extend to the levy of the following: a) . . . xxx xxx xxx o) Taxes, fees or charges of any kind on the National Government, its agencies and instrumentalities, and local government units. (Emphasis supplied) Respondent City refused to cancel and set aside petitioner's realty tax account, insisting that the MCIAA is a government-controlled corporation whose tax exemption privilege has been withdrawn by virtue of Sections 193 and 234 of the Local Governmental Code that took effect on January 1, 1992: Sec. 193. Withdrawal of Tax Exemption Privilege. Unless otherwise provided in this Code, tax exemptions or incentives granted to, or presently enjoyed by all persons

whether natural or juridical, including government-owned or controlled corporations, except local water districts, cooperatives duly registered under RA No. 6938, non-stock, and non-profit hospitals and educational institutions, are hereby withdrawn upon the effectivity of this Code. (Emphasis supplied) xxx xxx xxx Sec. 234. Exemptions from Real Property taxes. . . . (a) . . . xxx xxx xxx (c) . . . Except as provided herein, any exemption from payment of real property tax previously granted to, or presently enjoyed by all persons, whether natural or juridical, including government-owned or controlled corporations are hereby withdrawn upon the effectivity of this Code. As the City of Cebu was about to issue a warrant of levy against the properties of petitioner, the latter was compelled to pay its tax account "under protest" and thereafter filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief with the Regional Trial Court of Cebu, Branch 20, on December 29, 1994. MCIAA basically contended that the taxing powers of local government units do not extend to the levy of taxes or fees of any kind on an instrumentality of the national government. Petitioner insisted that while it is indeed a government-owned corporation, it nonetheless stands on the same footing as an agency or instrumentality of the national government. Petitioner insisted that while it is indeed a government-owned corporation, it nonetheless stands on the same footing as an agency

or instrumentality of the national government by the very nature of its powers and functions. Respondent City, however, asserted that MACIAA is not an instrumentality of the government but merely a government-owned corporation performing proprietary functions As such, all exemptions previously granted to it were deemed withdrawn by operation of law, as provided under Sections 193 and 234 of the Local Government Code when it took effect on January 1, 1992. 3

The petition for declaratory relief was docketed as Civil Case No. CEB-16900. In its decision of 22 March 1995, 4 the trial court dismissed the petition in light of its findings, to wit:
A close reading of the New Local Government Code of 1991 or RA 7160 provides the express cancellation and withdrawal of exemption of taxes by government owned and controlled corporation per Sections after the effectivity of said Code on January 1, 1992, to wit: [proceeds to quote Sections 193 and 234] Petitioners claimed that its real properties assessed by respondent City Government of Cebu are exempted from paying realty taxes in view of the exemption granted under RA 6958 to pay the same (citing Section 14 of RA 6958). However, RA 7160 expressly provides that "All general and special laws, acts, city charters, decress [sic], executive orders, proclamations and administrative regulations, or part or parts thereof which are inconsistent with any of the provisions of this Code are hereby repealed or modified accordingly." ([f], Section 534, RA 7160).

With that repealing clause in RA 7160, it is safe to infer and state that the tax exemption provided for in RA 6958 creating petitioner had been expressly repealed by the provisions of the New Local Government Code of 1991. So that petitioner in this case has to pay the assessed realty tax of its properties effective after January 1, 1992 until the present. This Court's ruling finds expression to give impetus and meaning to the overall objectives of the New Local Government Code of 1991, RA 7160. "It is hereby declared the policy of the State that the territorial and political subdivisions of the State shall enjoy genuine and meaningful local autonomy to enable them to attain their fullest development as self-reliant communities and make them more effective partners in the attainment of national goals. Towards this end, the State shall provide for a more responsive and accountable local government structure instituted through a system of decentralization whereby local government units shall be given more powers, authority, responsibilities, and resources. The process of decentralization shall proceed from the national government to the local government units. . . . 5

Its motion for reconsideration having been denied by the trial court in its 4 May 1995 order, the petitioner filed the instant petition based on the following assignment of errors:
I RESPONDENT JUDGE ERRED IN FAILING TO RULE THAT THE PETITIONER IS VESTED WITH GOVERNMENT POWERS AND FUNCTIONS WHICH PLACE IT IN THE SAME CATEGORY AS AN INSTRUMENTALITY OR AGENCY OF THE GOVERNMENT.

II RESPONDENT JUDGE ERRED IN RULING THAT PETITIONER IS LIABLE TO PAY REAL PROPERTY TAXES TO THE CITY OF CEBU.

Anent the first assigned error, the petitioner asserts that although it is a government-owned or controlled corporation it is mandated to perform functions in the same category as an instrumentality of Government. An instrumentality of Government is one created to perform governmental functions primarily to promote certain aspects of the economic life of the people. 6 Considering its task "not merely to efficiently operate and manage the Mactan-Cebu International Airport, but more importantly, to carry out the Government policies of promoting and developing the Central Visayas and Mindanao regions as centers of international trade and tourism, and accelerating the development of the means of transportation and communication in the country," 7 and that it is an attached agency of the Department of Transportation and Communication (DOTC), 8 the petitioner "may stand in [sic] the same footing as an agency or instrumentality of the national government." Hence, its tax exemption privilege under Section 14 of its Charter "cannot be considered withdrawn with the passage of the Local Government Code of 1991 (hereinafter LGC) because Section 133 thereof specifically states that the taxing powers of local government units shall not extend to the levy of taxes of fees or charges of any kind on the national government its agencies and instrumentalities."

As to the second assigned error, the petitioner contends that being an instrumentality of the National Government, respondent City of Cebu has no power nor authority to impose realty taxes upon it in accordance with the aforesaid Section 133 of the LGC, as explained in Basco vs. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation; 9
Local governments have no power to tax instrumentalities of the National Government. PAGCOR is a government owned or controlled corporation with an original character, PD 1869. All its shares of stock are owned by the National Government. . . . PAGCOR has a dual role, to operate and regulate gambling casinos. The latter joke is governmental, which places it in the category of an agency or instrumentality of the Government. Being an instrumentality of the Government, PAGCOR should be and actually is exempt from local taxes. Otherwise, its operation might be burdened, impeded or subjected to control by a mere Local government. The states have no power by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, burden or in any manner control the operation of constitutional laws enacted by Congress to carry into execution the powers vested in the federal government. (McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316, 4 L Ed. 579). This doctrine emanates from the "supremacy" of the National Government over local government. Justice Holmes, speaking for the Supreme Court, make references to the entire absence of power on the part of the States to touch, in that way (taxation) at least, the

instrumentalities of the United States (Johnson v. Maryland, 254 US 51) and it can be agreed that no state or political subdivision can regulate a federal instrumentality in such a way as to prevent it from consummating its federal responsibilities, or even to seriously burden it in the accomplishment of them. (Antieau Modern Constitutional Law, Vol. 2, p. 140) Otherwise mere creature of the State can defeat National policies thru extermination of what local authorities may perceive to be undesirable activities or enterprise using the power to tax as "a toll for regulation" (U.S. v. Sanchez, 340 US 42). The power to tax which was called by Justice Marshall as the "power to destroy" (McCulloch v. Maryland, supra) cannot be allowed to defeat an instrumentality or creation of the very entity which has the inherent power to wield it. (Emphasis supplied)

It then concludes that the respondent Judge "cannot therefore correctly say that the questioned provisions of the Code do not contain any distinction between a governmental function as against one performing merely proprietary ones such that the exemption privilege withdrawn under the said Code would apply to all government corporations." For it is clear from Section 133, in relation to Section 234, of the LGC that the legislature meant to exclude instrumentalities of the national government from the taxing power of the local government units. In its comment respondent City of Cebu alleges that as local a government unit and a political subdivision, it has the power to impose, levy, assess, and collect taxes within its jurisdiction. Such power is guaranteed by the Constitution 10 and

enhanced further by the LGC. While it may be true that under its Charter the petitioner was exempt from the payment of realty taxes, 11 this exemption was withdrawn by Section 234 of the LGC. In response to the petitioner's claim that such exemption was not repealed because being an instrumentality of the National Government, Section 133 of the LGC prohibits local government units from imposing taxes, fees, or charges of any kind on it, respondent City of Cebu points out that the petitioner is likewise a government-owned corporation, and Section 234 thereof does not distinguish between government-owned corporation, and Section 234 thereof does not distinguish between government-owned corporation, and Section 234 thereof does not distinguish between government-owned or controlled corporations performing governmental and purely proprietary functions. Respondent city of Cebu urges this the Manila International Airport Authority is a governmental-owned corporation, 12 and to reject the application of Basco because it was "promulgated . . . before the enactment and the singing into law of R.A. No. 7160," and was not, therefore, decided "in the light of the spirit and intention of the framers of the said law. As a general rule, the power to tax is an incident of sovereignty and is unlimited in its range, acknowledging in its very nature no limits, so that security against its abuse is to be found only in the responsibility of the legislature which imposes the tax on the constituency who are to pay it. Nevertheless, effective limitations

thereon may be imposed by the people through their Constitutions. 13 Our Constitution, for instance, provides that the rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable and Congress shall evolve a progressive system of taxation. 14 So potent indeed is the power that it was once opined that "the power to tax involves the power to destroy." 15 Verily, taxation is a destructive power which interferes with the personal and property for the support of the government. Accordingly, tax statutes must be construed strictly against the government and liberally in favor of the taxpayer. 16 But since taxes are what we pay for civilized society, 17 or are the lifeblood of the nation, the law frowns against exemptions from taxation and statutes granting tax exemptions are thus construed strictissimi juris against the taxpayers and liberally in favor of the taxing authority. 18 A claim of exemption from tax payment must be clearly shown and based on language in the law too plain to be mistaken. 19 Elsewise stated, taxation is the rule, exemption therefrom is the exception. 20 However, if the grantee of the exemption is a political subdivision or instrumentality, the rigid rule of construction does not apply because the practical effect of the exemption is merely to reduce the amount of money that has to be handled by the government in the course of its operations. 21 The power to tax is primarily vested in the Congress; however, in our jurisdiction, it may be exercised by local legislative bodies, no longer merely by virtue of a valid

delegation as before, but pursuant to direct authority conferred by Section 5, Article X of the Constitution. 22 Under the latter, the exercise of the power may be subject to such guidelines and limitations as the Congress may provide which, however, must be consistent with the basic policy of local autonomy. There can be no question that under Section 14 of R.A. No. 6958 the petitioner is exempt from the payment of realty taxes imposed by the National Government or any of its political subdivisions, agencies, and instrumentalities. Nevertheless, since taxation is the rule and exemption therefrom the exception, the exemption may thus be withdrawn at the pleasure of the taxing authority. The only exception to this rule is where the exemption was granted to private parties based on material consideration of a mutual nature, which then becomes contractual and is thus covered by the non-impairment clause of the Constitution. 23 The LGC, enacted pursuant to Section 3, Article X of the constitution provides for the exercise by local government units of their power to tax, the scope thereof or its limitations, and the exemption from taxation. Section 133 of the LGC prescribes the common limitations on the taxing powers of local government units as follows:
Sec. 133. Common Limitations on the Taxing Power of Local Government Units. Unless otherwise provided herein, the exercise of the taxing powers of provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays shall not extend to the levy of the following:

(a) Income tax, except when levied on banks and other financial institutions; (b) Documentary stamp tax; (c) Taxes on estates, "inheritance, gifts, legacies and other acquisitions mortis causa, except as otherwise provided herein (d) Customs duties, registration fees of vessels and wharfage on wharves, tonnage dues, and all other kinds of customs fees charges and dues except wharfage on wharves constructed and maintained by the local government unit concerned: (e) Taxes, fees and charges and other imposition upon goods carried into or out of, or passing through, the territorial jurisdictions of local government units in the guise or charges for wharfages, tolls for bridges or otherwise, or other taxes, fees or charges in any form whatsoever upon such goods or merchandise; (f) Taxes fees or charges on agricultural and aquatic products when sold by marginal farmers or fishermen; (g) Taxes on business enterprise certified to be the Board of Investment as pioneer or non-pioneer for a period of six (6) and four (4) years, respectively from the date of registration; (h) Excise taxes on articles enumerated under the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and taxes, fees or charges on petroleum products; (i) Percentage or value added tax (VAT) on sales, barters or exchanges or

similar transactions on goods or services except as otherwise provided herein; (j) Taxes on the gross receipts of transportation contractor and person engage in the transportation of passengers of freight by hire and common carriers by air, land, or water, except as provided in this code; (k) Taxes on premiums paid by ways reinsurance or retrocession; (l) Taxes, fees, or charges for the registration of motor vehicles and for the issuance of all kinds of licenses or permits for the driving of thereof, except, tricycles; (m) Taxes, fees, or other charges on Philippine product actually exported, except as otherwise provided herein; (n) Taxes, fees, or charges, on Countryside and Barangay Business Enterprise and Cooperatives duly registered under R.A. No. 6810 and Republic Act Numbered Sixty nine hundred thirty-eight (R.A. No. 6938) otherwise known as the "Cooperative Code of the Philippines; and (o) TAXES, FEES, OR CHARGES OF ANY KIND ON THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT, ITS AGENCIES AND INSTRUMENTALITIES, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS. (emphasis supplied)

Needless to say the last item (item o) is pertinent in this case. The "taxes, fees or charges" referred to are "of any kind", hence they include all of these, unless otherwise provided by the LGC. The term "taxes" is well understood so as to need no further elaboration, especially in the light of the above enumeration. The term

"fees" means charges fixed by law or Ordinance for the regulation or inspection of business activity, 24 while "charges" are pecuniary liabilities such as rents or fees against person or property. 25 Among the "taxes" enumerated in the LGC is real property tax, which is governed by Section 232. It reads as follows:
Sec. 232. Power to Levy Real Property Tax. A province or city or a municipality within the Metropolitan Manila Area may levy on an annual ad valorem tax on real property such as land, building, machinery and other improvements not hereafter specifically exempted.

Section 234 of LGC provides for the exemptions from payment of real property taxes and withdraws previous exemptions therefrom granted to natural and juridical persons, including government owned and controlled corporations, except as provided therein. It provides:
Sec. 234. Exemptions from Real Property Tax. The following are exempted from payment of the real property tax: (a) Real property owned by the Republic of the Philippines or any of its political subdivisions except when the beneficial use thereof had been granted, for reconsideration or otherwise, to a taxable person; (b) Charitable institutions, churches, parsonages or convents appurtenants thereto, mosques nonprofits or religious cemeteries and all lands, building and

improvements actually, directly, and exclusively used for religious charitable or educational purposes; (c) All machineries and equipment that are actually, directly and exclusively used by local water districts and government-owned or controlled corporations engaged in the supply and distribution of water and/or generation and transmission of electric power; (d) All real property owned by duly registered cooperatives as provided for under R.A. No. 6938; and; (e) Machinery and equipment used for pollution control and environmental protection. Except as provided herein, any exemptions from payment of real property tax previously granted to or presently enjoyed by, all persons whether natural or juridical, including all government owned or controlled corporations are hereby withdrawn upon the effectivity of his Code.

These exemptions are based on the ownership, character, and use of the property. Thus;
(a) Ownership Exemptions. Exemptions from real property taxes on the basis of ownership are real properties owned by: (i) the Republic, (ii) a province, (iii) a city, (iv) a municipality, (v) a barangay, and (vi) registered cooperatives. (b) Character Exemptions. Exempted from real property taxes on the basis of their character are: (i) charitable institutions, (ii) houses and temples of prayer

like churches, parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, and (iii) non profit or religious cemeteries. (c) Usage exemptions. Exempted from real property taxes on the basis of the actual, direct and exclusive use to which they are devoted are: (i) all lands buildings and improvements which are actually, directed and exclusively used for religious, charitable or educational purpose; (ii) all machineries and equipment actually, directly and exclusively used or by local water districts or by government-owned or controlled corporations engaged in the supply and distribution of water and/or generation and transmission of electric power; and (iii) all machinery and equipment used for pollution control and environmental protection. To help provide a healthy environment in the midst of the modernization of the country, all machinery and equipment for pollution control and environmental protection may not be taxed by local governments. 2. Other Exemptions Withdrawn. All other exemptions previously granted to natural or juridical persons including government-owned or controlled corporations are withdrawn upon the effectivity of the Code. 26

Section 193 of the LGC is the general provision on withdrawal of tax exemption privileges. It provides:
Sec. 193. Withdrawal of Tax Exemption Privileges. Unless otherwise provided in this code, tax exemptions or incentives granted to or presently enjoyed by all persons, whether natural or juridical, including government-owned, or controlled corporations,

except local water districts, cooperatives duly registered under R.A. 6938, non stock and non profit hospitals and educational constitutions, are hereby withdrawn upon the effectivity of this Code.

On the other hand, the LGC authorizes local government units to grant tax exemption privileges. Thus, Section 192 thereof provides:
Sec. 192. Authority to Grant Tax Exemption Privileges. Local government units may, through ordinances duly approved, grant tax exemptions, incentives or reliefs under such terms and conditions as they may deem necessary.

The foregoing sections of the LGC speaks of: (a) the limitations on the taxing powers of local government units and the exceptions to such limitations; and (b) the rule on tax exemptions and the exceptions thereto. The use of exceptions of provisos in these section, as shown by the following clauses:
(1) "unless otherwise provided herein" in the opening paragraph of Section 133; (2) "Unless otherwise provided in this Code" in section 193; (3) "not hereafter specifically exempted" in Section 232; and (4) "Except as provided herein" in the last paragraph of Section 234

initially hampers a ready understanding of the sections. Note, too, that the aforementioned clause in section 133 seems to be inaccurately worded. Instead of the clause "unless otherwise provided herein," with the "herein" to mean, of course,

the section, it should have used the clause "unless otherwise provided in this Code." The former results in absurdity since the section itself enumerates what are beyond the taxing powers of local government units and, where exceptions were intended, the exceptions were explicitly indicated in the text. For instance, in item (a) which excepts the income taxes "when livied on banks and other financial institutions", item (d) which excepts "wharfage on wharves constructed and maintained by the local government until concerned"; and item (1) which excepts taxes, fees, and charges for the registration and issuance of license or permits for the driving of "tricycles". It may also be observed that within the body itself of the section, there are exceptions which can be found only in other parts of the LGC, but the section interchangeably uses therein the clause "except as otherwise provided herein" as in items (c) and (i), or the clause "except as otherwise provided herein" as in items (c) and (i), or the clause "excepts as provided in this Code" in item (j). These clauses would be obviously unnecessary or mere surplus-ages if the opening clause of the section were" "Unless otherwise provided in this Code" instead of "Unless otherwise provided herein". In any event, even if the latter is used, since under Section 232 local government units have the power to levy real property tax, except those exempted therefrom under Section 234, then Section 232 must be deemed to qualify Section 133. Thus, reading together Section 133, 232 and 234 of the LGC, we conclude that as a general rule, as laid down in Section 133 the taxing powers of local government

units cannot extend to the levy of inter alia, "taxes, fees, and charges of any kind of the National Government, its agencies and instrumentalties, and local government units"; however, pursuant to Section 232, provinces, cities, municipalities in the Metropolitan Manila Area may impose the real property tax except on, inter alia, "real property owned by the Republic of the Philippines or any of its political subdivisions except when the beneficial used thereof has been granted, for consideration or otherwise, to a taxable person", as provided in item (a) of the first paragraph of Section 234. As to tax exemptions or incentives granted to or presently enjoyed by natural or juridical persons, including government-owned and controlled corporations, Section 193 of the LGC prescribes the general rule, viz., they are withdrawn upon the effectivity of the LGC, except upon the effectivity of the LGC, except those granted to local water districts, cooperatives duly registered under R.A. No. 6938, non stock and non-profit hospitals and educational institutions, and unless otherwise provided in the LGC. The latter proviso could refer to Section 234, which enumerates the properties exempt from real property tax. But the last paragraph of Section 234 further qualifies the retention of the exemption in so far as the real property taxes are concerned by limiting the retention only to those enumerated there-in; all others not included in the enumeration lost the privilege upon the effectivity of the LGC. Moreover, even as the real property is owned by the Republic of the Philippines, or any of its political subdivisions covered by item (a) of

the first paragraph of Section 234, the exemption is withdrawn if the beneficial use of such property has been granted to taxable person for consideration or otherwise. Since the last paragraph of Section 234 unequivocally withdrew, upon the effectivity of the LGC, exemptions from real property taxes granted to natural or juridical persons, including government-owned or controlled corporations, except as provided in the said section, and the petitioner is, undoubtedly, a governmentowned corporation, it necessarily follows that its exemption from such tax granted it in Section 14 of its charter, R.A. No. 6958, has been withdrawn. Any claim to the contrary can only be justified if the petitioner can seek refuge under any of the exceptions provided in Section 234, but not under Section 133, as it now asserts, since, as shown above, the said section is qualified by Section 232 and 234. In short, the petitioner can no longer invoke the general rule in Section 133 that the taxing powers of the local government units cannot extend to the levy of:
(o) taxes, fees, or charges of any kind on the National Government, its agencies, or instrumentalities, and local government units.

I must show that the parcels of land in question, which are real property, are any one of those enumerated in Section 234, either by virtue of ownership, character, or use of the property. Most likely, it could only be the first, but not under any explicit provision of the said section, for one exists. In light of the petitioner's theory that it is an "instrumentality of the Government", it could only be within be first item

of the first paragraph of the section by expanding the scope of the terms Republic of the Philippines" to embrace . . . . . . "instrumentalities" and "agencies" or expediency we quote:
(a) real property owned by the Republic of the Philippines, or any of the Philippines, or any of its political subdivisions except when the beneficial use thereof has been granted, for consideration or otherwise, to a taxable person.

This view does not persuade us. In the first place, the petitioner's claim that it is an instrumentality of the Government is based on Section 133(o), which expressly mentions the word "instrumentalities"; and in the second place it fails to consider the fact that the legislature used the phrase "National Government, its agencies and instrumentalities" "in Section 133(o),but only the phrase "Republic of the Philippines or any of its political subdivision "in Section 234(a). The terms "Republic of the Philippines" and "National Government" are not interchangeable. The former is boarder and synonymous with "Government of the Republic of the Philippines" which the Administrative Code of the 1987 defines as the "corporate governmental entity though which the functions of the government are exercised through at the Philippines, including, saves as the contrary appears from the context, the various arms through which political authority is made effective in the Philippines, whether pertaining to the autonomous reason, the provincial, city, municipal or barangay subdivision or other forms of local government." 27 These autonomous regions, provincial, city, municipal or barangay

subdivisions" are the political subdivision. 28 On the other hand, "National Government" refers "to the entire machinery of the central government, as distinguished from the different forms of local Governments." 29 The National Government then is composed of the three great departments the executive, the legislative and the judicial. 30 An "agency" of the Government refers to "any of the various units of the Government, including a department, bureau, office instrumentality, or government-owned or controlled corporation, or a local government or a distinct unit therein;" 31 while an "instrumentality" refers to "any agency of the National Government, not integrated within the department framework, vested with special functions or jurisdiction by law, endowed with some if not all corporate powers, administering special funds, and enjoying operational autonomy; usually through a charter. This term includes regulatory agencies, chartered institutions and government-owned and controlled corporations". 32 If Section 234(a) intended to extend the exception therein to the withdrawal of the exemption from payment of real property taxes under the last sentence of the said section to the agencies and instrumentalities of the National Government mentioned in Section 133(o), then it should have restated the wording of the latter. Yet, it did not Moreover, that Congress did not wish to expand the scope of the

exemption in Section 234(a) to include real property owned by other instrumentalities or agencies of the government including government-owned and controlled corporations is further borne out by the fact that the source of this exemption is Section 40(a) of P.D. No. 646, otherwise known as the Real Property Tax Code, which reads:
Sec 40. Exemption from Real Property Tax. The exemption shall be as follows: (a) Real property owned by the Republic of the Philippines or any of its political subdivisions and any government-owned or controlled corporations so exempt by is charter: Provided, however, that this exemption shall not apply to real property of the above mentioned entities the beneficial use of which has been granted, for consideration or otherwise, to a taxable person.

Note that as a reproduced in Section 234(a), the phrase "and any governmentowned or controlled corporation so exempt by its charter" was excluded. The justification for this restricted exemption in Section 234(a) seems obvious: to limit further tax exemption privileges, specially in light of the general provision on withdrawal of exemption from payment of real property taxes in the last paragraph of property taxes in the last paragraph of Section 234. These policy considerations are consistent with the State policy to ensure autonomy to local governments 33 and the objective of the LGC that they enjoy genuine and meaningful local autonomy to enable them to attain their fullest development as self-reliant

communities and make them effective partners in the attainment of national goals. 34 The power to tax is the most effective instrument to raise needed revenues to finance and support myriad activities of local government units for the delivery of basic services essential to the promotion of the general welfare and the enhancement of peace, progress, and prosperity of the people. It may also be relevant to recall that the original reasons for the withdrawal of tax exemption privileges granted to government-owned and controlled corporations and all other units of government were that such privilege resulted in serious tax base erosion and distortions in the tax treatment of similarly situated enterprises, and there was a need for this entities to share in the requirements of the development, fiscal or otherwise, by paying the taxes and other charges due from them. 35 The crucial issues then to be addressed are: (a) whether the parcels of land in question belong to the Republic of the Philippines whose beneficial use has been granted to the petitioner, and (b) whether the petitioner is a "taxable person". Section 15 of the petitioner's Charter provides:
Sec. 15. Transfer of Existing Facilities and Intangible Assets. All existing public airport facilities, runways, lands, buildings and other properties, movable or immovable, belonging to or presently administered by the airports, and all assets, powers, rights, interests and privileges relating on airport works, or air operations, including all equipment which are necessary for the operations of air navigation, acrodrome control towers, crash, fire, and rescue facilities are hereby transferred to the Authority: Provided

however, that the operations control of all equipment necessary for the operation of radio aids to air navigation, airways communication, the approach control office, and the area control center shall be retained by the Air Transportation Office. No equipment, however, shall be removed by the Air Transportation Office from Mactan without the concurrence of the authority. The authority may assist in the maintenance of the Air Transportation Office equipment.

The "airports" referred to are the "Lahug Air Port" in Cebu City and the "Mactan International AirPort in the Province of Cebu", 36 which belonged to the Republic of the Philippines, then under the Air Transportation Office (ATO). 37 It may be reasonable to assume that the term "lands" refer to "lands" in Cebu City then administered by the Lahug Air Port and includes the parcels of land the respondent City of Cebu seeks to levy on for real property taxes. This section involves a "transfer" of the "lands" among other things, to the petitioner and not just the transfer of the beneficial use thereof, with the ownership being retained by the Republic of the Philippines. This "transfer" is actually an absolute conveyance of the ownership thereof because the petitioner's authorized capital stock consists of, inter alia "the value of such real estate owned and/or administered by the airports." 38 Hence, the petitioner is now the owner of the land in question and the exception in Section 234(c) of the LGC is inapplicable.

Moreover, the petitioner cannot claim that it was never a "taxable person" under its Charter. It was only exempted from the payment of real property taxes. The grant of the privilege only in respect of this tax is conclusive proof of the legislative intent to make it a taxable person subject to all taxes, except real property tax. Finally, even if the petitioner was originally not a taxable person for purposes of real property tax, in light of the forgoing disquisitions, it had already become even if it be conceded to be an "agency" or "instrumentality" of the Government, a taxable person for such purpose in view of the withdrawal in the last paragraph of Section 234 of exemptions from the payment of real property taxes, which, as earlier adverted to, applies to the petitioner. Accordingly, the position taken by the petitioner is untenable. Reliance on Basco vs. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation 39 is unavailing since it was decided before the effectivity of the LGC. Besides, nothing can prevent Congress from decreeing that even instrumentalities or agencies of the government performing governmental functions may be subject to tax. Where it is done precisely to fulfill a constitutional mandate and national policy, no one can doubt its wisdom. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The challenged decision and order of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu, Branch 20, in Civil Case No. CEB-16900 are AFFIRMED.

No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 155650 July 20, 2006 MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, CITY OF PARAAQUE, CITY MAYOR OF PARAAQUE, SANGGUNIANG PANGLUNGSOD NG PARAAQUE, CITY ASSESSOR OF PARAAQUE, and CITY TREASURER OF PARAAQUE, respondents. DECISION CARPIO, J.: The Antecedents Petitioner Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) operates the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) Complex in Paraaque City under Executive Order No. 903, otherwise known as the Revised Charter of the Manila International Airport Authority ("MIAA Charter"). Executive Order No. 903 was issued on 21 July 1983 by then President Ferdinand E.

Marcos. Subsequently, Executive Order Nos. 9091 and 2982 amended the MIAA Charter. As operator of the international airport, MIAA administers the land, improvements and equipment within the NAIA Complex. The MIAA Charter transferred to MIAA approximately 600 hectares of land,3 including the runways and buildings ("Airport Lands and Buildings") then under the Bureau of Air Transportation.4 The MIAA Charter further provides that no portion of the land transferred to MIAA shall be disposed of through sale or any other mode unless specifically approved by the President of the Philippines.5 On 21 March 1997, the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) issued Opinion No. 061. The OGCC opined that the Local Government Code of 1991 withdrew the exemption from real estate tax granted to MIAA under Section 21 of the MIAA Charter. Thus, MIAA negotiated with respondent City of Paraaque to pay the real estate tax imposed by the City. MIAA then paid some of the real estate tax already due. On 28 June 2001, MIAA received Final Notices of Real Estate Tax Delinquency from the City of Paraaque for the taxable years 1992 to 2001. MIAA's real estate tax delinquency is broken down as follows: TAX TAXABLE TAX DUE DECLARATION YEAR E-016-01370 1992-2001 19,558,160.00 PENALTY 11,201,083.20 TOTAL 30,789,243.20

E-016-01374 E-016-01375 E-016-01376 E-016-01377 E-016-01378 E-016-01379 E-016-01380 *E-016-013-85 *E-016-01387 *E-016-01396 GRAND TOTAL

1992-2001 111,689,424.90 1992-2001 20,276,058.00 1992-2001 58,144,028.00 1992-2001 18,134,614.65 1992-2001 111,107,950.40 1992-2001 4,322,340.00 1992-2001 7,776,436.00 1998-2001 6,444,810.00 1998-2001 34,876,800.00 1998-2001 75,240.00

68,149,479.59 12,371,832.00 35,477,712.00 11,065,188.59 67,794,681.59 2,637,360.00 4,744,944.00 2,900,164.50 5,694,560.00 33,858.00

179,838,904.49 32,647,890.00 93,621,740.00 29,199,803.24 178,902,631.99 6,959,700.00 12,521,380.00 9,344,974.50 50,571,360.00 109,098.00

P392,435,861.95 P232,070,863.47 P 624,506,725.42

1992-1997 RPT was paid on Dec. 24, 1997 as per O.R.#9476102 for P4,207,028.75

#9476101 for P28,676,480.00 #9476103 for P49,115.006 On 17 July 2001, the City of Paraaque, through its City Treasurer, issued notices of levy and warrants of levy on the Airport Lands and Buildings. The Mayor of the City of Paraaque threatened to sell at public auction the Airport Lands and Buildings should MIAA fail to pay the real estate tax delinquency. MIAA thus sought a clarification of OGCC Opinion No. 061. On 9 August 2001, the OGCC issued Opinion No. 147 clarifying OGCC Opinion No. 061. The OGCC pointed out that Section 206 of the Local Government Code requires persons exempt from real estate tax to show proof of exemption. The OGCC opined that Section 21 of the MIAA Charter is the proof that MIAA is exempt from real estate tax. On 1 October 2001, MIAA filed with the Court of Appeals an original petition for prohibition and injunction, with prayer for preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order. The petition sought to restrain the City of Paraaque from imposing real estate tax on, levying against, and auctioning for public sale the Airport Lands and Buildings. The petition was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 66878. On 5 October 2001, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition because MIAA filed it beyond the 60-day reglementary period. The Court of Appeals also denied on 27 September 2002 MIAA's motion for reconsideration and supplemental motion for reconsideration. Hence, MIAA filed on 5 December 2002 the present petition for review.7

Meanwhile, in January 2003, the City of Paraaque posted notices of auction sale at the Barangay Halls of Barangays Vitalez, Sto. Nio, and Tambo, Paraaque City; in the public market of Barangay La Huerta; and in the main lobby of the Paraaque City Hall. The City of Paraaque published the notices in the 3 and 10 January 2003 issues of the Philippine Daily Inquirer, a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines. The notices announced the public auction sale of the Airport Lands and Buildings to the highest bidder on 7 February 2003, 10:00 a.m., at the Legislative Session Hall Building of Paraaque City. A day before the public auction, or on 6 February 2003, at 5:10 p.m., MIAA filed before this Court an Urgent Ex-Parte and Reiteratory Motion for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order. The motion sought to restrain respondents the City of Paraaque, City Mayor of Paraaque, Sangguniang Panglungsod ng Paraaque, City Treasurer of Paraaque, and the City Assessor of Paraaque ("respondents") from auctioning the Airport Lands and Buildings. On 7 February 2003, this Court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) effective immediately. The Court ordered respondents to cease and desist from selling at public auction the Airport Lands and Buildings. Respondents received the TRO on the same day that the Court issued it. However, respondents received the TRO only at 1:25 p.m. or three hours after the conclusion of the public auction. On 10 February 2003, this Court issued a Resolution confirming nunc pro tunc the TRO. On 29 March 2005, the Court heard the parties in oral arguments. In compliance with the directive issued during the hearing, MIAA, respondent City of Paraaque, and the Solicitor

General subsequently submitted their respective Memoranda. MIAA admits that the MIAA Charter has placed the title to the Airport Lands and Buildings in the name of MIAA. However, MIAA points out that it cannot claim ownership over these properties since the real owner of the Airport Lands and Buildings is the Republic of the Philippines. The MIAA Charter mandates MIAA to devote the Airport Lands and Buildings for the benefit of the general public. Since the Airport Lands and Buildings are devoted to public use and public service, the ownership of these properties remains with the State. The Airport Lands and Buildings are thus inalienable and are not subject to real estate tax by local governments. MIAA also points out that Section 21 of the MIAA Charter specifically exempts MIAA from the payment of real estate tax. MIAA insists that it is also exempt from real estate tax under Section 234 of the Local Government Code because the Airport Lands and Buildings are owned by the Republic. To justify the exemption, MIAA invokes the principle that the government cannot tax itself. MIAA points out that the reason for tax exemption of public property is that its taxation would not inure to any public advantage, since in such a case the tax debtor is also the tax creditor. Respondents invoke Section 193 of the Local Government Code, which expressly withdrew the tax exemption privileges of "government-owned and-controlled corporations" upon the effectivity of the Local Government Code. Respondents also argue that a basic rule of statutory construction is that the express mention of one person, thing, or act excludes all others. An

international airport is not among the exceptions mentioned in Section 193 of the Local Government Code. Thus, respondents assert that MIAA cannot claim that the Airport Lands and Buildings are exempt from real estate tax. Respondents also cite the ruling of this Court in Mactan International Airport v. Marcos8 where we held that the Local Government Code has withdrawn the exemption from real estate tax granted to international airports. Respondents further argue that since MIAA has already paid some of the real estate tax assessments, it is now estopped from claiming that the Airport Lands and Buildings are exempt from real estate tax. The Issue This petition raises the threshold issue of whether the Airport Lands and Buildings of MIAA are exempt from real estate tax under existing laws. If so exempt, then the real estate tax assessments issued by the City of Paraaque, and all proceedings taken pursuant to such assessments, are void. In such event, the other issues raised in this petition become moot. The Court's Ruling We rule that MIAA's Airport Lands and Buildings are exempt from real estate tax imposed by local governments. First, MIAA is not a government-owned or controlled corporation but an instrumentality of the National Government and thus exempt from local taxation. Second, the real properties of MIAA are owned by the Republic of the Philippines and thus exempt from real estate tax.

1. MIAA is Not a Government-Owned or Controlled Corporation Respondents argue that MIAA, being a government-owned or controlled corporation, is not exempt from real estate tax. Respondents claim that the deletion of the phrase "any governmentowned or controlled so exempt by its charter" in Section 234(e) of the Local Government Code withdrew the real estate tax exemption of government-owned or controlled corporations. The deleted phrase appeared in Section 40(a) of the 1974 Real Property Tax Code enumerating the entities exempt from real estate tax. There is no dispute that a government-owned or controlled corporation is not exempt from real estate tax. However, MIAA is not a government-owned or controlled corporation. Section 2(13) of the Introductory Provisions of the Administrative Code of 1987 defines a government-owned or controlled corporation as follows: SEC. 2. General Terms Defined. x x x x (13) Government-owned or controlled corporation refers to any agency organized as a stock or non-stock corporation, vested with functions relating to public needs whether governmental or proprietary in nature, and owned by the Government directly or through its instrumentalities either wholly, or, where applicable as in the case of stock corporations, to the extent of at least fifty-one (51) percent of its capital stock: x x x. (Emphasis supplied) A government-owned or controlled corporation must be "organized as a stock or non-stock corporation." MIAA is not organized as a stock or non-stock corporation. MIAA is not a stock corporation because it has no capital stock divided into shares. MIAA has no stockholders or

voting shares. Section 10 of the MIAA Charter9 provides: SECTION 10. Capital. The capital of the Authority to be contributed by the National Government shall be increased from Two and One-half Billion (P2,500,000,000.00) Pesos to Ten Billion (P10,000,000,000.00) Pesos to consist of: (a) The value of fixed assets including airport facilities, runways and equipment and such other properties, movable and immovable[,] which may be contributed by the National Government or transferred by it from any of its agencies, the valuation of which shall be determined jointly with the Department of Budget and Management and the Commission on Audit on the date of such contribution or transfer after making due allowances for depreciation and other deductions taking into account the loans and other liabilities of the Authority at the time of the takeover of the assets and other properties; (b) That the amount of P605 million as of December 31, 1986 representing about seventy percentum (70%) of the unremitted share of the National Government from 1983 to 1986 to be remitted to the National Treasury as provided for in Section 11 of E. O. No. 903 as amended, shall be converted into the equity of the National Government in the Authority. Thereafter, the Government contribution to the capital of the Authority shall be provided in the General Appropriations Act. Clearly, under its Charter, MIAA does not have capital stock that is divided into shares. Section 3 of the Corporation Code10 defines a stock corporation as one whose "capital stock is divided into shares and x x x authorized to distribute to the holders of such shares

dividends x x x." MIAA has capital but it is not divided into shares of stock. MIAA has no stockholders or voting shares. Hence, MIAA is not a stock corporation. MIAA is also not a non-stock corporation because it has no members. Section 87 of the Corporation Code defines a non-stock corporation as "one where no part of its income is distributable as dividends to its members, trustees or officers." A non-stock corporation must have members. Even if we assume that the Government is considered as the sole member of MIAA, this will not make MIAA a non-stock corporation. Non-stock corporations cannot distribute any part of their income to their members. Section 11 of the MIAA Charter mandates MIAA to remit 20% of its annual gross operating income to the National Treasury.11 This prevents MIAA from qualifying as a non-stock corporation. Section 88 of the Corporation Code provides that non-stock corporations are "organized for charitable, religious, educational, professional, cultural, recreational, fraternal, literary, scientific, social, civil service, or similar purposes, like trade, industry, agriculture and like chambers." MIAA is not organized for any of these purposes. MIAA, a public utility, is organized to operate an international and domestic airport for public use. Since MIAA is neither a stock nor a non-stock corporation, MIAA does not qualify as a government-owned or controlled corporation. What then is the legal status of MIAA within the National Government? MIAA is a government instrumentality vested with corporate powers to perform efficiently its governmental functions. MIAA is like any other government instrumentality, the only difference

is that MIAA is vested with corporate powers. Section 2(10) of the Introductory Provisions of the Administrative Code defines a government "instrumentality" as follows: SEC. 2. General Terms Defined. x x x x (10) Instrumentality refers to any agency of the National Government, not integrated within the department framework, vested with special functions or jurisdiction by law, endowed with some if not all corporate powers, administering special funds, and enjoying operational autonomy, usually through a charter. x x x (Emphasis supplied) When the law vests in a government instrumentality corporate powers, the instrumentality does not become a corporation. Unless the government instrumentality is organized as a stock or nonstock corporation, it remains a government instrumentality exercising not only governmental but also corporate powers. Thus, MIAA exercises the governmental powers of eminent domain,12 police authority13 and the levying of fees and charges.14 At the same time, MIAA exercises "all the powers of a corporation under the Corporation Law, insofar as these powers are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Executive Order."15 Likewise, when the law makes a government instrumentality operationally autonomous, the instrumentality remains part of the National Government machinery although not integrated with the department framework. The MIAA Charter expressly states that transforming MIAA into a "separate and autonomous body"16 will make its operation more "financially viable."17 Many government instrumentalities are vested with corporate powers but they do not become

stock or non-stock corporations, which is a necessary condition before an agency or instrumentality is deemed a government-owned or controlled corporation. Examples are the Mactan International Airport Authority, the Philippine Ports Authority, the University of the Philippines and Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas. All these government instrumentalities exercise corporate powers but they are not organized as stock or non-stock corporations as required by Section 2(13) of the Introductory Provisions of the Administrative Code. These government instrumentalities are sometimes loosely called government corporate entities. However, they are not government-owned or controlled corporations in the strict sense as understood under the Administrative Code, which is the governing law defining the legal relationship and status of government entities. A government instrumentality like MIAA falls under Section 133(o) of the Local Government Code, which states: SEC. 133. Common Limitations on the Taxing Powers of Local Government Units. Unless otherwise provided herein, the exercise of the taxing powers of provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays shall not extend to the levy of the following: xxxx (o) Taxes, fees or charges of any kind on the National Government, its agencies and instrumentalities and local government units.(Emphasis and underscoring supplied) Section 133(o) recognizes the basic principle that local governments cannot tax the national government, which historically merely delegated to local governments the power to tax. While

the 1987 Constitution now includes taxation as one of the powers of local governments, local governments may only exercise such power "subject to such guidelines and limitations as the Congress may provide."18 When local governments invoke the power to tax on national government instrumentalities, such power is construed strictly against local governments. The rule is that a tax is never presumed and there must be clear language in the law imposing the tax. Any doubt whether a person, article or activity is taxable is resolved against taxation. This rule applies with greater force when local governments seek to tax national government instrumentalities. Another rule is that a tax exemption is strictly construed against the taxpayer claiming the exemption. However, when Congress grants an exemption to a national government instrumentality from local taxation, such exemption is construed liberally in favor of the national government instrumentality. As this Court declared in Maceda v. Macaraig, Jr.: The reason for the rule does not apply in the case of exemptions running to the benefit of the government itself or its agencies. In such case the practical effect of an exemption is merely to reduce the amount of money that has to be handled by government in the course of its operations. For these reasons, provisions granting exemptions to government agencies may be construed liberally, in favor of non tax-liability of such agencies.19 There is, moreover, no point in national and local governments taxing each other, unless a sound and compelling policy requires such transfer of public funds from one government pocket to another.

There is also no reason for local governments to tax national government instrumentalities for rendering essential public services to inhabitants of local governments. The only exception is when the legislature clearly intended to tax government instrumentalities for the delivery of essential public services for sound and compelling policy considerations. There must be express language in the law empowering local governments to tax national government instrumentalities. Any doubt whether such power exists is resolved against local governments. Thus, Section 133 of the Local Government Code states that "unless otherwise provided" in the Code, local governments cannot tax national government instrumentalities. As this Court held in Basco v. Philippine Amusements and Gaming Corporation: The states have no power by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, burden or in any manner control the operation of constitutional laws enacted by Congress to carry into execution the powers vested in the federal government. (MC Culloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316, 4 L Ed. 579) This doctrine emanates from the "supremacy" of the National Government over local governments. "Justice Holmes, speaking for the Supreme Court, made reference to the entire absence of power on the part of the States to touch, in that way (taxation) at least, the instrumentalities of the United States (Johnson v. Maryland, 254 US 51) and it can be agreed that no state or political subdivision can regulate a federal instrumentality in such a way as to prevent it from consummating its federal responsibilities, or even to

seriously burden it in the accomplishment of them." (Antieau, Modern Constitutional Law, Vol. 2, p. 140, emphasis supplied) Otherwise, mere creatures of the State can defeat National policies thru extermination of what local authorities may perceive to be undesirable activities or enterprise using the power to tax as "a tool for regulation" (U.S. v. Sanchez, 340 US 42). The power to tax which was called by Justice Marshall as the "power to destroy" (Mc Culloch v. Maryland, supra) cannot be allowed to defeat an instrumentality or creation of the very entity which has the inherent power to wield it. 20 2. Airport Lands and Buildings of MIAA are Owned by the Republic a. Airport Lands and Buildings are of Public Dominion The Airport Lands and Buildings of MIAA are property of public dominion and therefore owned by the State or the Republic of the Philippines. The Civil Code provides: ARTICLE 419. Property is either of public dominion or of private ownership. ARTICLE 420. The following things are property of public dominion: (1) Those intended for public use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and bridges constructed by the State, banks, shores, roadsteads, and others of similar character; (2) Those which belong to the State, without being for public use, and are intended for some public service or for the development of the national wealth. (Emphasis supplied)

ARTICLE 421. All other property of the State, which is not of the character stated in the preceding article, is patrimonial property. ARTICLE 422. Property of public dominion, when no longer intended for public use or for public service, shall form part of the patrimonial property of the State. No one can dispute that properties of public dominion mentioned in Article 420 of the Civil Code, like "roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and bridges constructed by the State," are owned by the State. The term "ports" includes seaports and airports. The MIAA Airport Lands and Buildings constitute a "port" constructed by the State. Under Article 420 of the Civil Code, the MIAA Airport Lands and Buildings are properties of public dominion and thus owned by the State or the Republic of the Philippines. The Airport Lands and Buildings are devoted to public use because they are used by the public for international and domestic travel and transportation. The fact that the MIAA collects terminal fees and other charges from the public does not remove the character of the Airport Lands and Buildings as properties for public use. The operation by the government of a tollway does not change the character of the road as one for public use. Someone must pay for the maintenance of the road, either the public indirectly through the taxes they pay the government, or only those among the public who actually use the road through the toll fees they pay upon using the road. The tollway system is even a more efficient and equitable manner of taxing the public for the maintenance of public roads. The charging of fees to the public does not determine the character of the property whether it is

of public dominion or not. Article 420 of the Civil Code defines property of public dominion as one "intended for public use." Even if the government collects toll fees, the road is still "intended for public use" if anyone can use the road under the same terms and conditions as the rest of the public. The charging of fees, the limitation on the kind of vehicles that can use the road, the speed restrictions and other conditions for the use of the road do not affect the public character of the road. The terminal fees MIAA charges to passengers, as well as the landing fees MIAA charges to airlines, constitute the bulk of the income that maintains the operations of MIAA. The collection of such fees does not change the character of MIAA as an airport for public use. Such fees are often termed user's tax. This means taxing those among the public who actually use a public facility instead of taxing all the public including those who never use the particular public facility. A user's tax is more equitable a principle of taxation mandated in the 1987 Constitution.21 The Airport Lands and Buildings of MIAA, which its Charter calls the "principal airport of the Philippines for both international and domestic air traffic,"22 are properties of public dominion because they are intended for public use. As properties of public dominion, they indisputably belong to the State or the Republic of the Philippines. b. Airport Lands and Buildings are Outside the Commerce of Man The Airport Lands and Buildings of MIAA are devoted to public use and thus are properties of public dominion. As properties of public dominion, the Airport Lands and Buildings are

outside the commerce of man. The Court has ruled repeatedly that properties of public dominion are outside the commerce of man. As early as 1915, this Court already ruled in Municipality of Cavite v. Rojas that properties devoted to public use are outside the commerce of man, thus: According to article 344 of the Civil Code: "Property for public use in provinces and in towns comprises the provincial and town roads, the squares, streets, fountains, and public waters, the promenades, and public works of general service supported by said towns or provinces." The said Plaza Soledad being a promenade for public use, the municipal council of Cavite could not in 1907 withdraw or exclude from public use a portion thereof in order to lease it for the sole benefit of the defendant Hilaria Rojas. In leasing a portion of said plaza or public place to the defendant for private use the plaintiff municipality exceeded its authority in the exercise of its powers by executing a contract over a thing of which it could not dispose, nor is it empowered so to do. The Civil Code, article 1271, prescribes that everything which is not outside the commerce of man may be the object of a contract, and plazas and streets are outside of this commerce, as was decided by the supreme court of Spain in its decision of February 12, 1895, which says: "Communal things that cannot be sold because they are by their very nature outside of commerce are those for public use, such as the plazas, streets, common lands, rivers, fountains, etc." (Emphasis supplied) 23

Again in Espiritu v. Municipal Council, the Court declared that properties of public dominion are outside the commerce of man: xxx Town plazas are properties of public dominion, to be devoted to public use and to be made available to the public in general. They are outside the commerce of man and cannot be disposed of or even leased by the municipality to private parties. While in case of war or during an emergency, town plazas may be occupied temporarily by private individuals, as was done and as was tolerated by the Municipality of Pozorrubio, when the emergency has ceased, said temporary occupation or use must also cease, and the town officials should see to it that the town plazas should ever be kept open to the public and free from encumbrances or illegal private constructions.24 (Emphasis supplied) The Court has also ruled that property of public dominion, being outside the commerce of man, cannot be the subject of an auction sale.25 Properties of public dominion, being for public use, are not subject to levy, encumbrance or disposition through public or private sale. Any encumbrance, levy on execution or auction sale of any property of public dominion is void for being contrary to public policy. Essential public services will stop if properties of public dominion are subject to encumbrances, foreclosures and auction sale. This will happen if the City of Paraaque can foreclose and compel the auction sale of the 600-hectare runway of the MIAA for non-payment of real estate tax. Before MIAA can encumber26 the Airport Lands and Buildings, the President must first withdraw from public use the Airport Lands and Buildings. Sections 83 and 88 of the Public

Land Law or Commonwealth Act No. 141, which "remains to this day the existing general law governing the classification and disposition of lands of the public domain other than timber and mineral lands,"27 provide: SECTION 83. Upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, the President may designate by proclamation any tract or tracts of land of the public domain as reservations for the use of the Republic of the Philippines or of any of its branches, or of the inhabitants thereof, in accordance with regulations prescribed for this purposes, or for quasi-public uses or purposes when the public interest requires it, including reservations for highways, rights of way for railroads, hydraulic power sites, irrigation systems, communal pastures or lequas communales, public parks, public quarries, public fishponds, working men's village and other improvements for the public benefit. SECTION 88. The tract or tracts of land reserved under the provisions of Section eighty-three shall be non-alienable and shall not be subject to occupation, entry, sale, lease, or other disposition until again declared alienable under the provisions of this Act or by proclamation of the President. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) Thus, unless the President issues a proclamation withdrawing the Airport Lands and Buildings from public use, these properties remain properties of public dominion and are inalienable. Since the Airport Lands and Buildings are inalienable in their present status as properties of public dominion, they are not subject to levy on execution or foreclosure sale. As long as the Airport Lands and Buildings are reserved for public use, their ownership remains with the State

or the Republic of the Philippines. The authority of the President to reserve lands of the public domain for public use, and to withdraw such public use, is reiterated in Section 14, Chapter 4, Title I, Book III of the Administrative Code of 1987, which states: SEC. 14. Power to Reserve Lands of the Public and Private Domain of the Government. (1) The President shall have the power to reserve for settlement or public use, and for specific public purposes, any of the lands of the public domain, the use of which is not otherwise directed by law. The reserved land shall thereafter remain subject to the specific public purpose indicated until otherwise provided by law or proclamation; x x x x. (Emphasis supplied) There is no question, therefore, that unless the Airport Lands and Buildings are withdrawn by law or presidential proclamation from public use, they are properties of public dominion, owned by the Republic and outside the commerce of man. c. MIAA is a Mere Trustee of the Republic MIAA is merely holding title to the Airport Lands and Buildings in trust for the Republic. Section 48, Chapter 12, Book I of the Administrative Code allows instrumentalities like MIAA to hold title to real properties owned by the Republic, thus: SEC. 48. Official Authorized to Convey Real Property. Whenever real property of the Government is authorized by law to be conveyed, the deed of conveyance shall be executed

in behalf of the government by the following: (1) For property belonging to and titled in the name of the Republic of the Philippines, by the President, unless the authority therefor is expressly vested by law in another officer. (2) For property belonging to the Republic of the Philippines but titled in the name of any political subdivision or of any corporate agency or instrumentality, by the executive head of the agency or instrumentality. (Emphasis supplied) In MIAA's case, its status as a mere trustee of the Airport Lands and Buildings is clearer because even its executive head cannot sign the deed of conveyance on behalf of the Republic. Only the President of the Republic can sign such deed of conveyance.28 d. Transfer to MIAA was Meant to Implement a Reorganization The MIAA Charter, which is a law, transferred to MIAA the title to the Airport Lands and Buildings from the Bureau of Air Transportation of the Department of Transportation and Communications. The MIAA Charter provides: SECTION 3. Creation of the Manila International Airport Authority. x x x x The land where the Airport is presently located as well as the surrounding land area of approximately six hundred hectares, are hereby transferred, conveyed and assigned to the ownership and administration of the Authority, subject to existing rights, if any. The Bureau of Lands and other appropriate government agencies shall undertake an actual survey of the area transferred within one year from the promulgation of

this Executive Order and the corresponding title to be issued in the name of the Authority. Any portion thereof shall not be disposed through sale or through any other mode unless specifically approved by the President of the Philippines. (Emphasis supplied) SECTION 22. Transfer of Existing Facilities and Intangible Assets. All existing public airport facilities, runways, lands, buildings and other property, movable or immovable, belonging to the Airport, and all assets, powers, rights, interests and privileges belonging to the Bureau of Air Transportation relating to airport works or air operations, including all equipment which are necessary for the operation of crash fire and rescue facilities, are hereby transferred to the Authority. (Emphasis supplied) SECTION 25. Abolition of the Manila International Airport as a Division in the Bureau of Air Transportation and Transitory Provisions. The Manila International Airport including the Manila Domestic Airport as a division under the Bureau of Air Transportation is hereby abolished. x x x x. The MIAA Charter transferred the Airport Lands and Buildings to MIAA without the Republic receiving cash, promissory notes or even stock since MIAA is not a stock corporation. The whereas clauses of the MIAA Charter explain the rationale for the transfer of the Airport Lands and Buildings to MIAA, thus: WHEREAS, the Manila International Airport as the principal airport of the Philippines for both international and domestic air traffic, is required to provide standards of airport

accommodation and service comparable with the best airports in the world; WHEREAS, domestic and other terminals, general aviation and other facilities, have to be upgraded to meet the current and future air traffic and other demands of aviation in Metro Manila; WHEREAS, a management and organization study has indicated that the objectives of providing high standards of accommodation and service within the context of a financially viable operation, will best be achieved by a separate and autonomous body ; and WHEREAS, under Presidential Decree No. 1416, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1772, the President of the Philippines is given continuing authority to reorganize the National Government, which authority includes the creation of new entities, agencies and instrumentalities of the Government[.] (Emphasis supplied) The transfer of the Airport Lands and Buildings from the Bureau of Air Transportation to MIAA was not meant to transfer beneficial ownership of these assets from the Republic to MIAA. The purpose was merely to reorganize a division in the Bureau of Air Transportation into a separate and autonomous body. The Republic remains the beneficial owner of the Airport Lands and Buildings. MIAA itself is owned solely by the Republic. No party claims any ownership rights over MIAA's assets adverse to the Republic. The MIAA Charter expressly provides that the Airport Lands and Buildings "shall not be disposed through sale or through any other mode unless specifically approved by the

President of the Philippines." This only means that the Republic retained the beneficial ownership of the Airport Lands and Buildings because under Article 428 of the Civil Code, only the "owner has the right to x x x dispose of a thing." Since MIAA cannot dispose of the Airport Lands and Buildings, MIAA does not own the Airport Lands and Buildings. At any time, the President can transfer back to the Republic title to the Airport Lands and Buildings without the Republic paying MIAA any consideration. Under Section 3 of the MIAA Charter, the President is the only one who can authorize the sale or disposition of the Airport Lands and Buildings. This only confirms that the Airport Lands and Buildings belong to the Republic. e. Real Property Owned by the Republic is Not Taxable Section 234(a) of the Local Government Code exempts from real estate tax any "[r]eal property owned by the Republic of the Philippines." Section 234(a) provides: SEC. 234. Exemptions from Real Property Tax. The following are exempted from payment of the real property tax: (a) Real property owned by the Republic of the Philippines or any of its political subdivisions except when the beneficial use thereof has been granted, for consideration or otherwise, to a taxable person; x x x. (Emphasis supplied) This exemption should be read in relation with Section 133(o) of the same Code, which

prohibits local governments from imposing "[t]axes, fees or charges of any kind on the National Government, its agencies and instrumentalities x x x." The real properties owned by the Republic are titled either in the name of the Republic itself or in the name of agencies or instrumentalities of the National Government. The Administrative Code allows real property owned by the Republic to be titled in the name of agencies or instrumentalities of the national government. Such real properties remain owned by the Republic and continue to be exempt from real estate tax. The Republic may grant the beneficial use of its real property to an agency or instrumentality of the national government. This happens when title of the real property is transferred to an agency or instrumentality even as the Republic remains the owner of the real property. Such arrangement does not result in the loss of the tax exemption. Section 234(a) of the Local Government Code states that real property owned by the Republic loses its tax exemption only if the "beneficial use thereof has been granted, for consideration or otherwise, to a taxable person." MIAA, as a government instrumentality, is not a taxable person under Section 133(o) of the Local Government Code. Thus, even if we assume that the Republic has granted to MIAA the beneficial use of the Airport Lands and Buildings, such fact does not make these real properties subject to real estate tax. However, portions of the Airport Lands and Buildings that MIAA leases to private entities are not exempt from real estate tax. For example, the land area occupied by hangars that MIAA leases to private corporations is subject to real estate tax. In such a case, MIAA has granted the beneficial use of such land area for a consideration to a taxable person and therefore such land

area is subject to real estate tax. In Lung Center of the Philippines v. Quezon City, the Court ruled: Accordingly, we hold that the portions of the land leased to private entities as well as those parts of the hospital leased to private individuals are not exempt from such taxes. On the other hand, the portions of the land occupied by the hospital and portions of the hospital used for its patients, whether paying or non-paying, are exempt from real property taxes.29 3. Refutation of Arguments of Minority The minority asserts that the MIAA is not exempt from real estate tax because Section 193 of the Local Government Code of 1991 withdrew the tax exemption of "all persons, whether natural or juridical" upon the effectivity of the Code. Section 193 provides: SEC. 193. Withdrawal of Tax Exemption Privileges Unless otherwise provided in this Code, tax exemptions or incentives granted to, or presently enjoyed by all persons, whether natural or juridical, including government-owned or controlled corporations, except local water districts, cooperatives duly registered under R.A. No. 6938, non-stock and non-profit hospitals and educational institutions are hereby withdrawn upon effectivity of this Code. (Emphasis supplied) The minority states that MIAA is indisputably a juridical person. The minority argues that since the Local Government Code withdrew the tax exemption of all juridical persons, then MIAA is not exempt from real estate tax. Thus, the minority declares:

It is evident from the quoted provisions of the Local Government Code that the withdrawn exemptions from realty tax cover not just GOCCs, but all persons. To repeat, the provisions lay down the explicit proposition that the withdrawal of realty tax exemption applies to all persons. The reference to or the inclusion of GOCCs is only clarificatory or illustrative of the explicit provision. The term "All persons" encompasses the two classes of persons recognized under our laws, natural and juridical persons. Obviously, MIAA is not a natural person. Thus, the determinative test is not just whether MIAA is a GOCC, but whether MIAA is a juridical person at all. (Emphasis and underscoring in the original) The minority posits that the "determinative test" whether MIAA is exempt from local taxation is its status whether MIAA is a juridical person or not. The minority also insists that "Sections 193 and 234 may be examined in isolation from Section 133(o) to ascertain MIAA's claim of exemption." The argument of the minority is fatally flawed. Section 193 of the Local Government Code expressly withdrew the tax exemption of all juridical persons "[u]nless otherwise provided in this Code." Now, Section 133(o) of the Local Government Code expressly provides otherwise, specifically prohibiting local governments from imposing any kind of tax on national government instrumentalities. Section 133(o) states: SEC. 133. Common Limitations on the Taxing Powers of Local Government Units. Unless otherwise provided herein, the exercise of the taxing powers of provinces, cities,

municipalities, and barangays shall not extend to the levy of the following: xxxx (o) Taxes, fees or charges of any kinds on the National Government, its agencies and instrumentalities, and local government units. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) By express mandate of the Local Government Code, local governments cannot impose any kind of tax on national government instrumentalities like the MIAA. Local governments are devoid of power to tax the national government, its agencies and instrumentalities. The taxing powers of local governments do not extend to the national government, its agencies and instrumentalities, "[u]nless otherwise provided in this Code" as stated in the saving clause of Section 133. The saving clause refers to Section 234(a) on the exception to the exemption from real estate tax of real property owned by the Republic. The minority, however, theorizes that unless exempted in Section 193 itself, all juridical persons are subject to tax by local governments. The minority insists that the juridical persons exempt from local taxation are limited to the three classes of entities specifically enumerated as exempt in Section 193. Thus, the minority states: x x x Under Section 193, the exemption is limited to (a) local water districts; (b) cooperatives duly registered under Republic Act No. 6938; and (c) non-stock and nonprofit hospitals and educational institutions. It would be belaboring the obvious why the MIAA does not fall within any of the exempt entities under Section 193. (Emphasis supplied)

The minority's theory directly contradicts and completely negates Section 133(o) of the Local Government Code. This theory will result in gross absurdities. It will make the national government, which itself is a juridical person, subject to tax by local governments since the national government is not included in the enumeration of exempt entities in Section 193. Under this theory, local governments can impose any kind of local tax, and not only real estate tax, on the national government. Under the minority's theory, many national government instrumentalities with juridical personalities will also be subject to any kind of local tax, and not only real estate tax. Some of the national government instrumentalities vested by law with juridical personalities are: Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas,30 Philippine Rice Research Institute,31 Laguna Lake Development Authority,32 Fisheries Development Authority,33 Bases Conversion Development Authority,34 Philippine Ports Authority,35 Cagayan de Oro Port Authority,36 San Fernando Port Authority,37 Cebu Port Authority,38 and Philippine National Railways.39 The minority's theory violates Section 133(o) of the Local Government Code which expressly prohibits local governments from imposing any kind of tax on national government instrumentalities. Section 133(o) does not distinguish between national government instrumentalities with or without juridical personalities. Where the law does not distinguish, courts should not distinguish. Thus, Section 133(o) applies to all national government instrumentalities, with or without juridical personalities. The determinative test whether MIAA is exempt from local taxation is not whether MIAA is a juridical person, but whether it is a

national government instrumentality under Section 133(o) of the Local Government Code. Section 133(o) is the specific provision of law prohibiting local governments from imposing any kind of tax on the national government, its agencies and instrumentalities. Section 133 of the Local Government Code starts with the saving clause "[u]nless otherwise provided in this Code." This means that unless the Local Government Code grants an express authorization, local governments have no power to tax the national government, its agencies and instrumentalities. Clearly, the rule is local governments have no power to tax the national government, its agencies and instrumentalities. As an exception to this rule, local governments may tax the national government, its agencies and instrumentalities only if the Local Government Code expressly so provides. The saving clause in Section 133 refers to the exception to the exemption in Section 234(a) of the Code, which makes the national government subject to real estate tax when it gives the beneficial use of its real properties to a taxable entity. Section 234(a) of the Local Government Code provides: SEC. 234. Exemptions from Real Property Tax The following are exempted from payment of the real property tax: (a) Real property owned by the Republic of the Philippines or any of its political subdivisions except when the beneficial use thereof has been granted, for consideration or otherwise, to a taxable person. x x x. (Emphasis supplied)

Under Section 234(a), real property owned by the Republic is exempt from real estate tax. The exception to this exemption is when the government gives the beneficial use of the real property to a taxable entity. The exception to the exemption in Section 234(a) is the only instance when the national government, its agencies and instrumentalities are subject to any kind of tax by local governments. The exception to the exemption applies only to real estate tax and not to any other tax. The justification for the exception to the exemption is that the real property, although owned by the Republic, is not devoted to public use or public service but devoted to the private gain of a taxable person. The minority also argues that since Section 133 precedes Section 193 and 234 of the Local Government Code, the later provisions prevail over Section 133. Thus, the minority asserts: x x x Moreover, sequentially Section 133 antecedes Section 193 and 234. Following an accepted rule of construction, in case of conflict the subsequent provisions should prevail. Therefore, MIAA, as a juridical person, is subject to real property taxes, the general exemptions attaching to instrumentalities under Section 133(o) of the Local Government Code being qualified by Sections 193 and 234 of the same law. (Emphasis supplied) The minority assumes that there is an irreconcilable conflict between Section 133 on one hand, and Sections 193 and 234 on the other. No one has urged that there is such a conflict, much less has any one presenteda persuasive argument that there is such a conflict. The minority's assumption of an irreconcilable conflict in the statutory provisions is an egregious error for two

reasons. First, there is no conflict whatsoever between Sections 133 and 193 because Section 193 expressly admits its subordination to other provisions of the Code when Section 193 states "[u]nless otherwise provided in this Code." By its own words, Section 193 admits the superiority of other provisions of the Local Government Code that limit the exercise of the taxing power in Section 193. When a provision of law grants a power but withholds such power on certain matters, there is no conflict between the grant of power and the withholding of power. The grantee of the power simply cannot exercise the power on matters withheld from its power. Second, Section 133 is entitled "Common Limitations on the Taxing Powers of Local Government Units." Section 133 limits the grant to local governments of the power to tax, and not merely the exercise of a delegated power to tax. Section 133 states that the taxing powers of local governments "shall not extend to the levy" of any kind of tax on the national government, its agencies and instrumentalities. There is no clearer limitation on the taxing power than this. Since Section 133 prescribes the "common limitations" on the taxing powers of local governments, Section 133 logically prevails over Section 193 which grants local governments such taxing powers. By their very meaning and purpose, the "common limitations" on the taxing power prevail over the grant or exercise of the taxing power. If the taxing power of local governments in Section 193 prevails over the limitations on such taxing power in Section 133, then local governments can impose any kind of tax on the national government, its agencies and instrumentalities a gross absurdity.

Local governments have no power to tax the national government, its agencies and instrumentalities, except as otherwise provided in the Local Government Code pursuant to the saving clause in Section 133 stating "[u]nless otherwise provided in this Code." This exception which is an exception to the exemption of the Republic from real estate tax imposed by local governments refers to Section 234(a) of the Code. The exception to the exemption in Section 234(a) subjects real property owned by the Republic, whether titled in the name of the national government, its agencies or instrumentalities, to real estate tax if the beneficial use of such property is given to a taxable entity. The minority also claims that the definition in the Administrative Code of the phrase "government-owned or controlled corporation" is not controlling. The minority points out that Section 2 of the Introductory Provisions of the Administrative Code admits that its definitions are not controlling when it provides: SEC. 2. General Terms Defined. Unless the specific words of the text, or the context as a whole, or a particular statute, shall require a different meaning: xxxx The minority then concludes that reliance on the Administrative Code definition is "flawed." The minority's argument is a non sequitur. True, Section 2 of the Administrative Code recognizes that a statute may require a different meaning than that defined in the Administrative Code. However, this does not automatically mean that the definition in the Administrative Code does not apply to the Local Government Code. Section 2 of the Administrative Code clearly

states that "unless the specific words x x x of a particular statute shall require a different meaning," the definition in Section 2 of the Administrative Code shall apply. Thus, unless there is specific language in the Local Government Code defining the phrase "government-owned or controlled corporation" differently from the definition in the Administrative Code, the definition in the Administrative Code prevails. The minority does not point to any provision in the Local Government Code defining the phrase "government-owned or controlled corporation" differently from the definition in the Administrative Code. Indeed, there is none. The Local Government Code is silent on the definition of the phrase "government-owned or controlled corporation." The Administrative Code, however, expressly defines the phrase "government-owned or controlled corporation." The inescapable conclusion is that the Administrative Code definition of the phrase "government-owned or controlled corporation" applies to the Local Government Code. The third whereas clause of the Administrative Code states that the Code "incorporates in a unified document the major structural, functional and procedural principles and rules of governance." Thus, the Administrative Code is the governing law defining the status and relationship of government departments, bureaus, offices, agencies and instrumentalities. Unless a statute expressly provides for a different status and relationship for a specific government unit or entity, the provisions of the Administrative Code prevail. The minority also contends that the phrase "government-owned or controlled corporation" should apply only to corporations organized under the Corporation Code, the general

incorporation law, and not to corporations created by special charters. The minority sees no reason why government corporations with special charters should have a capital stock. Thus, the minority declares: I submit that the definition of "government-owned or controlled corporations" under the Administrative Code refer to those corporations owned by the government or its instrumentalities which are created not by legislative enactment, but formed and organized under the Corporation Code through registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission. In short, these are GOCCs without original charters. xxxx It might as well be worth pointing out that there is no point in requiring a capital structure for GOCCs whose full ownership is limited by its charter to the State or Republic. Such GOCCs are not empowered to declare dividends or alienate their capital shares. The contention of the minority is seriously flawed. It is not in accord with the Constitution and existing legislations. It will also result in gross absurdities. First, the Administrative Code definition of the phrase "government-owned or controlled corporation" does not distinguish between one incorporated under the Corporation Code or under a special charter. Where the law does not distinguish, courts should not distinguish. Second, Congress has created through special charters several government-owned corporations organized as stock corporations. Prime examples are the Land Bank of the Philippines and the

Development Bank of the Philippines. The special charter40 of the Land Bank of the Philippines provides: SECTION 81. Capital. The authorized capital stock of the Bank shall be nine billion pesos, divided into seven hundred and eighty million common shares with a par value of ten pesos each, which shall be fully subscribed by the Government, and one hundred and twenty million preferred shares with a par value of ten pesos each, which shall be issued in accordance with the provisions of Sections seventy-seven and eighty-three of this Code. (Emphasis supplied) Likewise, the special charter41 of the Development Bank of the Philippines provides: SECTION 7. Authorized Capital Stock Par value. The capital stock of the Bank shall be Five Billion Pesos to be divided into Fifty Million common shares with par value of P100 per share. These shares are available for subscription by the National Government. Upon the effectivity of this Charter, the National Government shall subscribe to TwentyFive Million common shares of stock worth Two Billion Five Hundred Million which shall be deemed paid for by the Government with the net asset values of the Bank remaining after the transfer of assets and liabilities as provided in Section 30 hereof. (Emphasis supplied) Other government-owned corporations organized as stock corporations under their special charters are the Philippine Crop Insurance Corporation,42 Philippine International Trading Corporation,43 and the Philippine National Bank44 before it was reorganized as a stock

corporation under the Corporation Code. All these government-owned corporations organized under special charters as stock corporations are subject to real estate tax on real properties owned by them. To rule that they are not government-owned or controlled corporations because they are not registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission would remove them from the reach of Section 234 of the Local Government Code, thus exempting them from real estate tax. Third, the government-owned or controlled corporations created through special charters are those that meet the two conditions prescribed in Section 16, Article XII of the Constitution. The first condition is that the government-owned or controlled corporation must be established for the common good. The second condition is that the government-owned or controlled corporation must meet the test of economic viability. Section 16, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution provides: SEC. 16. The Congress shall not, except by general law, provide for the formation, organization, or regulation of private corporations. Government-owned or controlled corporations may be created or established by special charters in the interest of the common good and subject to the test of economic viability. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) The Constitution expressly authorizes the legislature to create "government-owned or controlled corporations" through special charters only if these entities are required to meet the twin conditions of common good and economic viability. In other words, Congress has no power to create government-owned or controlled corporations with special charters unless they are made

to comply with the two conditions of common good and economic viability. The test of economic viability applies only to government-owned or controlled corporations that perform economic or commercial activities and need to compete in the market place. Being essentially economic vehicles of the State for the common good meaning for economic development purposes these government-owned or controlled corporations with special charters are usually organized as stock corporations just like ordinary private corporations. In contrast, government instrumentalities vested with corporate powers and performing governmental or public functions need not meet the test of economic viability. These instrumentalities perform essential public services for the common good, services that every modern State must provide its citizens. These instrumentalities need not be economically viable since the government may even subsidize their entire operations. These instrumentalities are not the "government-owned or controlled corporations" referred to in Section 16, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution. Thus, the Constitution imposes no limitation when the legislature creates government instrumentalities vested with corporate powers but performing essential governmental or public functions. Congress has plenary authority to create government instrumentalities vested with corporate powers provided these instrumentalities perform essential government functions or public services. However, when the legislature creates through special charters corporations that perform economic or commercial activities, such entities known as "government-owned or controlled corporations" must meet the test of economic viability because they compete in the market place.

This is the situation of the Land Bank of the Philippines and the Development Bank of the Philippines and similar government-owned or controlled corporations, which derive their income to meet operating expenses solely from commercial transactions in competition with the private sector. The intent of the Constitution is to prevent the creation of government-owned or controlled corporations that cannot survive on their own in the market place and thus merely drain the public coffers. Commissioner Blas F. Ople, proponent of the test of economic viability, explained to the Constitutional Commission the purpose of this test, as follows: MR. OPLE: Madam President, the reason for this concern is really that when the government creates a corporation, there is a sense in which this corporation becomes exempt from the test of economic performance. We know what happened in the past. If a government corporation loses, then it makes its claim upon the taxpayers' money through new equity infusions from the government and what is always invoked is the common good. That is the reason why this year, out of a budget of P115 billion for the entire government, about P28 billion of this will go into equity infusions to support a few government financial institutions. And this is all taxpayers' money which could have been relocated to agrarian reform, to social services like health and education, to augment the salaries of grossly underpaid public employees. And yet this is all going down the drain. Therefore, when we insert the phrase "ECONOMIC VIABILITY" together with the "common good," this becomes a restraint on future enthusiasts for state capitalism to

excuse themselves from the responsibility of meeting the market test so that they become viable. And so, Madam President, I reiterate, for the committee's consideration and I am glad that I am joined in this proposal by Commissioner Foz, the insertion of the standard of "ECONOMIC VIABILITY OR THE ECONOMIC TEST," together with the common good.45 Father Joaquin G. Bernas, a leading member of the Constitutional Commission, explains in his textbook The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary: The second sentence was added by the 1986 Constitutional Commission. The significant addition, however, is the phrase "in the interest of the common good and subject to the test of economic viability." The addition includes the ideas that they must show capacity to function efficiently in business and that they should not go into activities which the private sector can do better. Moreover, economic viability is more than financial viability but also includes capability to make profit and generate benefits not quantifiable in financial terms.46 (Emphasis supplied) Clearly, the test of economic viability does not apply to government entities vested with corporate powers and performing essential public services. The State is obligated to render essential public services regardless of the economic viability of providing such service. The noneconomic viability of rendering such essential public service does not excuse the State from withholding such essential services from the public. However, government-owned or controlled corporations with special charters, organized

essentially for economic or commercial objectives, must meet the test of economic viability. These are the government-owned or controlled corporations that are usually organized under their special charters as stock corporations, like the Land Bank of the Philippines and the Development Bank of the Philippines. These are the government-owned or controlled corporations, along with government-owned or controlled corporations organized under the Corporation Code, that fall under the definition of "government-owned or controlled corporations" in Section 2(10) of the Administrative Code. The MIAA need not meet the test of economic viability because the legislature did not create MIAA to compete in the market place. MIAA does not compete in the market place because there is no competing international airport operated by the private sector. MIAA performs an essential public service as the primary domestic and international airport of the Philippines. The operation of an international airport requires the presence of personnel from the following government agencies: 1. The Bureau of Immigration and Deportation, to document the arrival and departure of passengers, screening out those without visas or travel documents, or those with hold departure orders; 2. The Bureau of Customs, to collect import duties or enforce the ban on prohibited importations; 3. The quarantine office of the Department of Health, to enforce health measures against the spread of infectious diseases into the country;

4. The Department of Agriculture, to enforce measures against the spread of plant and animal diseases into the country; 5. The Aviation Security Command of the Philippine National Police, to prevent the entry of terrorists and the escape of criminals, as well as to secure the airport premises from terrorist attack or seizure; 6. The Air Traffic Office of the Department of Transportation and Communications, to authorize aircraft to enter or leave Philippine airspace, as well as to land on, or take off from, the airport; and 7. The MIAA, to provide the proper premises such as runway and buildings for the government personnel, passengers, and airlines, and to manage the airport operations. All these agencies of government perform government functions essential to the operation of an international airport. MIAA performs an essential public service that every modern State must provide its citizens. MIAA derives its revenues principally from the mandatory fees and charges MIAA imposes on passengers and airlines. The terminal fees that MIAA charges every passenger are regulatory or administrative fees47 and not income from commercial transactions. MIAA falls under the definition of a government instrumentality under Section 2(10) of the Introductory Provisions of the Administrative Code, which provides: SEC. 2. General Terms Defined. x x x x

(10) Instrumentality refers to any agency of the National Government, not integrated within the department framework, vested with special functions or jurisdiction by law, endowed with some if not all corporate powers, administering special funds, and enjoying operational autonomy, usually through a charter. x x x (Emphasis supplied) The fact alone that MIAA is endowed with corporate powers does not make MIAA a government-owned or controlled corporation. Without a change in its capital structure, MIAA remains a government instrumentality under Section 2(10) of the Introductory Provisions of the Administrative Code. More importantly, as long as MIAA renders essential public services, it need not comply with the test of economic viability. Thus, MIAA is outside the scope of the phrase "government-owned or controlled corporations" under Section 16, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution. The minority belittles the use in the Local Government Code of the phrase "government-owned or controlled corporation" as merely "clarificatory or illustrative." This is fatal. The 1987 Constitution prescribes explicit conditions for the creation of "government-owned or controlled corporations." The Administrative Code defines what constitutes a "government-owned or controlled corporation." To belittle this phrase as "clarificatory or illustrative" is grave error. To summarize, MIAA is not a government-owned or controlled corporation under Section 2(13) of the Introductory Provisions of the Administrative Code because it is not organized as a stock or non-stock corporation. Neither is MIAA a government-owned or controlled corporation under Section 16, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution because MIAA is not required to meet the test

of economic viability. MIAA is a government instrumentality vested with corporate powers and performing essential public services pursuant to Section 2(10) of the Introductory Provisions of the Administrative Code. As a government instrumentality, MIAA is not subject to any kind of tax by local governments under Section 133(o) of the Local Government Code. The exception to the exemption in Section 234(a) does not apply to MIAA because MIAA is not a taxable entity under the Local Government Code. Such exception applies only if the beneficial use of real property owned by the Republic is given to a taxable entity. Finally, the Airport Lands and Buildings of MIAA are properties devoted to public use and thus are properties of public dominion. Properties of public dominion are owned by the State or the Republic. Article 420 of the Civil Code provides: Art. 420. The following things are property of public dominion: (1) Those intended for public use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and bridges constructed by the State, banks, shores, roadsteads, and others of similar character; (2) Those which belong to the State, without being for public use, and are intended for some public service or for the development of the national wealth. (Emphasis supplied) The term "ports x x x constructed by the State" includes airports and seaports. The Airport Lands and Buildings of MIAA are intended for public use, and at the very least intended for public service. Whether intended for public use or public service, the Airport Lands and Buildings are properties of public dominion. As properties of public dominion, the Airport Lands and Buildings are owned by the Republic and thus exempt from real estate tax under

Section 234(a) of the Local Government Code. 4. Conclusion Under Section 2(10) and (13) of the Introductory Provisions of the Administrative Code, which governs the legal relation and status of government units, agencies and offices within the entire government machinery, MIAA is a government instrumentality and not a government-owned or controlled corporation. Under Section 133(o) of the Local Government Code, MIAA as a government instrumentality is not a taxable person because it is not subject to "[t]axes, fees or charges of any kind" by local governments. The only exception is when MIAA leases its real property to a "taxable person" as provided in Section 234(a) of the Local Government Code, in which case the specific real property leased becomes subject to real estate tax. Thus, only portions of the Airport Lands and Buildings leased to taxable persons like private parties are subject to real estate tax by the City of Paraaque. Under Article 420 of the Civil Code, the Airport Lands and Buildings of MIAA, being devoted to public use, are properties of public dominion and thus owned by the State or the Republic of the Philippines. Article 420 specifically mentions "ports x x x constructed by the State," which includes public airports and seaports, as properties of public dominion and owned by the Republic. As properties of public dominion owned by the Republic, there is no doubt whatsoever that the Airport Lands and Buildings are expressly exempt from real estate tax under Section 234(a) of the Local Government Code. This Court has also repeatedly ruled that properties of public dominion are not subject to execution or foreclosure sale.

WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. We SET ASIDE the assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals of 5 October 2001 and 27 September 2002 in CA-G.R. SP No. 66878. We DECLARE the Airport Lands and Buildings of the Manila International Airport Authority EXEMPT from the real estate tax imposed by the City of Paraaque. We declare VOID all the real estate tax assessments, including the final notices of real estate tax delinquencies, issued by the City of Paraaque on the Airport Lands and Buildings of the Manila International Airport Authority, except for the portions that the Manila International Airport Authority has leased to private parties. We also declare VOID the assailed auction sale, and all its effects, of the Airport Lands and Buildings of the Manila International Airport Authority. No costs. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 91649 May 14, 1991 ATTORNEYS HUMBERTO BASCO, EDILBERTO BALCE, SOCRATES MARANAN AND LORENZO SANCHEZ, petitioners, vs. PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENTS AND GAMING CORPORATION (PAGCOR), respondent. H.B. Basco & Associates for petitioners. Valmonte Law Offices collaborating counsel for petitioners. Aguirre, Laborte and Capule for respondent PAGCOR. PARAS, J.:p A TV ad proudly announces: "The new PAGCOR responding through responsible gaming." But the petitioners think otherwise, that is why, they filed the instant petition seeking to annul the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) Charter PD 1869, because it is allegedly contrary to morals, public policy and order, and because
A. It constitutes a waiver of a right prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law. It waived the Manila City government's right to impose taxes and license fees, which is recognized by law; B. For the same reason stated in the immediately preceding paragraph, the law has intruded into the local government's right to impose local taxes and license fees. This, in contravention of the constitutionally enshrined principle of local autonomy;

C. It violates the equal protection clause of the constitution in that it legalizes PAGCOR conducted gambling, while most other forms of gambling are outlawed, together with prostitution, drug trafficking and other vices; D. It violates the avowed trend of the Cory government away from monopolistic and crony economy, and toward free enterprise and privatization. (p. 2, Amended Petition; p. 7, Rollo)

In their Second Amended Petition, petitioners also claim that PD 1869 is contrary to the declared national policy of the "new restored democracy" and the people's will as expressed in the 1987 Constitution. The decree is said to have a "gambling objective" and therefore is contrary to Sections 11, 12 and 13 of Article II, Sec. 1 of Article VIII and Section 3 (2) of Article XIV, of the present Constitution (p. 3, Second Amended Petition; p. 21, Rollo). The procedural issue is whether petitioners, as taxpayers and practicing lawyers (petitioner Basco being also the Chairman of the Committee on Laws of the City Council of Manila), can question and seek the annulment of PD 1869 on the alleged grounds mentioned above. The Philippine Amusements and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) was created by virtue of P.D. 1067-A dated January 1, 1977 and was granted a franchise under P.D. 1067-B also dated January 1, 1977 "to establish, operate and maintain gambling casinos on land or water within the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines." Its operation was originally conducted in the well known floating casino "Philippine Tourist." The operation was considered a success for it proved to be a potential source of revenue to fund infrastructure and socio-economic projects, thus, P.D. 1399 was passed on June 2, 1978 for PAGCOR to fully attain this objective.

Subsequently, on July 11, 1983, PAGCOR was created under P.D. 1869 to enable the Government to regulate and centralize all games of chance authorized by existing franchise or permitted by law, under the following declared policy
Sec. 1. Declaration of Policy. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the State to centralize and integrate all games of chance not heretofore authorized by existing franchises or permitted by law in order to attain the following objectives: (a) To centralize and integrate the right and authority to operate and conduct games of chance into one corporate entity to be controlled, administered and supervised by the Government. (b) To establish and operate clubs and casinos, for amusement and recreation, including sports gaming pools, (basketball, football, lotteries, etc.) and such other forms of amusement and recreation including games of chance, which may be allowed by law within the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines and which will: (1) generate sources of additional revenue to fund infrastructure and socio-civic projects, such as flood control programs, beautification, sewerage and sewage projects, Tulungan ng Bayan Centers, Nutritional Programs, Population Control and such other essential public services; (2) create recreation and integrated facilities which will expand and improve the country's existing tourist attractions; and (3) minimize, if not totally eradicate, all the evils, malpractices and corruptions that are normally prevalent on the conduct and operation of gambling clubs and casinos without direct government involvement. (Section 1, P.D. 1869)

To attain these objectives PAGCOR is given territorial jurisdiction all over the Philippines. Under its Charter's repealing clause, all laws, decrees, executive orders, rules and regulations, inconsistent therewith, are accordingly repealed, amended or modified. It is reported that PAGCOR is the third largest source of government revenue, next to the Bureau of Internal Revenue and the Bureau of Customs. In 1989 alone, PAGCOR earned P3.43 Billion, and directly remitted to the National Government a total of P2.5 Billion in form of franchise tax, government's income share, the President's Social Fund and Host Cities' share. In addition, PAGCOR sponsored other socio-cultural and charitable projects on its own or in cooperation with various governmental agencies,

and other private associations and organizations. In its 3 1/2 years of operation under the present administration, PAGCOR remitted to the government a total of P6.2 Billion. As of December 31, 1989, PAGCOR was employing 4,494 employees in its nine (9) casinos nationwide, directly supporting the livelihood of Four Thousand Four Hundred Ninety-Four (4,494) families. But the petitioners, are questioning the validity of P.D. No. 1869. They allege that the same is "null and void" for being "contrary to morals, public policy and public order," monopolistic and tends toward "crony economy", and is violative of the equal protection clause and local autonomy as well as for running counter to the state policies enunciated in Sections 11 (Personal Dignity and Human Rights), 12 (Family) and 13 (Role of Youth) of Article II, Section 1 (Social Justice) of Article XIII and Section 2 (Educational Values) of Article XIV of the 1987 Constitution. This challenge to P.D. No. 1869 deserves a searching and thorough scrutiny and the most deliberate consideration by the Court, involving as it does the exercise of what has been described as "the highest and most delicate function which belongs to the judicial department of the government." (State v. Manuel, 20 N.C. 144; Lozano v. Martinez, 146 SCRA 323). As We enter upon the task of passing on the validity of an act of a co-equal and coordinate branch of the government We need not be reminded of the time-honored principle, deeply ingrained in our jurisprudence, that a statute is presumed to be valid.

Every presumption must be indulged in favor of its constitutionality. This is not to say that We approach Our task with diffidence or timidity. Where it is clear that the legislature or the executive for that matter, has over-stepped the limits of its authority under the constitution, We should not hesitate to wield the axe and let it fall heavily, as fall it must, on the offending statute (Lozano v. Martinez, supra). In Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers' Union, et al, 59 SCRA 54, the Court thru Mr. Justice Zaldivar underscored the
. . . thoroughly established principle which must be followed in all cases where questions of constitutionality as obtain in the instant cases are involved. All presumptions are indulged in favor of constitutionality; one who attacks a statute alleging unconstitutionality must prove its invalidity beyond a reasonable doubt; that a law may work hardship does not render it unconstitutional; that if any reasonable basis may be conceived which supports the statute, it will be upheld and the challenger must negate all possible basis; that the courts are not concerned with the wisdom, justice, policy or expediency of a statute and that a liberal interpretation of the constitution in favor of the constitutionality of legislation should be adopted. (Danner v. Hass, 194 N.W. 2nd 534, 539; Spurbeck v. Statton, 106 N.W. 2nd 660, 663; 59 SCRA 66; see also e.g. Salas v. Jarencio, 46 SCRA 734, 739 [1970]; Peralta v. Commission on Elections, 82 SCRA 30, 55 [1978]; and Heirs of Ordona v. Reyes, 125 SCRA 220, 241-242 [1983] cited in Citizens Alliance for Consumer Protection v. Energy Regulatory Board, 162 SCRA 521, 540)

Of course, there is first, the procedural issue. The respondents are questioning the legal personality of petitioners to file the instant petition. Considering however the importance to the public of the case at bar, and in keeping with the Court's duty, under the 1987 Constitution, to determine whether or not the other branches of government have kept themselves within the limits of the Constitution and the laws and that they have not abused the discretion given to them, the Court has brushed aside technicalities of procedure and has taken cognizance of this petition. (Kapatiran ng mga Naglilingkod sa Pamahalaan ng Pilipinas Inc. v. Tan, 163 SCRA 371)

With particular regard to the requirement of proper party as applied in the cases before us, We hold that the same is satisfied by the petitioners and intervenors because each of them has sustained or is in danger of sustaining an immediate injury as a result of the acts or measures complained of. And even if, strictly speaking they are not covered by the definition, it is still within the wide discretion of the Court to waive the requirement and so remove the impediment to its addressing and resolving the serious constitutional questions raised. In the first Emergency Powers Cases, ordinary citizens and taxpayers were allowed to question the constitutionality of several executive orders issued by President Quirino although they were involving only an indirect and general interest shared in common with the public. The Court dismissed the objection that they were not proper parties and ruled that "the transcendental importance to the public of these cases demands that they be settled promptly and definitely, brushing aside, if we must technicalities of procedure." We have since then applied the exception in many other cases. (Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v. Sec. of Agrarian Reform, 175 SCRA 343).

Having disposed of the procedural issue, We will now discuss the substantive issues raised. Gambling in all its forms, unless allowed by law, is generally prohibited. But the prohibition of gambling does not mean that the Government cannot regulate it in the exercise of its police power. The concept of police power is well-established in this jurisdiction. It has been defined as the "state authority to enact legislation that may interfere with personal liberty or property in order to promote the general welfare." (Edu v. Ericta, 35 SCRA 481, 487) As defined, it consists of (1) an imposition or restraint upon liberty or property, (2) in order to foster the common good. It is not capable of an exact definition but has been, purposely, veiled in general terms to underscore its all-comprehensive embrace. (Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. v. Drilon, 163 SCRA 386). Its scope, ever-expanding to meet the exigencies of the times, even to anticipate the

future where it could be done, provides enough room for an efficient and flexible response to conditions and circumstances thus assuming the greatest benefits. (Edu v. Ericta, supra) It finds no specific Constitutional grant for the plain reason that it does not owe its origin to the charter. Along with the taxing power and eminent domain, it is inborn in the very fact of statehood and sovereignty. It is a fundamental attribute of government that has enabled it to perform the most vital functions of governance. Marshall, to whom the expression has been credited, refers to it succinctly as the plenary power of the state "to govern its citizens". (Tribe, American Constitutional Law, 323, 1978). The police power of the State is a power co-extensive with self-protection and is most aptly termed the "law of overwhelming necessity." (Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro, 39 Phil. 660, 708) It is "the most essential, insistent, and illimitable of powers." (Smith Bell & Co. v. National, 40 Phil. 136) It is a dynamic force that enables the state to meet the agencies of the winds of change. What was the reason behind the enactment of P.D. 1869? P.D. 1869 was enacted pursuant to the policy of the government to "regulate and centralize thru an appropriate institution all games of chance authorized by existing franchise or permitted by law" (1st whereas clause, PD 1869). As was subsequently proved, regulating and centralizing gambling operations in one corporate entity the PAGCOR, was beneficial not just to the Government but to society in general. It is a

reliable source of much needed revenue for the cash strapped Government. It provided funds for social impact projects and subjected gambling to "close scrutiny, regulation, supervision and control of the Government" (4th Whereas Clause, PD 1869). With the creation of PAGCOR and the direct intervention of the Government, the evil practices and corruptions that go with gambling will be minimized if not totally eradicated. Public welfare, then, lies at the bottom of the enactment of PD 1896. Petitioners contend that P.D. 1869 constitutes a waiver of the right of the City of Manila to impose taxes and legal fees; that the exemption clause in P.D. 1869 is violative of the principle of local autonomy. They must be referring to Section 13 par. (2) of P.D. 1869 which exempts PAGCOR, as the franchise holder from paying any "tax of any kind or form, income or otherwise, as well as fees, charges or levies of whatever nature, whether National or Local."
(2) Income and other taxes. a) Franchise Holder: No tax of any kind or form, income or otherwise as well as fees, charges or levies of whatever nature, whether National or Local, shall be assessed and collected under this franchise from the Corporation; nor shall any form or tax or charge attach in any way to the earnings of the Corporation, except a franchise tax of five (5%) percent of the gross revenues or earnings derived by the Corporation from its operations under this franchise. Such tax shall be due and payable quarterly to the National Government and shall be in lieu of all kinds of taxes, levies, fees or assessments of any kind, nature or description, levied, established or collected by any municipal, provincial or national government authority (Section 13 [2]).

Their contention stated hereinabove is without merit for the following reasons: (a) The City of Manila, being a mere Municipal corporation has no inherent right to impose taxes (Icard v. City of Baguio, 83 Phil. 870; City of Iloilo v. Villanueva, 105 Phil. 337; Santos v. Municipality of Caloocan, 7 SCRA 643). Thus, "the Charter or statute

must plainly show an intent to confer that power or the municipality cannot assume it" (Medina v. City of Baguio, 12 SCRA 62). Its "power to tax" therefore must always yield to a legislative act which is superior having been passed upon by the state itself which has the "inherent power to tax" (Bernas, the Revised [1973] Philippine Constitution, Vol. 1, 1983 ed. p. 445). (b) The Charter of the City of Manila is subject to control by Congress. It should be stressed that "municipal corporations are mere creatures of Congress" (Unson v. Lacson, G.R. No. 7909, January 18, 1957) which has the power to "create and abolish municipal corporations" due to its "general legislative powers" (Asuncion v. Yriantes, 28 Phil. 67; Merdanillo v. Orandia, 5 SCRA 541). Congress, therefore, has the power of control over Local governments (Hebron v. Reyes, G.R. No. 9124, July 2, 1950). And if Congress can grant the City of Manila the power to tax certain matters, it can also provide for exemptions or even take back the power. (c) The City of Manila's power to impose license fees on gambling, has long been revoked. As early as 1975, the power of local governments to regulate gambling thru the grant of "franchise, licenses or permits" was withdrawn by P.D. No. 771 and was vested exclusively on the National Government, thus:
Sec. 1. Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, the authority of chartered cities and other local governments to issue license, permit or other form of franchise to operate, maintain and establish horse and dog race tracks, jai-alai and other forms of gambling is hereby revoked. Sec. 2. Hereafter, all permits or franchises to operate, maintain and establish, horse and dog race tracks, jai-alai and other forms of gambling shall be issued by the national government upon proper application and verification of the qualification of the

applicant . . .

Therefore, only the National Government has the power to issue "licenses or permits" for the operation of gambling. Necessarily, the power to demand or collect license fees which is a consequence of the issuance of "licenses or permits" is no longer vested in the City of Manila. (d) Local governments have no power to tax instrumentalities of the National Government. PAGCOR is a government owned or controlled corporation with an original charter, PD 1869. All of its shares of stocks are owned by the National Government. In addition to its corporate powers (Sec. 3, Title II, PD 1869) it also exercises regulatory powers thus:
Sec. 9. Regulatory Power. The Corporation shall maintain a Registry of the affiliated entities, and shall exercise all the powers, authority and the responsibilities vested in the Securities and Exchange Commission over such affiliating entities mentioned under the preceding section, including, but not limited to amendments of Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws, changes in corporate term, structure, capitalization and other matters concerning the operation of the affiliated entities, the provisions of the Corporation Code of the Philippines to the contrary notwithstanding, except only with respect to original incorporation.

PAGCOR has a dual role, to operate and to regulate gambling casinos. The latter role is governmental, which places it in the category of an agency or instrumentality of the Government. Being an instrumentality of the Government, PAGCOR should be and actually is exempt from local taxes. Otherwise, its operation might be burdened, impeded or subjected to control by a mere Local government.
The states have no power by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, burden or in any manner control the operation of constitutional laws enacted by Congress to carry into execution the powers vested in the federal government. (MC Culloch v. Marland, 4 Wheat 316, 4 L Ed. 579)

This doctrine emanates from the "supremacy" of the National Government over local governments.
Justice Holmes, speaking for the Supreme Court, made reference to the entire absence of power on the part of the States to touch, in that way (taxation) at least, the instrumentalities of the United States (Johnson v. Maryland, 254 US 51) and it can be agreed that no state or political subdivision can regulate a federal instrumentality in such a way as to prevent it from consummating its federal responsibilities, or even to seriously burden it in the accomplishment of them. (Antieau, Modern Constitutional Law, Vol. 2, p. 140, emphasis supplied)

Otherwise, mere creatures of the State can defeat National policies thru extermination of what local authorities may perceive to be undesirable activities or enterprise using the power to tax as "a tool for regulation" (U.S. v. Sanchez, 340 US 42). The power to tax which was called by Justice Marshall as the "power to destroy" (Mc Culloch v. Maryland, supra) cannot be allowed to defeat an instrumentality or creation of the very entity which has the inherent power to wield it. (e) Petitioners also argue that the Local Autonomy Clause of the Constitution will be violated by P.D. 1869. This is a pointless argument. Article X of the 1987 Constitution (on Local Autonomy) provides:
Sec. 5. Each local government unit shall have the power to create its own source of revenue and to levy taxes, fees, and other charges subject to such guidelines and limitation as the congress may provide, consistent with the basic policy on local autonomy. Such taxes, fees and charges shall accrue exclusively to the local government. (emphasis supplied)

The power of local government to "impose taxes and fees" is always subject to "limitations" which Congress may provide by law. Since PD 1869 remains an "operative" law until "amended, repealed or revoked" (Sec. 3, Art. XVIII, 1987 Constitution), its "exemption clause" remains as an exception to the exercise of the

power of local governments to impose taxes and fees. It cannot therefore be violative but rather is consistent with the principle of local autonomy. Besides, the principle of local autonomy under the 1987 Constitution simply means "decentralization" (III Records of the 1987 Constitutional Commission, pp. 435-436, as cited in Bernas, The Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, Vol. II, First Ed., 1988, p. 374). It does not make local governments sovereign within the state or an "imperium in imperio."
Local Government has been described as a political subdivision of a nation or state which is constituted by law and has substantial control of local affairs. In a unitary system of government, such as the government under the Philippine Constitution, local governments can only be an intra sovereign subdivision of one sovereign nation, it cannot be an imperium in imperio. Local government in such a system can only mean a measure of decentralization of the function of government. (emphasis supplied)

As to what state powers should be "decentralized" and what may be delegated to local government units remains a matter of policy, which concerns wisdom. It is therefore a political question. (Citizens Alliance for Consumer Protection v. Energy Regulatory Board, 162 SCRA 539). What is settled is that the matter of regulating, taxing or otherwise dealing with gambling is a State concern and hence, it is the sole prerogative of the State to retain it or delegate it to local governments.
As gambling is usually an offense against the State, legislative grant or express charter power is generally necessary to empower the local corporation to deal with the subject. . . . In the absence of express grant of power to enact, ordinance provisions on this subject which are inconsistent with the state laws are void. (Ligan v. Gadsden, Ala App. 107 So. 733 Ex-Parte Solomon, 9, Cals. 440, 27 PAC 757 following in re Ah You, 88 Cal. 99, 25 PAC 974, 22 Am St. Rep. 280, 11 LRA 480, as cited in Mc Quinllan Vol. 3 Ibid, p. 548, emphasis supplied)

Petitioners next contend that P.D. 1869 violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution, because "it legalized PAGCOR conducted gambling, while most gambling are outlawed together with prostitution, drug trafficking and other vices" (p. 82, Rollo). We, likewise, find no valid ground to sustain this contention. The petitioners' posture ignores the well-accepted meaning of the clause "equal protection of the laws." The clause does not preclude classification of individuals who may be accorded different treatment under the law as long as the classification is not unreasonable or arbitrary (Itchong v. Hernandez, 101 Phil. 1155). A law does not have to operate in equal force on all persons or things to be conformable to Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution (DECS v. San Diego, G.R. No. 89572, December 21, 1989). The "equal protection clause" does not prohibit the Legislature from establishing classes of individuals or objects upon which different rules shall operate (Laurel v. Misa, 43 O.G. 2847). The Constitution does not require situations which are different in fact or opinion to be treated in law as though they were the same (Gomez v. Palomar, 25 SCRA 827). Just how P.D. 1869 in legalizing gambling conducted by PAGCOR is violative of the equal protection is not clearly explained in the petition. The mere fact that some gambling activities like cockfighting (P.D 449) horse racing (R.A. 306 as amended by RA 983), sweepstakes, lotteries and races (RA 1169 as amended by B.P. 42) are

legalized under certain conditions, while others are prohibited, does not render the applicable laws, P.D. 1869 for one, unconstitutional.
If the law presumably hits the evil where it is most felt, it is not to be overthrown because there are other instances to which it might have been applied. (Gomez v. Palomar, 25 SCRA 827) The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment does not mean that all occupations called by the same name must be treated the same way; the state may do what it can to prevent which is deemed as evil and stop short of those cases in which harm to the few concerned is not less than the harm to the public that would insure if the rule laid down were made mathematically exact. (Dominican Hotel v. Arizona, 249 US 2651).

Anent petitioners' claim that PD 1869 is contrary to the "avowed trend of the Cory Government away from monopolies and crony economy and toward free enterprise and privatization" suffice it to state that this is not a ground for this Court to nullify P.D. 1869. If, indeed, PD 1869 runs counter to the government's policies then it is for the Executive Department to recommend to Congress its repeal or amendment.
The judiciary does not settle policy issues. The Court can only declare what the law is and not what the law should be. Under our system of government, policy issues are within the domain of the political branches of government and of the people themselves as the repository of all state power. (Valmonte v. Belmonte, Jr., 170 SCRA 256).

On the issue of "monopoly," however, the Constitution provides that:

Sec. 19. The State shall regulate or prohibit monopolies when public interest so requires. No combinations in restraint of trade or unfair competition shall be allowed. (Art. XII, National Economy and Patrimony)

It should be noted that, as the provision is worded, monopolies are not necessarily prohibited by the Constitution. The state must still decide whether public interest demands that monopolies be regulated or prohibited. Again, this is a matter of policy for the Legislature to decide.

On petitioners' allegation that P.D. 1869 violates Sections 11 (Personality Dignity) 12 (Family) and 13 (Role of Youth) of Article II; Section 13 (Social Justice) of Article XIII and Section 2 (Educational Values) of Article XIV of the 1987 Constitution, suffice it to state also that these are merely statements of principles and, policies. As such, they are basically not self-executing, meaning a law should be passed by Congress to clearly define and effectuate such principles.
In general, therefore, the 1935 provisions were not intended to be self-executing principles ready for enforcement through the courts. They were rather directives addressed to the executive and the legislature. If the executive and the legislature failed to heed the directives of the articles the available remedy was not judicial or political. The electorate could express their displeasure with the failure of the executive and the legislature through the language of the ballot. (Bernas, Vol. II, p. 2)

Every law has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality (Yu Cong Eng v. Trinidad, 47 Phil. 387; Salas v. Jarencio, 48 SCRA 734; Peralta v. Comelec, 82 SCRA 30; Abbas v. Comelec, 179 SCRA 287). Therefore, for PD 1869 to be nullified, it must be shown that there is a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, not merely a doubtful and equivocal one. In other words, the grounds for nullity must be clear and beyond reasonable doubt. (Peralta v. Comelec, supra) Those who petition this Court to declare a law, or parts thereof, unconstitutional must clearly establish the basis for such a declaration. Otherwise, their petition must fail. Based on the grounds raised by petitioners to challenge the constitutionality of P.D. 1869, the Court finds that petitioners have failed to overcome the presumption. The dismissal of this petition is therefore, inevitable. But as to whether P.D. 1869 remains a wise legislation considering the issues of "morality, monopoly, trend to free enterprise, privatization as

well as the state principles on social justice, role of youth and educational values" being raised, is up for Congress to determine. As this Court held in Citizens' Alliance for Consumer Protection v. Energy Regulatory Board, 162 SCRA 521
Presidential Decree No. 1956, as amended by Executive Order No. 137 has, in any case, in its favor the presumption of validity and constitutionality which petitioners Valmonte and the KMU have not overturned. Petitioners have not undertaken to identify the provisions in the Constitution which they claim to have been violated by that statute. This Court, however, is not compelled to speculate and to imagine how the assailed legislation may possibly offend some provision of the Constitution. The Court notes, further, in this respect that petitioners have in the main put in question the wisdom, justice and expediency of the establishment of the OPSF, issues which are not properly addressed to this Court and which this Court may not constitutionally pass upon. Those issues should be addressed rather to the political departments of government: the President and the Congress.

Parenthetically, We wish to state that gambling is generally immoral, and this is precisely so when the gambling resorted to is excessive. This excessiveness necessarily depends not only on the financial resources of the gambler and his family but also on his mental, social, and spiritual outlook on life. However, the mere fact that some persons may have lost their material fortunes, mental control, physical health, or even their lives does not necessarily mean that the same are directly attributable to gambling. Gambling may have been the antecedent, but certainly not necessarily the cause. For the same consequences could have been preceded by an overdose of food, drink, exercise, work, and even sex. WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 168056 September 1, 2005 ABAKADA GURO PARTY LIST (Formerly AASJAS) OFFICERS SAMSON S. ALCANTARA and ED VINCENT S. ALBANO, Petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA; HONORABLE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE CESAR PURISIMA; and HONORABLE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE GUILLERMO PARAYNO, JR., Respondent. x-------------------------x G.R. No. 168207 AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR., LUISA P. EJERCITO-ESTRADA, JINGGOY E. ESTRADA, PANFILO M. LACSON, ALFREDO S. LIM, JAMBY A.S. MADRIGAL, AND SERGIO R. OSMEA III, Petitioners, vs. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO R. ERMITA, CESAR V. PURISIMA, SECRETARY OF FINANCE, GUILLERMO L. PARAYNO, JR., COMMISSIONER OF THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. x-------------------------x G.R. No. 168461

ASSOCIATION OF PILIPINAS SHELL DEALERS, INC. represented by its President, ROSARIO ANTONIO; PETRON DEALERS ASSOCIATION represented by its President, RUTH E. BARBIBI; ASSOCIATION OF CALTEX DEALERS OF THE PHILIPPINES represented by its President, MERCEDITAS A. GARCIA; ROSARIO ANTONIO doing business under the name and style of "ANB NORTH SHELL SERVICE STATION"; LOURDES MARTINEZ doing business under the name and style of "SHELL GATE N. DOMINGO"; BETHZAIDA TAN doing business under the name and style of "ADVANCE SHELL STATION"; REYNALDO P. MONTOYA doing business under the name and style of "NEW LAMUAN SHELL SERVICE STATION"; EFREN SOTTO doing business under the name and style of "RED FIELD SHELL SERVICE STATION"; DONICA CORPORATION represented by its President, DESI TOMACRUZ; RUTH E. MARBIBI doing business under the name and style of "R&R PETRON STATION"; PETER M. UNGSON doing business under the name and style of "CLASSIC STAR GASOLINE SERVICE STATION"; MARIAN SHEILA A. LEE doing business under the name and style of "NTE GASOLINE & SERVICE STATION"; JULIAN CESAR P. POSADAS doing business under the name and style of "STARCARGA ENTERPRISES"; ADORACION MAEBO doing business under the name and style of "CMA MOTORISTS CENTER"; SUSAN M. ENTRATA doing business under the name and style of "LEONAS GASOLINE STATION and SERVICE CENTER"; CARMELITA BALDONADO doing business under the name and style of "FIRST CHOICE SERVICE CENTER"; MERCEDITAS A. GARCIA doing business under the name and style of "LORPED SERVICE CENTER"; RHEAMAR A. RAMOS doing business under the name and style of "RJRAM PTT

GAS STATION"; MA. ISABEL VIOLAGO doing business under the name and style of "VIOLAGO-PTT SERVICE CENTER"; MOTORISTS HEART CORPORATION represented by its Vice-President for Operations, JOSELITO F. FLORDELIZA; MOTORISTS HARVARD CORPORATION represented by its Vice-President for Operations, JOSELITO F. FLORDELIZA; MOTORISTS HERITAGE CORPORATION represented by its VicePresident for Operations, JOSELITO F. FLORDELIZA; PHILIPPINE STANDARD OIL CORPORATION represented by its Vice-President for Operations, JOSELITO F. FLORDELIZA; ROMEO MANUEL doing business under the name and style of "ROMMAN GASOLINE STATION"; ANTHONY ALBERT CRUZ III doing business under the name and style of "TRUE SERVICE STATION", Petitioners, vs. CESAR V. PURISIMA, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Finance and GUILLERMO L. PARAYNO, JR., in his capacity as Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent. x-------------------------x G.R. No. 168463 FRANCIS JOSEPH G. ESCUDERO, VINCENT CRISOLOGO, EMMANUEL JOEL J. VILLANUEVA, RODOLFO G. PLAZA, DARLENE ANTONINO-CUSTODIO, OSCAR G. MALAPITAN, BENJAMIN C. AGARAO, JR. JUAN EDGARDO M. ANGARA, JUSTIN MARC SB. CHIPECO, FLORENCIO G. NOEL, MUJIV S. HATAMAN, RENATO B.

MAGTUBO, JOSEPH A. SANTIAGO, TEOFISTO DL. GUINGONA III, RUY ELIAS C. LOPEZ, RODOLFO Q. AGBAYANI and TEODORO A. CASIO, Petitioners, vs. CESAR V. PURISIMA, in his capacity as Secretary of Finance, GUILLERMO L. PARAYNO, JR., in his capacity as Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and EDUARDO R. ERMITA, in his capacity as Executive Secretary, Respondent. x-------------------------x G.R. No. 168730 BATAAN GOVERNOR ENRIQUE T. GARCIA, JR. Petitioner, vs. HON. EDUARDO R. ERMITA, in his capacity as the Executive Secretary; HON. MARGARITO TEVES, in his capacity as Secretary of Finance; HON. JOSE MARIO BUNAG, in his capacity as the OIC Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue; and HON. ALEXANDER AREVALO, in his capacity as the OIC Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs, Respondent. DECISION AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.: The expenses of government, having for their object the interest of all, should be borne by everyone, and the more man enjoys the advantages of society, the more he ought to hold himself honored in contributing to those expenses.

-Anne Robert Jacques Turgot (1727-1781) French statesman and economist Mounting budget deficit, revenue generation, inadequate fiscal allocation for education, increased emoluments for health workers, and wider coverage for full value-added tax benefits these are the reasons why Republic Act No. 9337 (R.A. No. 9337)1 was enacted. Reasons, the wisdom of which, the Court even with its extensive constitutional power of review, cannot probe. The petitioners in these cases, however, question not only the wisdom of the law, but also perceived constitutional infirmities in its passage. Every law enjoys in its favor the presumption of constitutionality. Their arguments notwithstanding, petitioners failed to justify their call for the invalidity of the law. Hence, R.A. No. 9337 is not unconstitutional. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY R.A. No. 9337 is a consolidation of three legislative bills namely, House Bill Nos. 3555 and 3705, and Senate Bill No. 1950. House Bill No. 35552 was introduced on first reading on January 7, 2005. The House Committee on Ways and Means approved the bill, in substitution of House Bill No. 1468, which Representative (Rep.) Eric D. Singson introduced on August 8, 2004. The President certified the bill on January 7, 2005 for immediate enactment. On January 27, 2005, the House of Representatives approved the bill on second and third reading.

House Bill No. 37053 on the other hand, substituted House Bill No. 3105 introduced by Rep. Salacnib F. Baterina, and House Bill No. 3381 introduced by Rep. Jacinto V. Paras. Its "mother bill" is House Bill No. 3555. The House Committee on Ways and Means approved the bill on February 2, 2005. The President also certified it as urgent on February 8, 2005. The House of Representatives approved the bill on second and third reading on February 28, 2005. Meanwhile, the Senate Committee on Ways and Means approved Senate Bill No. 19504 on March 7, 2005, "in substitution of Senate Bill Nos. 1337, 1838 and 1873, taking into consideration House Bill Nos. 3555 and 3705." Senator Ralph G. Recto sponsored Senate Bill No. 1337, while Senate Bill Nos. 1838 and 1873 were both sponsored by Sens. Franklin M. Drilon, Juan M. Flavier and Francis N. Pangilinan. The President certified the bill on March 11, 2005, and was approved by the Senate on second and third reading on April 13, 2005. On the same date, April 13, 2005, the Senate agreed to the request of the House of Representatives for a committee conference on the disagreeing provisions of the proposed bills. Before long, the Conference Committee on the Disagreeing Provisions of House Bill No. 3555, House Bill No. 3705, and Senate Bill No. 1950, "after having met and discussed in full free and conference," recommended the approval of its report, which the Senate did on May 10, 2005, and with the House of Representatives agreeing thereto the next day, May 11, 2005. On May 23, 2005, the enrolled copy of the consolidated House and Senate version was transmitted to the President, who signed the same into law on May 24, 2005. Thus, came R.A. No. 9337.

July 1, 2005 is the effectivity date of R.A. No. 9337.5 When said date came, the Court issued a temporary restraining order, effective immediately and continuing until further orders, enjoining respondents from enforcing and implementing the law. Oral arguments were held on July 14, 2005. Significantly, during the hearing, the Court speaking through Mr. Justice Artemio V. Panganiban, voiced the rationale for its issuance of the temporary restraining order on July 1, 2005, to wit: J. PANGANIBAN : . . . But before I go into the details of your presentation, let me just tell you a little background. You know when the law took effect on July 1, 2005, the Court issued a TRO at about 5 oclock in the afternoon. But before that, there was a lot of complaints aired on television and on radio. Some people in a gas station were complaining that the gas prices went up by 10%. Some people were complaining that their electric bill will go up by 10%. Other times people riding in domestic air carrier were complaining that the prices that theyll have to pay would have to go up by 10%. While all that was being aired, per your presentation and per our own understanding of the law, thats not true. Its not true that the e-vat law necessarily increased prices by 10% uniformly isnt it? ATTY. BANIQUED : No, Your Honor. J. PANGANIBAN : It is not? ATTY. BANIQUED : Its not, because, Your Honor, there is an Executive Order that granted the Petroleum companies some subsidy . . . interrupted

J. PANGANIBAN : Thats correct . . . ATTY. BANIQUED : . . . and therefore that was meant to temper the impact . . . interrupted J. PANGANIBAN : . . . mitigating measures . . . ATTY. BANIQUED : Yes, Your Honor. J. PANGANIBAN : As a matter of fact a part of the mitigating measures would be the elimination of the Excise Tax and the import duties. That is why, it is not correct to say that the VAT as to petroleum dealers increased prices by 10%. ATTY. BANIQUED : Yes, Your Honor. J. PANGANIBAN : And therefore, there is no justification for increasing the retail price by 10% to cover the E-Vat tax. If you consider the excise tax and the import duties, the Net Tax would probably be in the neighborhood of 7%? We are not going into exact figures I am just trying to deliver a point that different industries, different products, different services are hit differently. So its not correct to say that all prices must go up by 10%. ATTY. BANIQUED : Youre right, Your Honor. J. PANGANIBAN : Now. For instance, Domestic Airline companies, Mr. Counsel, are at present imposed a Sales Tax of 3%. When this E-Vat law took effect the Sales Tax was also removed as a mitigating measure. So, therefore, there is no justification to increase the fares by 10% at best 7%, correct? ATTY. BANIQUED : I guess so, Your Honor, yes.

J. PANGANIBAN : There are other products that the people were complaining on that first day, were being increased arbitrarily by 10%. And thats one reason among many others this Court had to issue TRO because of the confusion in the implementation. Thats why we added as an issue in this case, even if its tangentially taken up by the pleadings of the parties, the confusion in the implementation of the E-vat. Our people were subjected to the mercy of that confusion of an across the board increase of 10%, which you yourself now admit and I think even the Government will admit is incorrect. In some cases, it should be 3% only, in some cases it should be 6% depending on these mitigating measures and the location and situation of each product, of each service, of each company, isnt it? ATTY. BANIQUED : Yes, Your Honor. J. PANGANIBAN : Alright. So thats one reason why we had to issue a TRO pending the clarification of all these and we wish the government will take time to clarify all these by means of a more detailed implementing rules, in case the law is upheld by this Court. . . .6 The Court also directed the parties to file their respective Memoranda. G.R. No. 168056 Before R.A. No. 9337 took effect, petitioners ABAKADA GURO Party List, et al., filed a petition for prohibition on May 27, 2005. They question the constitutionality of Sections 4, 5 and 6 of R.A. No. 9337, amending Sections 106, 107 and 108, respectively, of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC). Section 4 imposes a 10% VAT on sale of goods and properties, Section 5 imposes a 10% VAT on importation of goods, and Section 6 imposes a 10% VAT on

sale of services and use or lease of properties. These questioned provisions contain a uniform proviso authorizing the President, upon recommendation of the Secretary of Finance, to raise the VAT rate to 12%, effective January 1, 2006, after any of the following conditions have been satisfied, to wit: . . . That the President, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Finance, shall, effective January 1, 2006, raise the rate of value-added tax to twelve percent (12%), after any of the following conditions has been satisfied: (i) Value-added tax collection as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the previous year exceeds two and four-fifth percent (2 4/5%); or (ii) National government deficit as a percentage of GDP of the previous year exceeds one and one-half percent (1 %). Petitioners argue that the law is unconstitutional, as it constitutes abandonment by Congress of its exclusive authority to fix the rate of taxes under Article VI, Section 28(2) of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. G.R. No. 168207 On June 9, 2005, Sen. Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr., et al., filed a petition for certiorari likewise assailing the constitutionality of Sections 4, 5 and 6 of R.A. No. 9337. Aside from questioning the so-called stand-by authority of the President to increase the VAT rate to 12%, on the ground that it amounts to an undue delegation of legislative power,

petitioners also contend that the increase in the VAT rate to 12% contingent on any of the two conditions being satisfied violates the due process clause embodied in Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution, as it imposes an unfair and additional tax burden on the people, in that: (1) the 12% increase is ambiguous because it does not state if the rate would be returned to the original 10% if the conditions are no longer satisfied; (2) the rate is unfair and unreasonable, as the people are unsure of the applicable VAT rate from year to year; and (3) the increase in the VAT rate, which is supposed to be an incentive to the President to raise the VAT collection to at least 2 4/5 of the GDP of the previous year, should only be based on fiscal adequacy. Petitioners further claim that the inclusion of a stand-by authority granted to the President by the Bicameral Conference Committee is a violation of the "no-amendment rule" upon last reading of a bill laid down in Article VI, Section 26(2) of the Constitution. G.R. No. 168461 Thereafter, a petition for prohibition was filed on June 29, 2005, by the Association of Pilipinas Shell Dealers, Inc., et al., assailing the following provisions of R.A. No. 9337: 1) Section 8, amending Section 110 (A)(2) of the NIRC, requiring that the input tax on depreciable goods shall be amortized over a 60-month period, if the acquisition, excluding the VAT components, exceeds One Million Pesos (P1, 000,000.00); 2) Section 8, amending Section 110 (B) of the NIRC, imposing a 70% limit on the amount of input tax to be credited against the output tax; and

3) Section 12, amending Section 114 (c) of the NIRC, authorizing the Government or any of its political subdivisions, instrumentalities or agencies, including GOCCs, to deduct a 5% final withholding tax on gross payments of goods and services, which are subject to 10% VAT under Sections 106 (sale of goods and properties) and 108 (sale of services and use or lease of properties) of the NIRC. Petitioners contend that these provisions are unconstitutional for being arbitrary, oppressive, excessive, and confiscatory. Petitioners argument is premised on the constitutional right of non-deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process of law under Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution. According to petitioners, the contested sections impose limitations on the amount of input tax that may be claimed. Petitioners also argue that the input tax partakes the nature of a property that may not be confiscated, appropriated, or limited without due process of law. Petitioners further contend that like any other property or property right, the input tax credit may be transferred or disposed of, and that by limiting the same, the government gets to tax a profit or value-added even if there is no profit or value-added. Petitioners also believe that these provisions violate the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the law under Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution, as the limitation on the creditable input tax if: (1) the entity has a high ratio of input tax; or (2) invests in capital equipment; or (3) has several transactions with the government, is not based on real and substantial differences to meet a valid classification.

Lastly, petitioners contend that the 70% limit is anything but progressive, violative of Article VI, Section 28(1) of the Constitution, and that it is the smaller businesses with higher input tax to output tax ratio that will suffer the consequences thereof for it wipes out whatever meager margins the petitioners make. G.R. No. 168463 Several members of the House of Representatives led by Rep. Francis Joseph G. Escudero filed this petition for certiorari on June 30, 2005. They question the constitutionality of R.A. No. 9337 on the following grounds: 1) Sections 4, 5, and 6 of R.A. No. 9337 constitute an undue delegation of legislative power, in violation of Article VI, Section 28(2) of the Constitution; 2) The Bicameral Conference Committee acted without jurisdiction in deleting the no pass on provisions present in Senate Bill No. 1950 and House Bill No. 3705; and 3) Insertion by the Bicameral Conference Committee of Sections 27, 28, 34, 116, 117, 119, 121, 125,7 148, 151, 236, 237 and 288, which were present in Senate Bill No. 1950, violates Article VI, Section 24(1) of the Constitution, which provides that all appropriation, revenue or tariff bills shall originate exclusively in the House of Representatives G.R. No. 168730 On the eleventh hour, Governor Enrique T. Garcia filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition on July 20, 2005, alleging unconstitutionality of the law on the ground that the limitation on the

creditable input tax in effect allows VAT-registered establishments to retain a portion of the taxes they collect, thus violating the principle that tax collection and revenue should be solely allocated for public purposes and expenditures. Petitioner Garcia further claims that allowing these establishments to pass on the tax to the consumers is inequitable, in violation of Article VI, Section 28(1) of the Constitution. RESPONDENTS COMMENT The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a Comment in behalf of respondents. Preliminarily, respondents contend that R.A. No. 9337 enjoys the presumption of constitutionality and petitioners failed to cast doubt on its validity. Relying on the case of Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance, 235 SCRA 630 (1994), respondents argue that the procedural issues raised by petitioners, i.e., legality of the bicameral proceedings, exclusive origination of revenue measures and the power of the Senate concomitant thereto, have already been settled. With regard to the issue of undue delegation of legislative power to the President, respondents contend that the law is complete and leaves no discretion to the President but to increase the rate to 12% once any of the two conditions provided therein arise. Respondents also refute petitioners argument that the increase to 12%, as well as the 70% limitation on the creditable input tax, the 60-month amortization on the purchase or importation of capital goods exceeding P1,000,000.00, and the 5% final withholding tax by government agencies, is arbitrary, oppressive, and confiscatory, and that it violates the constitutional

principle on progressive taxation, among others. Finally, respondents manifest that R.A. No. 9337 is the anchor of the governments fiscal reform agenda. A reform in the value-added system of taxation is the core revenue measure that will tilt the balance towards a sustainable macroeconomic environment necessary for economic growth. ISSUES The Court defined the issues, as follows: PROCEDURAL ISSUE Whether R.A. No. 9337 violates the following provisions of the Constitution: a. Article VI, Section 24, and b. Article VI, Section 26(2) SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES 1. Whether Sections 4, 5 and 6 of R.A. No. 9337, amending Sections 106, 107 and 108 of the NIRC, violate the following provisions of the Constitution: a. Article VI, Section 28(1), and b. Article VI, Section 28(2) 2. Whether Section 8 of R.A. No. 9337, amending Sections 110(A)(2) and 110(B) of the NIRC; and Section 12 of R.A. No. 9337, amending Section 114(C) of the NIRC, violate the following provisions of the Constitution:

a. Article VI, Section 28(1), and b. Article III, Section 1 RULING OF THE COURT As a prelude, the Court deems it apt to restate the general principles and concepts of valueadded tax (VAT), as the confusion and inevitably, litigation, breeds from a fallacious notion of its nature. The VAT is a tax on spending or consumption. It is levied on the sale, barter, exchange or lease of goods or properties and services.8 Being an indirect tax on expenditure, the seller of goods or services may pass on the amount of tax paid to the buyer,9 with the seller acting merely as a tax collector.10 The burden of VAT is intended to fall on the immediate buyers and ultimately, the end-consumers. In contrast, a direct tax is a tax for which a taxpayer is directly liable on the transaction or business it engages in, without transferring the burden to someone else.11 Examples are individual and corporate income taxes, transfer taxes, and residence taxes.12 In the Philippines, the value-added system of sales taxation has long been in existence, albeit in a different mode. Prior to 1978, the system was a single-stage tax computed under the "cost deduction method" and was payable only by the original sellers. The single-stage system was subsequently modified, and a mixture of the "cost deduction method" and "tax credit method" was used to determine the value-added tax payable.13 Under the "tax credit method," an entity

can credit against or subtract from the VAT charged on its sales or outputs the VAT paid on its purchases, inputs and imports.14 It was only in 1987, when President Corazon C. Aquino issued Executive Order No. 273, that the VAT system was rationalized by imposing a multi-stage tax rate of 0% or 10% on all sales using the "tax credit method."15 E.O. No. 273 was followed by R.A. No. 7716 or the Expanded VAT Law,16 R.A. No. 8241 or the Improved VAT Law,17 R.A. No. 8424 or the Tax Reform Act of 1997,18 and finally, the presently beleaguered R.A. No. 9337, also referred to by respondents as the VAT Reform Act. The Court will now discuss the issues in logical sequence. PROCEDURAL ISSUE I. Whether R.A. No. 9337 violates the following provisions of the Constitution: a. Article VI, Section 24, and b. Article VI, Section 26(2) A. The Bicameral Conference Committee Petitioners Escudero, et al., and Pimentel, et al., allege that the Bicameral Conference Committee exceeded its authority by:

1) Inserting the stand-by authority in favor of the President in Sections 4, 5, and 6 of R.A. No. 9337; 2) Deleting entirely the no pass-on provisions found in both the House and Senate bills; 3) Inserting the provision imposing a 70% limit on the amount of input tax to be credited against the output tax; and 4) Including the amendments introduced only by Senate Bill No. 1950 regarding other kinds of taxes in addition to the value-added tax. Petitioners now beseech the Court to define the powers of the Bicameral Conference Committee. It should be borne in mind that the power of internal regulation and discipline are intrinsic in any legislative body for, as unerringly elucidated by Justice Story, "[i]f the power did not exist, it would be utterly impracticable to transact the business of the nation, either at all, or at least with decency, deliberation, and order."19 Thus, Article VI, Section 16 (3) of the Constitution provides that "each House may determine the rules of its proceedings." Pursuant to this inherent constitutional power to promulgate and implement its own rules of procedure, the respective rules of each house of Congress provided for the creation of a Bicameral Conference Committee. Thus, Rule XIV, Sections 88 and 89 of the Rules of House of Representatives provides as follows: Sec. 88. Conference Committee. In the event that the House does not agree with the Senate on

the amendment to any bill or joint resolution, the differences may be settled by the conference committees of both chambers. In resolving the differences with the Senate, the House panel shall, as much as possible, adhere to and support the House Bill. If the differences with the Senate are so substantial that they materially impair the House Bill, the panel shall report such fact to the House for the latters appropriate action. Sec. 89. Conference Committee Reports. . . . Each report shall contain a detailed, sufficiently explicit statement of the changes in or amendments to the subject measure. ... The Chairman of the House panel may be interpellated on the Conference Committee Report prior to the voting thereon. The House shall vote on the Conference Committee Report in the same manner and procedure as it votes on a bill on third and final reading. Rule XII, Section 35 of the Rules of the Senate states: Sec. 35. In the event that the Senate does not agree with the House of Representatives on the provision of any bill or joint resolution, the differences shall be settled by a conference committee of both Houses which shall meet within ten (10) days after their composition. The President shall designate the members of the Senate Panel in the conference committee with the approval of the Senate. Each Conference Committee Report shall contain a detailed and sufficiently explicit statement

of the changes in, or amendments to the subject measure, and shall be signed by a majority of the members of each House panel, voting separately. A comparative presentation of the conflicting House and Senate provisions and a reconciled version thereof with the explanatory statement of the conference committee shall be attached to the report. ... The creation of such conference committee was apparently in response to a problem, not addressed by any constitutional provision, where the two houses of Congress find themselves in disagreement over changes or amendments introduced by the other house in a legislative bill. Given that one of the most basic powers of the legislative branch is to formulate and implement its own rules of proceedings and to discipline its members, may the Court then delve into the details of how Congress complies with its internal rules or how it conducts its business of passing legislation? Note that in the present petitions, the issue is not whether provisions of the rules of both houses creating the bicameral conference committee are unconstitutional, but whether the bicameral conference committee has strictly complied with the rules of both houses, thereby remaining within the jurisdiction conferred upon it by Congress. In the recent case of Farias vs. The Executive Secretary,20 the Court En Banc, unanimously reiterated and emphasized its adherence to the "enrolled bill doctrine," thus, declining therein petitioners plea for the Court to go behind the enrolled copy of the bill. Assailed in said case was Congresss creation of two sets of bicameral conference committees, the lack of records of

said committees proceedings, the alleged violation of said committees of the rules of both houses, and the disappearance or deletion of one of the provisions in the compromise bill submitted by the bicameral conference committee. It was argued that such irregularities in the passage of the law nullified R.A. No. 9006, or the Fair Election Act. Striking down such argument, the Court held thus: Under the "enrolled bill doctrine," the signing of a bill by the Speaker of the House and the Senate President and the certification of the Secretaries of both Houses of Congress that it was passed are conclusive of its due enactment. A review of cases reveals the Courts consistent adherence to the rule. The Court finds no reason to deviate from the salutary rule in this case where the irregularities alleged by the petitioners mostly involved the internal rules of Congress, e.g., creation of the 2nd or 3rd Bicameral Conference Committee by the House. This Court is not the proper forum for the enforcement of these internal rules of Congress, whether House or Senate. Parliamentary rules are merely procedural and with their observance the courts have no concern. Whatever doubts there may be as to the formal validity of Rep. Act No. 9006 must be resolved in its favor. The Court reiterates its ruling in Arroyo vs. De Venecia, viz.: But the cases, both here and abroad, in varying forms of expression, all deny to the courts the power to inquire into allegations that, in enacting a law, a House of Congress failed to comply with its own rules, in the absence of showing that there was a violation of a constitutional provision or the rights of private individuals. In Osmea v. Pendatun, it was

held: "At any rate, courts have declared that the rules adopted by deliberative bodies are subject to revocation, modification or waiver at the pleasure of the body adopting them. And it has been said that "Parliamentary rules are merely procedural, and with their observance, the courts have no concern. They may be waived or disregarded by the legislative body." Consequently, "mere failure to conform to parliamentary usage will not invalidate the action (taken by a deliberative body) when the requisite number of members have agreed to a particular measure."21 (Emphasis supplied) The foregoing declaration is exactly in point with the present cases, where petitioners allege irregularities committed by the conference committee in introducing changes or deleting provisions in the House and Senate bills. Akin to the Farias case,22 the present petitions also raise an issue regarding the actions taken by the conference committee on matters regarding Congress compliance with its own internal rules. As stated earlier, one of the most basic and inherent power of the legislature is the power to formulate rules for its proceedings and the discipline of its members. Congress is the best judge of how it should conduct its own business expeditiously and in the most orderly manner. It is also the sole concern of Congress to instill discipline among the members of its conference committee if it believes that said members violated any of its rules of proceedings. Even the expanded jurisdiction of this Court cannot apply to questions regarding only the internal operation of Congress, thus, the Court is wont to deny a review of the internal proceedings of a co-equal branch of government.

Moreover, as far back as 1994 or more than ten years ago, in the case of Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance,23 the Court already made the pronouncement that "[i]f a change is desired in the practice [of the Bicameral Conference Committee] it must be sought in Congress since this question is not covered by any constitutional provision but is only an internal rule of each house." 24 To date, Congress has not seen it fit to make such changes adverted to by the Court. It seems, therefore, that Congress finds the practices of the bicameral conference committee to be very useful for purposes of prompt and efficient legislative action. Nevertheless, just to put minds at ease that no blatant irregularities tainted the proceedings of the bicameral conference committees, the Court deems it necessary to dwell on the issue. The Court observes that there was a necessity for a conference committee because a comparison of the provisions of House Bill Nos. 3555 and 3705 on one hand, and Senate Bill No. 1950 on the other, reveals that there were indeed disagreements. As pointed out in the petitions, said disagreements were as follows: House Bill No. 3555 House Bill No.3705 Senate Bill No. 1950

With regard to "Stand-By Authority" in favor of President Provides for 12% VAT on Provides for 12% VAT in general on Provides for a single rate of 10% VAT

every sale of goods or properties (amending Sec. 106 of NIRC); 12% VAT on importation of goods (amending Sec. 107 of NIRC); and 12% VAT on sale of services and use or lease of properties (amending Sec. 108 of

sales of goods or properties and reduced rates for sale of certain locally manufactured goods and petroleum products and raw materials to be used in the manufacture thereof (amending Sec. 106 of NIRC); 12% VAT on importation

on sale of goods or properties (amending Sec. 106 of NIRC), 10% VAT on sale of services including sale of electricity by generation companies, transmission and distribution companies, and use or lease of properties (amending

NIRC)

of goods and reduced rates for certain imported products including petroleum products (amending Sec. 107 of NIRC); and 12% VAT on sale of services and use or lease of properties and a reduced rate for certain services including

Sec. 108 of NIRC)

power generation (amending Sec. 108 of NIRC) With regard to the "no pass-on" provision No similar provision Provides that the VAT imposed on power generation and on the sale of petroleum products shall be absorbed by generation companies or sellers, Provides that the VAT imposed on sales of electricity by generation companies and services of transmission companies and distribution companies,

respectively, and shall not be passed on to consumers

as well as those of franchise grantees of electric utilities shall not apply to residential end-users. VAT shall be absorbed by generation, transmission, and distribution companies.

With regard to 70% limit on input tax credit Provides No similar Provides that

that the input tax credit for capital goods on which a VAT has been paid shall be equally distributed over 5 years or the depreciable life of such capital goods; the input tax credit for goods and services

provision

the input tax credit for capital goods on which a VAT has been paid shall be equally distributed over 5 years or the depreciable life of such capital goods; the input tax credit for goods and services other than capital goods

other than capital goods shall not exceed 5% of the total amount of such goods and services; and for persons engaged in retail trading of goods, the allowable input tax credit shall not exceed 11% of the

shall not exceed 90% of the output VAT.

total amount of goods purchased. With regard to amendments to be made to NIRC provisions regarding income and excise taxes No similar provision No similar provision Provided for amendments to several NIRC provisions regarding corporate income, percentage, franchise and excise taxes

The disagreements between the provisions in the House bills and the Senate bill were with

regard to (1) what rate of VAT is to be imposed; (2) whether only the VAT imposed on electricity generation, transmission and distribution companies should not be passed on to consumers, as proposed in the Senate bill, or both the VAT imposed on electricity generation, transmission and distribution companies and the VAT imposed on sale of petroleum products should not be passed on to consumers, as proposed in the House bill; (3) in what manner input tax credits should be limited; (4) and whether the NIRC provisions on corporate income taxes, percentage, franchise and excise taxes should be amended. There being differences and/or disagreements on the foregoing provisions of the House and Senate bills, the Bicameral Conference Committee was mandated by the rules of both houses of Congress to act on the same by settling said differences and/or disagreements. The Bicameral Conference Committee acted on the disagreeing provisions by making the following changes: 1. With regard to the disagreement on the rate of VAT to be imposed, it would appear from the Conference Committee Report that the Bicameral Conference Committee tried to bridge the gap in the difference between the 10% VAT rate proposed by the Senate, and the various rates with 12% as the highest VAT rate proposed by the House, by striking a compromise whereby the present 10% VAT rate would be retained until certain conditions arise, i.e., the value-added tax collection as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) of the previous year exceeds 2 4/5%, or National Government deficit as a percentage of GDP of the previous year exceeds 1%, when the President, upon recommendation of the Secretary of Finance shall raise the rate of VAT to 12% effective January 1, 2006.

2. With regard to the disagreement on whether only the VAT imposed on electricity generation, transmission and distribution companies should not be passed on to consumers or whether both the VAT imposed on electricity generation, transmission and distribution companies and the VAT imposed on sale of petroleum products may be passed on to consumers, the Bicameral Conference Committee chose to settle such disagreement by altogether deleting from its Report any no pass-on provision. 3. With regard to the disagreement on whether input tax credits should be limited or not, the Bicameral Conference Committee decided to adopt the position of the House by putting a limitation on the amount of input tax that may be credited against the output tax, although it crafted its own language as to the amount of the limitation on input tax credits and the manner of computing the same by providing thus: (A) Creditable Input Tax. . . . ... Provided, The input tax on goods purchased or imported in a calendar month for use in trade or business for which deduction for depreciation is allowed under this Code, shall be spread evenly over the month of acquisition and the fifty-nine (59) succeeding months if the aggregate acquisition cost for such goods, excluding the VAT component thereof, exceeds one million Pesos (P1,000,000.00): PROVIDED, however, that if the estimated useful life of the capital good is less than five (5) years, as used for depreciation purposes, then the input VAT shall be spread over such shorter period: . . .

(B) Excess Output or Input Tax. If at the end of any taxable quarter the output tax exceeds the input tax, the excess shall be paid by the VAT-registered person. If the input tax exceeds the output tax, the excess shall be carried over to the succeeding quarter or quarters: PROVIDED that the input tax inclusive of input VAT carried over from the previous quarter that may be credited in every quarter shall not exceed seventy percent (70%) of the output VAT: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT any input tax attributable to zero-rated sales by a VATregistered person may at his option be refunded or credited against other internal revenue taxes, . . . 4. With regard to the amendments to other provisions of the NIRC on corporate income tax, franchise, percentage and excise taxes, the conference committee decided to include such amendments and basically adopted the provisions found in Senate Bill No. 1950, with some changes as to the rate of the tax to be imposed. Under the provisions of both the Rules of the House of Representatives and Senate Rules, the Bicameral Conference Committee is mandated to settle the differences between the disagreeing provisions in the House bill and the Senate bill. The term "settle" is synonymous to "reconcile" and "harmonize."25 To reconcile or harmonize disagreeing provisions, the Bicameral Conference Committee may then (a) adopt the specific provisions of either the House bill or Senate bill, (b) decide that neither provisions in the House bill or the provisions in the Senate bill would be carried into the final form of the bill, and/or (c) try to arrive at a compromise between the

disagreeing provisions. In the present case, the changes introduced by the Bicameral Conference Committee on disagreeing provisions were meant only to reconcile and harmonize the disagreeing provisions for it did not inject any idea or intent that is wholly foreign to the subject embraced by the original provisions. The so-called stand-by authority in favor of the President, whereby the rate of 10% VAT wanted by the Senate is retained until such time that certain conditions arise when the 12% VAT wanted by the House shall be imposed, appears to be a compromise to try to bridge the difference in the rate of VAT proposed by the two houses of Congress. Nevertheless, such compromise is still totally within the subject of what rate of VAT should be imposed on taxpayers. The no pass-on provision was deleted altogether. In the transcripts of the proceedings of the Bicameral Conference Committee held on May 10, 2005, Sen. Ralph Recto, Chairman of the Senate Panel, explained the reason for deleting the no pass-on provision in this wise: . . . the thinking was just to keep the VAT law or the VAT bill simple. And we were thinking that no sector should be a beneficiary of legislative grace, neither should any sector be discriminated on. The VAT is an indirect tax. It is a pass on-tax. And lets keep it plain and simple. Lets not confuse the bill and put a no pass-on provision. Two-thirds of the world have a VAT system and in this two-thirds of the globe, I have yet to see a VAT with a no pass-though provision. So, the thinking of the Senate is basically simple, lets keep the VAT simple.26 (Emphasis supplied)

Rep. Teodoro Locsin further made the manifestation that the no pass-on provision "never really enjoyed the support of either House."27 With regard to the amount of input tax to be credited against output tax, the Bicameral Conference Committee came to a compromise on the percentage rate of the limitation or cap on such input tax credit, but again, the change introduced by the Bicameral Conference Committee was totally within the intent of both houses to put a cap on input tax that may be credited against the output tax. From the inception of the subject revenue bill in the House of Representatives, one of the major objectives was to "plug a glaring loophole in the tax policy and administration by creating vital restrictions on the claiming of input VAT tax credits . . ." and "[b]y introducing limitations on the claiming of tax credit, we are capping a major leakage that has placed our collection efforts at an apparent disadvantage."28 As to the amendments to NIRC provisions on taxes other than the value-added tax proposed in Senate Bill No. 1950, since said provisions were among those referred to it, the conference committee had to act on the same and it basically adopted the version of the Senate. Thus, all the changes or modifications made by the Bicameral Conference Committee were germane to subjects of the provisions referred to it for reconciliation. Such being the case, the Court does not see any grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction committed by the Bicameral Conference Committee. In the earlier cases of Philippine Judges Association vs. Prado29 and Tolentino vs. Secretary of

Finance,30 the Court recognized the long-standing legislative practice of giving said conference committee ample latitude for compromising differences between the Senate and the House. Thus, in the Tolentino case, it was held that: . . . it is within the power of a conference committee to include in its report an entirely new provision that is not found either in the House bill or in the Senate bill. If the committee can propose an amendment consisting of one or two provisions, there is no reason why it cannot propose several provisions, collectively considered as an "amendment in the nature of a substitute," so long as such amendment is germane to the subject of the bills before the committee. After all, its report was not final but needed the approval of both houses of Congress to become valid as an act of the legislative department. The charge that in this case the Conference Committee acted as a third legislative chamber is thus without any basis.31 (Emphasis supplied) B. R.A. No. 9337 Does Not Violate Article VI, Section 26(2) of the Constitution on the "NoAmendment Rule" Article VI, Sec. 26 (2) of the Constitution, states: No bill passed by either House shall become a law unless it has passed three readings on separate days, and printed copies thereof in its final form have been distributed to its Members three days before its passage, except when the President certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or emergency. Upon the last reading of a bill, no amendment thereto shall be allowed, and the vote thereon shall be taken immediately thereafter,

and the yeas and nays entered in the Journal. Petitioners argument that the practice where a bicameral conference committee is allowed to add or delete provisions in the House bill and the Senate bill after these had passed three readings is in effect a circumvention of the "no amendment rule" (Sec. 26 (2), Art. VI of the 1987 Constitution), fails to convince the Court to deviate from its ruling in the Tolentino case that: Nor is there any reason for requiring that the Committees Report in these cases must have undergone three readings in each of the two houses. If that be the case, there would be no end to negotiation since each house may seek modification of the compromise bill. . . . Art. VI. 26 (2) must, therefore, be construed as referring only to bills introduced for the first time in either house of Congress, not to the conference committee report.32 (Emphasis supplied) The Court reiterates here that the "no-amendment rule" refers only to the procedure to be followed by each house of Congress with regard to bills initiated in each of said respective houses, before said bill is transmitted to the other house for its concurrence or amendment. Verily, to construe said provision in a way as to proscribe any further changes to a bill after one house has voted on it would lead to absurdity as this would mean that the other house of Congress would be deprived of its constitutional power to amend or introduce changes to said bill. Thus, Art. VI, Sec. 26 (2) of the Constitution cannot be taken to mean that the introduction by the Bicameral Conference Committee of amendments and modifications to disagreeing

provisions in bills that have been acted upon by both houses of Congress is prohibited. C. R.A. No. 9337 Does Not Violate Article VI, Section 24 of the Constitution on Exclusive Origination of Revenue Bills Coming to the issue of the validity of the amendments made regarding the NIRC provisions on corporate income taxes and percentage, excise taxes. Petitioners refer to the following provisions, to wit: Section Rates of Income Tax on Domestic 27 Corporation 28(A)(1) Tax on Resident Foreign Corporation 28(B)(1) Inter-corporate Dividends 34(B)(1) Inter-corporate Dividends 116 117 119 Tax on Persons Exempt from VAT Percentage Tax on domestic carriers and keepers of Garage Tax on franchises

121 148 151 236 237 288

Tax on banks and Non-Bank Financial Intermediaries Excise Tax on manufactured oils and other fuels Excise Tax on mineral products Registration requirements Issuance of receipts or sales or commercial invoices Disposition of Incremental Revenue

Petitioners claim that the amendments to these provisions of the NIRC did not at all originate from the House. They aver that House Bill No. 3555 proposed amendments only regarding Sections 106, 107, 108, 110 and 114 of the NIRC, while House Bill No. 3705 proposed amendments only to Sections 106, 107,108, 109, 110 and 111 of the NIRC; thus, the other sections of the NIRC which the Senate amended but which amendments were not found in the House bills are not intended to be amended by the House of Representatives. Hence, they argue that since the proposed amendments did not originate from the House, such amendments are a violation of Article VI, Section 24 of the Constitution.

The argument does not hold water. Article VI, Section 24 of the Constitution reads: Sec. 24. All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing increase of the public debt, bills of local application, and private bills shall originate exclusively in the House of Representatives but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments. In the present cases, petitioners admit that it was indeed House Bill Nos. 3555 and 3705 that initiated the move for amending provisions of the NIRC dealing mainly with the value-added tax. Upon transmittal of said House bills to the Senate, the Senate came out with Senate Bill No. 1950 proposing amendments not only to NIRC provisions on the value-added tax but also amendments to NIRC provisions on other kinds of taxes. Is the introduction by the Senate of provisions not dealing directly with the value- added tax, which is the only kind of tax being amended in the House bills, still within the purview of the constitutional provision authorizing the Senate to propose or concur with amendments to a revenue bill that originated from the House? The foregoing question had been squarely answered in the Tolentino case, wherein the Court held, thus: . . . To begin with, it is not the law but the revenue bill which is required by the Constitution to "originate exclusively" in the House of Representatives. It is important to emphasize this, because a bill originating in the House may undergo such extensive changes in the Senate that the result may be a rewriting of the whole. . . . At this point, what is important to note is that, as

a result of the Senate action, a distinct bill may be produced. To insist that a revenue statute and not only the bill which initiated the legislative process culminating in the enactment of the law must substantially be the same as the House bill would be to deny the Senates power not only to "concur with amendments" but also to "propose amendments." It would be to violate the coequality of legislative power of the two houses of Congress and in fact make the House superior to the Senate. Given, then, the power of the Senate to propose amendments, the Senate can propose its own version even with respect to bills which are required by the Constitution to originate in the House. ... Indeed, what the Constitution simply means is that the initiative for filing revenue, tariff or tax bills, bills authorizing an increase of the public debt, private bills and bills of local application must come from the House of Representatives on the theory that, elected as they are from the districts, the members of the House can be expected to be more sensitive to the local needs and problems. On the other hand, the senators, who are elected at large, are expected to approach the same problems from the national perspective. Both views are thereby made to bear on the enactment of such laws.33 (Emphasis supplied) Since there is no question that the revenue bill exclusively originated in the House of Representatives, the Senate was acting within its

constitutional power to introduce amendments to the House bill when it included provisions in Senate Bill No. 1950 amending corporate income taxes, percentage, excise and franchise taxes. Verily, Article VI, Section 24 of the Constitution does not contain any prohibition or limitation on the extent of the amendments that may be introduced by the Senate to the House revenue bill. Furthermore, the amendments introduced by the Senate to the NIRC provisions that had not been touched in the House bills are still in furtherance of the intent of the House in initiating the subject revenue bills. The Explanatory Note of House Bill No. 1468, the very first House bill introduced on the floor, which was later substituted by House Bill No. 3555, stated: One of the challenges faced by the present administration is the urgent and daunting task of solving the countrys serious financial problems. To do this, government expenditures must be strictly monitored and controlled and revenues must be significantly increased. This may be easier said than done, but our fiscal authorities are still optimistic the government will be operating on a balanced budget by the year 2009. In fact, several measures that will result to significant expenditure savings have been identified by the administration. It is supported with a credible package of revenue measures that include measures to improve tax administration and control the leakages in revenues from income taxes and the valueadded tax (VAT). (Emphasis supplied) Rep. Eric D. Singson, in his sponsorship speech for House Bill No. 3555, declared that: In the budget message of our President in the year 2005, she reiterated that we all acknowledged that on top of our agenda must be the restoration of the health of our fiscal system.

In order to considerably lower the consolidated public sector deficit and eventually achieve a balanced budget by the year 2009, we need to seize windows of opportunities which might seem poignant in the beginning, but in the long run prove effective and beneficial to the overall status of our economy. One such opportunity is a review of existing tax rates, evaluating the relevance given our present conditions.34 (Emphasis supplied) Notably therefore, the main purpose of the bills emanating from the House of Representatives is to bring in sizeable revenues for the government to supplement our countrys serious financial problems, and improve tax administration and control of the leakages in revenues from income taxes and value-added taxes. As these house bills were transmitted to the Senate, the latter, approaching the measures from the point of national perspective, can introduce amendments within the purposes of those bills. It can provide for ways that would soften the impact of the VAT measure on the consumer, i.e., by distributing the burden across all sectors instead of putting it entirely on the shoulders of the consumers. The sponsorship speech of Sen. Ralph Recto on why the provisions on income tax on corporation were included is worth quoting: All in all, the proposal of the Senate Committee on Ways and Means will raise P64.3 billion in additional revenues annually even while by mitigating prices of power, services and petroleum products. However, not all of this will be wrung out of VAT. In fact, only P48.7 billion amount is from the VAT on twelve goods and services. The rest of the tab P10.5 billion- will be picked by

corporations. What we therefore prescribe is a burden sharing between corporate Philippines and the consumer. Why should the latter bear all the pain? Why should the fiscal salvation be only on the burden of the consumer? The corporate worlds equity is in form of the increase in the corporate income tax from 32 to 35 percent, but up to 2008 only. This will raise P10.5 billion a year. After that, the rate will slide back, not to its old rate of 32 percent, but two notches lower, to 30 percent. Clearly, we are telling those with the capacity to pay, corporations, to bear with this emergency provision that will be in effect for 1,200 days, while we put our fiscal house in order. This fiscal medicine will have an expiry date. For their assistance, a reward of tax reduction awaits them. We intend to keep the length of their sacrifice brief. We would like to assure them that not because there is a light at the end of the tunnel, this government will keep on making the tunnel long. The responsibility will not rest solely on the weary shoulders of the small man. Big business will be there to share the burden.35 As the Court has said, the Senate can propose amendments and in fact, the amendments made on provisions in the tax on income of corporations are germane to the purpose of the house bills which is to raise revenues for the government. Likewise, the Court finds the sections referring to other percentage and excise taxes germane to

the reforms to the VAT system, as these sections would cushion the effects of VAT on consumers. Considering that certain goods and services which were subject to percentage tax and excise tax would no longer be VAT-exempt, the consumer would be burdened more as they would be paying the VAT in addition to these taxes. Thus, there is a need to amend these sections to soften the impact of VAT. Again, in his sponsorship speech, Sen. Recto said: However, for power plants that run on oil, we will reduce to zero the present excise tax on bunker fuel, to lessen the effect of a VAT on this product. For electric utilities like Meralco, we will wipe out the franchise tax in exchange for a VAT. And in the case of petroleum, while we will levy the VAT on oil products, so as not to destroy the VAT chain, we will however bring down the excise tax on socially sensitive products such as diesel, bunker, fuel and kerosene. ... What do all these exercises point to? These are not contortions of giving to the left hand what was taken from the right. Rather, these sprang from our concern of softening the impact of VAT, so that the people can cushion the blow of higher prices they will have to pay as a result of VAT.36 The other sections amended by the Senate pertained to matters of tax administration which are necessary for the implementation of the changes in the VAT system. To reiterate, the sections introduced by the Senate are germane to the subject matter and

purposes of the house bills, which is to supplement our countrys fiscal deficit, among others. Thus, the Senate acted within its power to propose those amendments. SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES I. Whether Sections 4, 5 and 6 of R.A. No. 9337, amending Sections 106, 107 and 108 of the NIRC, violate the following provisions of the Constitution: a. Article VI, Section 28(1), and b. Article VI, Section 28(2) A. No Undue Delegation of Legislative Power Petitioners ABAKADA GURO Party List, et al., Pimentel, Jr., et al., and Escudero, et al. contend in common that Sections 4, 5 and 6 of R.A. No. 9337, amending Sections 106, 107 and 108, respectively, of the NIRC giving the President the stand-by authority to raise the VAT rate from 10% to 12% when a certain condition is met, constitutes undue delegation of the legislative power to tax. The assailed provisions read as follows: SEC. 4. Sec. 106 of the same Code, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows: SEC. 106. Value-Added Tax on Sale of Goods or Properties. (A) Rate and Base of Tax. There shall be levied, assessed and collected on every sale, barter or

exchange of goods or properties, a value-added tax equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the gross selling price or gross value in money of the goods or properties sold, bartered or exchanged, such tax to be paid by the seller or transferor: provided, that the President, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Finance, shall, effective January 1, 2006, raise the rate of value-added tax to twelve percent (12%), after any of the following conditions has been satisfied. (i) value-added tax collection as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the previous year exceeds two and four-fifth percent (2 4/5%) or (ii) national government deficit as a percentage of GDP of the previous year exceeds one and one-half percent (1 %). SEC. 5. Section 107 of the same Code, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows: SEC. 107. Value-Added Tax on Importation of Goods. (A) In General. There shall be levied, assessed and collected on every importation of goods a value-added tax equivalent to ten percent (10%) based on the total value used by the Bureau of Customs in determining tariff and customs duties, plus customs duties, excise taxes, if any, and other charges, such tax to be paid by the importer prior to the release of such goods from customs custody: Provided, That where the customs duties are determined on the basis of the quantity or volume of the goods, the value-added tax shall be based on the landed cost plus excise taxes, if any: provided, further, that the President, upon the recommendation of the

Secretary of Finance, shall, effective January 1, 2006, raise the rate of value-added tax to twelve percent (12%) after any of the following conditions has been satisfied. (i) value-added tax collection as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the previous year exceeds two and four-fifth percent (2 4/5%) or (ii) national government deficit as a percentage of GDP of the previous year exceeds one and one-half percent (1 %). SEC. 6. Section 108 of the same Code, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows: SEC. 108. Value-added Tax on Sale of Services and Use or Lease of Properties (A) Rate and Base of Tax. There shall be levied, assessed and collected, a value-added tax equivalent to ten percent (10%) of gross receipts derived from the sale or exchange of services: provided, that the President, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Finance, shall, effective January 1, 2006, raise the rate of value-added tax to twelve percent (12%), after any of the following conditions has been satisfied. (i) value-added tax collection as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the previous year exceeds two and four-fifth percent (2 4/5%) or (ii) national government deficit as a percentage of GDP of the previous year exceeds one and one-half percent (1 %). (Emphasis supplied) Petitioners allege that the grant of the stand-by authority to the President to increase the VAT

rate is a virtual abdication by Congress of its exclusive power to tax because such delegation is not within the purview of Section 28 (2), Article VI of the Constitution, which provides: The Congress may, by law, authorize the President to fix within specified limits, and may impose, tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other duties or imposts within the framework of the national development program of the government. They argue that the VAT is a tax levied on the sale, barter or exchange of goods and properties as well as on the sale or exchange of services, which cannot be included within the purview of tariffs under the exempted delegation as the latter refers to customs duties, tolls or tribute payable upon merchandise to the government and usually imposed on goods or merchandise imported or exported. Petitioners ABAKADA GURO Party List, et al., further contend that delegating to the President the legislative power to tax is contrary to republicanism. They insist that accountability, responsibility and transparency should dictate the actions of Congress and they should not pass to the President the decision to impose taxes. They also argue that the law also effectively nullified the Presidents power of control, which includes the authority to set aside and nullify the acts of her subordinates like the Secretary of Finance, by mandating the fixing of the tax rate by the President upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Finance. Petitioners Pimentel, et al. aver that the President has ample powers to cause, influence or create the conditions provided by the law to bring about either or both the conditions precedent. On the other hand, petitioners Escudero, et al. find bizarre and revolting the situation that the

imposition of the 12% rate would be subject to the whim of the Secretary of Finance, an unelected bureaucrat, contrary to the principle of no taxation without representation. They submit that the Secretary of Finance is not mandated to give a favorable recommendation and he may not even give his recommendation. Moreover, they allege that no guiding standards are provided in the law on what basis and as to how he will make his recommendation. They claim, nonetheless, that any recommendation of the Secretary of Finance can easily be brushed aside by the President since the former is a mere alter ego of the latter, such that, ultimately, it is the President who decides whether to impose the increased tax rate or not. A brief discourse on the principle of non-delegation of powers is instructive. The principle of separation of powers ordains that each of the three great branches of government has exclusive cognizance of and is supreme in matters falling within its own constitutionally allocated sphere.37 A logical corollary to the doctrine of separation of powers is the principle of non-delegation of powers, as expressed in the Latin maxim: potestas delegata non delegari potest which means "what has been delegated, cannot be delegated."38 This doctrine is based on the ethical principle that such as delegated power constitutes not only a right but a duty to be performed by the delegate through the instrumentality of his own judgment and not through the intervening mind of another.39 With respect to the Legislature, Section 1 of Article VI of the Constitution provides that "the Legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a

Senate and a House of Representatives." The powers which Congress is prohibited from delegating are those which are strictly, or inherently and exclusively, legislative. Purely legislative power, which can never be delegated, has been described as the authority to make a complete law complete as to the time when it shall take effect and as to whom it shall be applicable and to determine the expediency of its enactment.40 Thus, the rule is that in order that a court may be justified in holding a statute unconstitutional as a delegation of legislative power, it must appear that the power involved is purely legislative in nature that is, one appertaining exclusively to the legislative department. It is the nature of the power, and not the liability of its use or the manner of its exercise, which determines the validity of its delegation. Nonetheless, the general rule barring delegation of legislative powers is subject to the following recognized limitations or exceptions: (1) Delegation of tariff powers to the President under Section 28 (2) of Article VI of the Constitution; (2) Delegation of emergency powers to the President under Section 23 (2) of Article VI of the Constitution; (3) Delegation to the people at large; (4) Delegation to local governments; and (5) Delegation to administrative bodies.

In every case of permissible delegation, there must be a showing that the delegation itself is valid. It is valid only if the law (a) is complete in itself, setting forth therein the policy to be executed, carried out, or implemented by the delegate;41 and (b) fixes a standard the limits of which are sufficiently determinate and determinable to which the delegate must conform in the performance of his functions.42 A sufficient standard is one which defines legislative policy, marks its limits, maps out its boundaries and specifies the public agency to apply it. It indicates the circumstances under which the legislative command is to be effected.43 Both tests are intended to prevent a total transference of legislative authority to the delegate, who is not allowed to step into the shoes of the legislature and exercise a power essentially legislative.44 In People vs. Vera,45 the Court, through eminent Justice Jose P. Laurel, expounded on the concept and extent of delegation of power in this wise: In testing whether a statute constitutes an undue delegation of legislative power or not, it is usual to inquire whether the statute was complete in all its terms and provisions when it left the hands of the legislature so that nothing was left to the judgment of any other appointee or delegate of the legislature. ... The true distinction, says Judge Ranney, is between the delegation of power to make the law, which necessarily involves a discretion as to what it shall be, and conferring an authority or discretion as to its execution, to be exercised under and in pursuance of the

law. The first cannot be done; to the latter no valid objection can be made. ... It is contended, however, that a legislative act may be made to the effect as law after it leaves the hands of the legislature. It is true that laws may be made effective on certain contingencies, as by proclamation of the executive or the adoption by the people of a particular community. In Wayman vs. Southard, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the legislature may delegate a power not legislative which it may itself rightfully exercise. The power to ascertain facts is such a power which may be delegated. There is nothing essentially legislative in ascertaining the existence of facts or conditions as the basis of the taking into effect of a law. That is a mental process common to all branches of the government. Notwithstanding the apparent tendency, however, to relax the rule prohibiting delegation of legislative authority on account of the complexity arising from social and economic forces at work in this modern industrial age, the orthodox pronouncement of Judge Cooley in his work on Constitutional Limitations finds restatement in Prof. Willoughby's treatise on the Constitution of the United States in the following language speaking of declaration of legislative power to administrative agencies: The principle which permits the legislature to provide that the administrative agent may determine when the circumstances are such as require the application of a law is defended upon the ground that at the time this authority is granted, the rule of public policy, which is the essence of the legislative act, is determined by the legislature. In other words, the legislature, as it is its duty to do, determines that, under given circumstances, certain executive or administrative action is to be taken, and that,

under other circumstances, different or no action at all is to be taken. What is thus left to the administrative official is not the legislative determination of what public policy demands, but simply the ascertainment of what the facts of the case require to be done according to the terms of the law by which he is governed. The efficiency of an Act as a declaration of legislative will must, of course, come from Congress, but the ascertainment of the contingency upon which the Act shall take effect may be left to such agencies as it may designate. The legislature, then, may provide that a law shall take effect upon the happening of future specified contingencies leaving to some other person or body the power to determine when the specified contingency has arisen. (Emphasis supplied).46 In Edu vs. Ericta,47 the Court reiterated: What cannot be delegated is the authority under the Constitution to make laws and to alter and repeal them; the test is the completeness of the statute in all its terms and provisions when it leaves the hands of the legislature. To determine whether or not there is an undue delegation of legislative power, the inquiry must be directed to the scope and definiteness of the measure enacted. The legislative does not abdicate its functions when it describes what job must be done, who is to do it, and what is the scope of his authority. For a complex economy, that may be the only way in which the legislative process can go forward. A distinction has rightfully been made between delegation of power to make the laws which necessarily involves a discretion as to what it shall be, which constitutionally may not be done, and delegation of authority or discretion as to its execution to be exercised under and in

pursuance of the law, to which no valid objection can be made. The Constitution is thus not to be regarded as denying the legislature the necessary resources of flexibility and practicability. (Emphasis supplied).48 Clearly, the legislature may delegate to executive officers or bodies the power to determine certain facts or conditions, or the happening of contingencies, on which the operation of a statute is, by its terms, made to depend, but the legislature must prescribe sufficient standards, policies or limitations on their authority.49 While the power to tax cannot be delegated to executive agencies, details as to the enforcement and administration of an exercise of such power may be left to them, including the power to determine the existence of facts on which its operation depends.50 The rationale for this is that the preliminary ascertainment of facts as basis for the enactment of legislation is not of itself a legislative function, but is simply ancillary to legislation. Thus, the duty of correlating information and making recommendations is the kind of subsidiary activity which the legislature may perform through its members, or which it may delegate to others to perform. Intelligent legislation on the complicated problems of modern society is impossible in the absence of accurate information on the part of the legislators, and any reasonable method of securing such information is proper.51 The Constitution as a continuously operative charter of government does not require that Congress find for itself every fact upon which it desires to base legislative action or that it make for itself detailed determinations which it has declared to be prerequisite to application of legislative policy to

particular facts and circumstances impossible for Congress itself properly to investigate.52 In the present case, the challenged section of R.A. No. 9337 is the common proviso in Sections 4, 5 and 6 which reads as follows: That the President, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Finance, shall, effective January 1, 2006, raise the rate of value-added tax to twelve percent (12%), after any of the following conditions has been satisfied: (i) Value-added tax collection as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the previous year exceeds two and four-fifth percent (2 4/5%); or (ii) National government deficit as a percentage of GDP of the previous year exceeds one and one-half percent (1 %). The case before the Court is not a delegation of legislative power. It is simply a delegation of ascertainment of facts upon which enforcement and administration of the increase rate under the law is contingent. The legislature has made the operation of the 12% rate effective January 1, 2006, contingent upon a specified fact or condition. It leaves the entire operation or nonoperation of the 12% rate upon factual matters outside of the control of the executive. No discretion would be exercised by the President. Highlighting the absence of discretion is the fact that the word shall is used in the common proviso. The use of the word shall connotes a mandatory order. Its use in a statute denotes an imperative obligation and is inconsistent with the idea of discretion.53 Where the law is clear and unambiguous, it must be taken to mean exactly

what it says, and courts have no choice but to see to it that the mandate is obeyed.54 Thus, it is the ministerial duty of the President to immediately impose the 12% rate upon the existence of any of the conditions specified by Congress. This is a duty which cannot be evaded by the President. Inasmuch as the law specifically uses the word shall, the exercise of discretion by the President does not come into play. It is a clear directive to impose the 12% VAT rate when the specified conditions are present. The time of taking into effect of the 12% VAT rate is based on the happening of a certain specified contingency, or upon the ascertainment of certain facts or conditions by a person or body other than the legislature itself. The Court finds no merit to the contention of petitioners ABAKADA GURO Party List, et al. that the law effectively nullified the Presidents power of control over the Secretary of Finance by mandating the fixing of the tax rate by the President upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Finance. The Court cannot also subscribe to the position of petitioners Pimentel, et al. that the word shall should be interpreted to mean may in view of the phrase "upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Finance." Neither does the Court find persuasive the submission of petitioners Escudero, et al. that any recommendation by the Secretary of Finance can easily be brushed aside by the President since the former is a mere alter ego of the latter. When one speaks of the Secretary of Finance as the alter ego of the President, it simply means that as head of the Department of Finance he is the assistant and agent of the Chief Executive. The multifarious executive and administrative functions of the Chief Executive are performed

by and through the executive departments, and the acts of the secretaries of such departments, such as the Department of Finance, performed and promulgated in the regular course of business, are, unless disapproved or reprobated by the Chief Executive, presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive. The Secretary of Finance, as such, occupies a political position and holds office in an advisory capacity, and, in the language of Thomas Jefferson, "should be of the President's bosom confidence" and, in the language of Attorney-General Cushing, is "subject to the direction of the President."55 In the present case, in making his recommendation to the President on the existence of either of the two conditions, the Secretary of Finance is not acting as the alter ego of the President or even her subordinate. In such instance, he is not subject to the power of control and direction of the President. He is acting as the agent of the legislative department, to determine and declare the event upon which its expressed will is to take effect.56 The Secretary of Finance becomes the means or tool by which legislative policy is determined and implemented, considering that he possesses all the facilities to gather data and information and has a much broader perspective to properly evaluate them. His function is to gather and collate statistical data and other pertinent information and verify if any of the two conditions laid out by Congress is present. His personality in such instance is in reality but a projection of that of Congress. Thus, being the agent of Congress and not of the President, the President cannot alter or modify or nullify, or set aside the findings of the Secretary of Finance and to substitute the judgment of the former for that of the latter.

Congress simply granted the Secretary of Finance the authority to ascertain the existence of a fact, namely, whether by December 31, 2005, the value-added tax collection as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the previous year exceeds two and four-fifth percent (24/5%) or the national government deficit as a percentage of GDP of the previous year exceeds one and one-half percent (1%). If either of these two instances has occurred, the Secretary of Finance, by legislative mandate, must submit such information to the President. Then the 12% VAT rate must be imposed by the President effective January 1, 2006. There is no undue delegation of legislative power but only of the discretion as to the execution of a law. This is constitutionally permissible.57 Congress does not abdicate its functions or unduly delegate power when it describes what job must be done, who must do it, and what is the scope of his authority; in our complex economy that is frequently the only way in which the legislative process can go forward.58 As to the argument of petitioners ABAKADA GURO Party List, et al. that delegating to the President the legislative power to tax is contrary to the principle of republicanism, the same deserves scant consideration. Congress did not delegate the power to tax but the mere implementation of the law. The intent and will to increase the VAT rate to 12% came from Congress and the task of the President is to simply execute the legislative policy. That Congress chose to do so in such a manner is not within the province of the Court to inquire into, its task being to interpret the law.59 The insinuation by petitioners Pimentel, et al. that the President has ample powers to cause,

influence or create the conditions to bring about either or both the conditions precedent does not deserve any merit as this argument is highly speculative. The Court does not rule on allegations which are manifestly conjectural, as these may not exist at all. The Court deals with facts, not fancies; on realities, not appearances. When the Court acts on appearances instead of realities, justice and law will be short-lived. B. The 12% Increase VAT Rate Does Not Impose an Unfair and Unnecessary Additional Tax Burden Petitioners Pimentel, et al. argue that the 12% increase in the VAT rate imposes an unfair and additional tax burden on the people. Petitioners also argue that the 12% increase, dependent on any of the 2 conditions set forth in the contested provisions, is ambiguous because it does not state if the VAT rate would be returned to the original 10% if the rates are no longer satisfied. Petitioners also argue that such rate is unfair and unreasonable, as the people are unsure of the applicable VAT rate from year to year. Under the common provisos of Sections 4, 5 and 6 of R.A. No. 9337, if any of the two conditions set forth therein are satisfied, the President shall increase the VAT rate to 12%. The provisions of the law are clear. It does not provide for a return to the 10% rate nor does it empower the President to so revert if, after the rate is increased to 12%, the VAT collection goes below the 24/5 of the GDP of the previous year or that the national government deficit as a percentage of GDP of the previous year does not exceed 1%. Therefore, no statutory construction or interpretation is needed. Neither can conditions or

limitations be introduced where none is provided for. Rewriting the law is a forbidden ground that only Congress may tread upon.60 Thus, in the absence of any provision providing for a return to the 10% rate, which in this case the Court finds none, petitioners argument is, at best, purely speculative. There is no basis for petitioners fear of a fluctuating VAT rate because the law itself does not provide that the rate should go back to 10% if the conditions provided in Sections 4, 5 and 6 are no longer present. The rule is that where the provision of the law is clear and unambiguous, so that there is no occasion for the court's seeking the legislative intent, the law must be taken as it is, devoid of judicial addition or subtraction.61 Petitioners also contend that the increase in the VAT rate, which was allegedly an incentive to the President to raise the VAT collection to at least 2 4/5 of the GDP of the previous year, should be based on fiscal adequacy. Petitioners obviously overlooked that increase in VAT collection is not the only condition. There is another condition, i.e., the national government deficit as a percentage of GDP of the previous year exceeds one and one-half percent (1 %). Respondents explained the philosophy behind these alternative conditions: 1. VAT/GDP Ratio > 2.8% The condition set for increasing VAT rate to 12% have economic or fiscal meaning. If VAT/GDP is less than 2.8%, it means that government has weak or no capability of

implementing the VAT or that VAT is not effective in the function of the tax collection. Therefore, there is no value to increase it to 12% because such action will also be ineffectual. 2. Natl Govt Deficit/GDP >1.5% The condition set for increasing VAT when deficit/GDP is 1.5% or less means the fiscal condition of government has reached a relatively sound position or is towards the direction of a balanced budget position. Therefore, there is no need to increase the VAT rate since the fiscal house is in a relatively healthy position. Otherwise stated, if the ratio is more than 1.5%, there is indeed a need to increase the VAT rate.62 That the first condition amounts to an incentive to the President to increase the VAT collection does not render it unconstitutional so long as there is a public purpose for which the law was passed, which in this case, is mainly to raise revenue. In fact, fiscal adequacy dictated the need for a raise in revenue. The principle of fiscal adequacy as a characteristic of a sound tax system was originally stated by Adam Smith in his Canons of Taxation (1776), as: IV. Every tax ought to be so contrived as both to take out and to keep out of the pockets of the people as little as possible over and above what it brings into the public treasury of the state. 63 It simply means that sources of revenues must be adequate to meet government expenditures and their variations.64 The dire need for revenue cannot be ignored. Our country is in a quagmire of financial woe.

During the Bicameral Conference Committee hearing, then Finance Secretary Purisima bluntly depicted the countrys gloomy state of economic affairs, thus: First, let me explain the position that the Philippines finds itself in right now. We are in a position where 90 percent of our revenue is used for debt service. So, for every peso of revenue that we currently raise, 90 goes to debt service. Thats interest plus amortization of our debt. So clearly, this is not a sustainable situation. Thats the first fact. The second fact is that our debt to GDP level is way out of line compared to other peer countries that borrow money from that international financial markets. Our debt to GDP is approximately equal to our GDP. Again, that shows you that this is not a sustainable situation. The third thing that Id like to point out is the environment that we are presently operating in is not as benign as what it used to be the past five years. What do I mean by that? In the past five years, weve been lucky because we were operating in a period of basically global growth and low interest rates. The past few months, we have seen an inching up, in fact, a rapid increase in the interest rates in the leading economies of the world. And, therefore, our ability to borrow at reasonable prices is going to be challenged. In fact, ultimately, the question is our ability to access the financial markets. When the President made her speech in July last year, the environment was not as bad as it is now, at least based on the forecast of most financial institutions. So, we were assuming that raising 80 billion would put us in a position where we can then convince them to improve our

ability to borrow at lower rates. But conditions have changed on us because the interest rates have gone up. In fact, just within this room, we tried to access the market for a billion dollars because for this year alone, the Philippines will have to borrow 4 billion dollars. Of that amount, we have borrowed 1.5 billion. We issued last January a 25-year bond at 9.7 percent cost. We were trying to access last week and the market was not as favorable and up to now we have not accessed and we might pull back because the conditions are not very good. So given this situation, we at the Department of Finance believe that we really need to front-end our deficit reduction. Because it is deficit that is causing the increase of the debt and we are in what we call a debt spiral. The more debt you have, the more deficit you have because interest and debt service eats and eats more of your revenue. We need to get out of this debt spiral. And the only way, I think, we can get out of this debt spiral is really have a front-end adjustment in our revenue base.65 The image portrayed is chilling. Congress passed the law hoping for rescue from an inevitable catastrophe. Whether the law is indeed sufficient to answer the states economic dilemma is not for the Court to judge. In the Farias case, the Court refused to consider the various arguments raised therein that dwelt on the wisdom of Section 14 of R.A. No. 9006 (The Fair Election Act), pronouncing that: . . . policy matters are not the concern of the Court. Government policy is within the exclusive dominion of the political branches of the government. It is not for this Court to look into the wisdom or propriety of legislative determination. Indeed, whether an enactment is wise or

unwise, whether it is based on sound economic theory, whether it is the best means to achieve the desired results, whether, in short, the legislative discretion within its prescribed limits should be exercised in a particular manner are matters for the judgment of the legislature, and the serious conflict of opinions does not suffice to bring them within the range of judicial cognizance.66 In the same vein, the Court in this case will not dawdle on the purpose of Congress or the executive policy, given that it is not for the judiciary to "pass upon questions of wisdom, justice or expediency of legislation."67 II. Whether Section 8 of R.A. No. 9337, amending Sections 110(A)(2) and 110(B) of the NIRC; and Section 12 of R.A. No. 9337, amending Section 114(C) of the NIRC, violate the following provisions of the Constitution: a. Article VI, Section 28(1), and b. Article III, Section 1 A. Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses Petitioners Association of Pilipinas Shell Dealers, Inc., et al. argue that Section 8 of R.A. No. 9337, amending Sections 110 (A)(2), 110 (B), and Section 12 of R.A. No. 9337, amending Section 114 (C) of the NIRC are arbitrary, oppressive, excessive and confiscatory. Their argument is premised on the constitutional right against deprivation of life, liberty of property

without due process of law, as embodied in Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution. Petitioners also contend that these provisions violate the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the law. The doctrine is that where the due process and equal protection clauses are invoked, considering that they are not fixed rules but rather broad standards, there is a need for proof of such persuasive character as would lead to such a conclusion. Absent such a showing, the presumption of validity must prevail.68 Section 8 of R.A. No. 9337, amending Section 110(B) of the NIRC imposes a limitation on the amount of input tax that may be credited against the output tax. It states, in part: "[P]rovided, that the input tax inclusive of the input VAT carried over from the previous quarter that may be credited in every quarter shall not exceed seventy percent (70%) of the output VAT: " Input Tax is defined under Section 110(A) of the NIRC, as amended, as the value-added tax due from or paid by a VAT-registered person on the importation of goods or local purchase of good and services, including lease or use of property, in the course of trade or business, from a VATregistered person, and Output Tax is the value-added tax due on the sale or lease of taxable goods or properties or services by any person registered or required to register under the law. Petitioners claim that the contested sections impose limitations on the amount of input tax that may be claimed. In effect, a portion of the input tax that has already been paid cannot now be credited against the output tax.

Petitioners argument is not absolute. It assumes that the input tax exceeds 70% of the output tax, and therefore, the input tax in excess of 70% remains uncredited. However, to the extent that the input tax is less than 70% of the output tax, then 100% of such input tax is still creditable. More importantly, the excess input tax, if any, is retained in a businesss books of accounts and remains creditable in the succeeding quarter/s. This is explicitly allowed by Section 110(B), which provides that "if the input tax exceeds the output tax, the excess shall be carried over to the succeeding quarter or quarters." In addition, Section 112(B) allows a VAT-registered person to apply for the issuance of a tax credit certificate or refund for any unused input taxes, to the extent that such input taxes have not been applied against the output taxes. Such unused input tax may be used in payment of his other internal revenue taxes. The non-application of the unutilized input tax in a given quarter is not ad infinitum, as petitioners exaggeratedly contend. Their analysis of the effect of the 70% limitation is incomplete and one-sided. It ends at the net effect that there will be unapplied/unutilized inputs VAT for a given quarter. It does not proceed further to the fact that such unapplied/unutilized input tax may be credited in the subsequent periods as allowed by the carry-over provision of Section 110(B) or that it may later on be refunded through a tax credit certificate under Section 112(B). Therefore, petitioners argument must be rejected. On the other hand, it appears that petitioner Garcia failed to comprehend the operation of the 70% limitation on the input tax. According to petitioner, the limitation on the creditable input tax in

effect allows VAT-registered establishments to retain a portion of the taxes they collect, which violates the principle that tax collection and revenue should be for public purposes and expenditures As earlier stated, the input tax is the tax paid by a person, passed on to him by the seller, when he buys goods. Output tax meanwhile is the tax due to the person when he sells goods. In computing the VAT payable, three possible scenarios may arise: First, if at the end of a taxable quarter the output taxes charged by the seller are equal to the input taxes that he paid and passed on by the suppliers, then no payment is required; Second, when the output taxes exceed the input taxes, the person shall be liable for the excess, which has to be paid to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR);69 and Third, if the input taxes exceed the output taxes, the excess shall be carried over to the succeeding quarter or quarters. Should the input taxes result from zero-rated or effectively zerorated transactions, any excess over the output taxes shall instead be refunded to the taxpayer or credited against other internal revenue taxes, at the taxpayers option.70 Section 8 of R.A. No. 9337 however, imposed a 70% limitation on the input tax. Thus, a person can credit his input tax only up to the extent of 70% of the output tax. In laymans term, the value-added taxes that a person/taxpayer paid and passed on to him by a seller can only be credited up to 70% of the value-added taxes that is due to him on a taxable transaction. There is no retention of any tax collection because the person/taxpayer has already previously paid the input tax to a seller, and the seller will subsequently remit such input tax to the BIR. The party

directly liable for the payment of the tax is the seller.71 What only needs to be done is for the person/taxpayer to apply or credit these input taxes, as evidenced by receipts, against his output taxes. Petitioners Association of Pilipinas Shell Dealers, Inc., et al. also argue that the input tax partakes the nature of a property that may not be confiscated, appropriated, or limited without due process of law. The input tax is not a property or a property right within the constitutional purview of the due process clause. A VAT-registered persons entitlement to the creditable input tax is a mere statutory privilege. The distinction between statutory privileges and vested rights must be borne in mind for persons have no vested rights in statutory privileges. The state may change or take away rights, which were created by the law of the state, although it may not take away property, which was vested by virtue of such rights.72 Under the previous system of single-stage taxation, taxes paid at every level of distribution are not recoverable from the taxes payable, although it becomes part of the cost, which is deductible from the gross revenue. When Pres. Aquino issued E.O. No. 273 imposing a 10% multi-stage tax on all sales, it was then that the crediting of the input tax paid on purchase or importation of goods and services by VAT-registered persons against the output tax was introduced.73 This was adopted by the Expanded VAT Law (R.A. No. 7716),74 and The Tax Reform Act of 1997 (R.A.

No. 8424).75 The right to credit input tax as against the output tax is clearly a privilege created by law, a privilege that also the law can remove, or in this case, limit. Petitioners also contest as arbitrary, oppressive, excessive and confiscatory, Section 8 of R.A. No. 9337, amending Section 110(A) of the NIRC, which provides: SEC. 110. Tax Credits. (A) Creditable Input Tax. Provided, That the input tax on goods purchased or imported in a calendar month for use in trade or business for which deduction for depreciation is allowed under this Code, shall be spread evenly over the month of acquisition and the fifty-nine (59) succeeding months if the aggregate acquisition cost for such goods, excluding the VAT component thereof, exceeds One million pesos (P1,000,000.00): Provided, however, That if the estimated useful life of the capital goods is less than five (5) years, as used for depreciation purposes, then the input VAT shall be spread over such a shorter period: Provided, finally, That in the case of purchase of services, lease or use of properties, the input tax shall be creditable to the purchaser, lessee or license upon payment of the compensation, rental, royalty or fee. The foregoing section imposes a 60-month period within which to amortize the creditable input tax on purchase or importation of capital goods with acquisition cost of P1 Million pesos, exclusive of the VAT component. Such spread out only poses a delay in the crediting of the input tax. Petitioners argument is without basis because the taxpayer is not permanently deprived of his privilege to credit the input tax.

It is worth mentioning that Congress admitted that the spread-out of the creditable input tax in this case amounts to a 4-year interest-free loan to the government.76 In the same breath, Congress also justified its move by saying that the provision was designed to raise an annual revenue of 22.6 billion.77 The legislature also dispelled the fear that the provision will fend off foreign investments, saying that foreign investors have other tax incentives provided by law, and citing the case of China, where despite a 17.5% non-creditable VAT, foreign investments were not deterred.78 Again, for whatever is the purpose of the 60-month amortization, this involves executive economic policy and legislative wisdom in which the Court cannot intervene. With regard to the 5% creditable withholding tax imposed on payments made by the government for taxable transactions, Section 12 of R.A. No. 9337, which amended Section 114 of the NIRC, reads: SEC. 114. Return and Payment of Value-added Tax. (C) Withholding of Value-added Tax. The Government or any of its political subdivisions, instrumentalities or agencies, including government-owned or controlled corporations (GOCCs) shall, before making payment on account of each purchase of goods and services which are subject to the value-added tax imposed in Sections 106 and 108 of this Code, deduct and withhold a final value-added tax at the rate of five percent (5%) of the gross payment thereof: Provided, That the payment for lease or use of properties or property rights to nonresident owners shall be subject to ten percent (10%) withholding tax at the time of payment. For purposes of this Section, the payor or person in control of the payment shall be considered as the

withholding agent. The value-added tax withheld under this Section shall be remitted within ten (10) days following the end of the month the withholding was made. Section 114(C) merely provides a method of collection, or as stated by respondents, a more simplified VAT withholding system. The government in this case is constituted as a withholding agent with respect to their payments for goods and services. Prior to its amendment, Section 114(C) provided for different rates of value-added taxes to be withheld -- 3% on gross payments for purchases of goods; 6% on gross payments for services supplied by contractors other than by public works contractors; 8.5% on gross payments for services supplied by public work contractors; or 10% on payment for the lease or use of properties or property rights to nonresident owners. Under the present Section 114(C), these different rates, except for the 10% on lease or property rights payment to nonresidents, were deleted, and a uniform rate of 5% is applied. The Court observes, however, that the law the used the word final. In tax usage, final, as opposed to creditable, means full. Thus, it is provided in Section 114(C): "final value-added tax at the rate of five percent (5%)." In Revenue Regulations No. 02-98, implementing R.A. No. 8424 (The Tax Reform Act of 1997), the concept of final withholding tax on income was explained, to wit: SECTION 2.57. Withholding of Tax at Source

(A) Final Withholding Tax. Under the final withholding tax system the amount of income tax withheld by the withholding agent is constituted as full and final payment of the income tax due from the payee on the said income. The liability for payment of the tax rests primarily on the payor as a withholding agent. Thus, in case of his failure to withhold the tax or in case of underwithholding, the deficiency tax shall be collected from the payor/withholding agent. (B) Creditable Withholding Tax. Under the creditable withholding tax system, taxes withheld on certain income payments are intended to equal or at least approximate the tax due of the payee on said income. Taxes withheld on income payments covered by the expanded withholding tax (referred to in Sec. 2.57.2 of these regulations) and compensation income (referred to in Sec. 2.78 also of these regulations) are creditable in nature. As applied to value-added tax, this means that taxable transactions with the government are subject to a 5% rate, which constitutes as full payment of the tax payable on the transaction. This represents the net VAT payable of the seller. The other 5% effectively accounts for the standard input VAT (deemed input VAT), in lieu of the actual input VAT directly or attributable to the taxable transaction.79 The Court need not explore the rationale behind the provision. It is clear that Congress intended to treat differently taxable transactions with the government.80 This is supported by the fact that under the old provision, the 5% tax withheld by the government remains creditable against the tax liability of the seller or contractor, to wit: SEC. 114. Return and Payment of Value-added Tax.

(C) Withholding of Creditable Value-added Tax. The Government or any of its political subdivisions, instrumentalities or agencies, including government-owned or controlled corporations (GOCCs) shall, before making payment on account of each purchase of goods from sellers and services rendered by contractors which are subject to the value-added tax imposed in Sections 106 and 108 of this Code, deduct and withhold the value-added tax due at the rate of three percent (3%) of the gross payment for the purchase of goods and six percent (6%) on gross receipts for services rendered by contractors on every sale or installment payment which shall be creditable against the value-added tax liability of the seller or contractor: Provided, however, That in the case of government public works contractors, the withholding rate shall be eight and one-half percent (8.5%): Provided, further, That the payment for lease or use of properties or property rights to nonresident owners shall be subject to ten percent (10%) withholding tax at the time of payment. For this purpose, the payor or person in control of the payment shall be considered as the withholding agent. The valued-added tax withheld under this Section shall be remitted within ten (10) days following the end of the month the withholding was made. (Emphasis supplied) As amended, the use of the word final and the deletion of the word creditable exhibits Congresss intention to treat transactions with the government differently. Since it has not been shown that the class subject to the 5% final withholding tax has been unreasonably narrowed, there is no reason to invalidate the provision. Petitioners, as petroleum dealers, are not the only ones subjected to the 5% final withholding tax. It applies to all those who deal with the government.

Moreover, the actual input tax is not totally lost or uncreditable, as petitioners believe. Revenue Regulations No. 14-2005 or the Consolidated Value-Added Tax Regulations 2005 issued by the BIR, provides that should the actual input tax exceed 5% of gross payments, the excess may form part of the cost. Equally, should the actual input tax be less than 5%, the difference is treated as income.81 Petitioners also argue that by imposing a limitation on the creditable input tax, the government gets to tax a profit or value-added even if there is no profit or value-added. Petitioners stance is purely hypothetical, argumentative, and again, one-sided. The Court will not engage in a legal joust where premises are what ifs, arguments, theoretical and facts, uncertain. Any disquisition by the Court on this point will only be, as Shakespeare describes life in Macbeth,82 "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." Whats more, petitioners contention assumes the proposition that there is no profit or valueadded. It need not take an astute businessman to know that it is a matter of exception that a business will sell goods or services without profit or value-added. It cannot be overstressed that a business is created precisely for profit. The equal protection clause under the Constitution means that "no person or class of persons shall be deprived of the same protection of laws which is enjoyed by other persons or other classes in the same place and in like circumstances."83 The power of the State to make reasonable and natural classifications for the purposes of

taxation has long been established. Whether it relates to the subject of taxation, the kind of property, the rates to be levied, or the amounts to be raised, the methods of assessment, valuation and collection, the States power is entitled to presumption of validity. As a rule, the judiciary will not interfere with such power absent a clear showing of unreasonableness, discrimination, or arbitrariness.84 Petitioners point out that the limitation on the creditable input tax if the entity has a high ratio of input tax, or invests in capital equipment, or has several transactions with the government, is not based on real and substantial differences to meet a valid classification. The argument is pedantic, if not outright baseless. The law does not make any classification in the subject of taxation, the kind of property, the rates to be levied or the amounts to be raised, the methods of assessment, valuation and collection. Petitioners alleged distinctions are based on variables that bear different consequences. While the implementation of the law may yield varying end results depending on ones profit margin and value-added, the Court cannot go beyond what the legislature has laid down and interfere with the affairs of business. The equal protection clause does not require the universal application of the laws on all persons or things without distinction. This might in fact sometimes result in unequal protection. What the clause requires is equality among equals as determined according to a valid classification. By classification is meant the grouping of persons or things similar to each other in certain particulars and different from all others in these same particulars.85 Petitioners brought to the Courts attention the introduction of Senate Bill No. 2038 by Sens.

S.R. Osmea III and Ma. Ana Consuelo A.S. Madrigal on June 6, 2005, and House Bill No. 4493 by Rep. Eric D. Singson. The proposed legislation seeks to amend the 70% limitation by increasing the same to 90%. This, according to petitioners, supports their stance that the 70% limitation is arbitrary and confiscatory. On this score, suffice it to say that these are still proposed legislations. Until Congress amends the law, and absent any unequivocal basis for its unconstitutionality, the 70% limitation stays. B. Uniformity and Equitability of Taxation Article VI, Section 28(1) of the Constitution reads: The rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable. The Congress shall evolve a progressive system of taxation. Uniformity in taxation means that all taxable articles or kinds of property of the same class shall be taxed at the same rate. Different articles may be taxed at different amounts provided that the rate is uniform on the same class everywhere with all people at all times.86 In this case, the tax law is uniform as it provides a standard rate of 0% or 10% (or 12%) on all goods and services. Sections 4, 5 and 6 of R.A. No. 9337, amending Sections 106, 107 and 108, respectively, of the NIRC, provide for a rate of 10% (or 12%) on sale of goods and properties, importation of goods, and sale of services and use or lease of properties. These same sections also provide for a 0% rate on certain sales and transaction. Neither does the law make any distinction as to the type of industry or trade that will bear the 70%

limitation on the creditable input tax, 5-year amortization of input tax paid on purchase of capital goods or the 5% final withholding tax by the government. It must be stressed that the rule of uniform taxation does not deprive Congress of the power to classify subjects of taxation, and only demands uniformity within the particular class.87 R.A. No. 9337 is also equitable. The law is equipped with a threshold margin. The VAT rate of 0% or 10% (or 12%) does not apply to sales of goods or services with gross annual sales or receipts not exceeding P1,500,000.00.88 Also, basic marine and agricultural food products in their original state are still not subject to the tax,89 thus ensuring that prices at the grassroots level will remain accessible. As was stated in Kapatiran ng mga Naglilingkod sa Pamahalaan ng Pilipinas, Inc. vs. Tan:90 The disputed sales tax is also equitable. It is imposed only on sales of goods or services by persons engaged in business with an aggregate gross annual sales exceeding P200,000.00. Small corner sari-sari stores are consequently exempt from its application. Likewise exempt from the tax are sales of farm and marine products, so that the costs of basic food and other necessities, spared as they are from the incidence of the VAT, are expected to be relatively lower and within the reach of the general public. It is admitted that R.A. No. 9337 puts a premium on businesses with low profit margins, and unduly favors those with high profit margins. Congress was not oblivious to this. Thus, to equalize the weighty burden the law entails, the law, under Section 116, imposed a 3% percentage tax on VAT-exempt persons under Section 109(v), i.e., transactions with gross

annual sales and/or receipts not exceeding P1.5 Million. This acts as a equalizer because in effect, bigger businesses that qualify for VAT coverage and VAT-exempt taxpayers stand on equal-footing. Moreover, Congress provided mitigating measures to cushion the impact of the imposition of the tax on those previously exempt. Excise taxes on petroleum products91 and natural gas92 were reduced. Percentage tax on domestic carriers was removed.93 Power producers are now exempt from paying franchise tax.94 Aside from these, Congress also increased the income tax rates of corporations, in order to distribute the burden of taxation. Domestic, foreign, and non-resident corporations are now subject to a 35% income tax rate, from a previous 32%.95 Intercorporate dividends of nonresident foreign corporations are still subject to 15% final withholding tax but the tax credit allowed on the corporations domicile was increased to 20%.96 The Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) is not exempt from income taxes anymore.97 Even the sale by an artist of his works or services performed for the production of such works was not spared. All these were designed to ease, as well as spread out, the burden of taxation, which would otherwise rest largely on the consumers. It cannot therefore be gainsaid that R.A. No. 9337 is equitable. C. Progressivity of Taxation Lastly, petitioners contend that the limitation on the creditable input tax is anything but

regressive. It is the smaller business with higher input tax-output tax ratio that will suffer the consequences. Progressive taxation is built on the principle of the taxpayers ability to pay. This principle was also lifted from Adam Smiths Canons of Taxation, and it states: I. The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. Taxation is progressive when its rate goes up depending on the resources of the person affected.98 The VAT is an antithesis of progressive taxation. By its very nature, it is regressive. The principle of progressive taxation has no relation with the VAT system inasmuch as the VAT paid by the consumer or business for every goods bought or services enjoyed is the same regardless of income. In other words, the VAT paid eats the same portion of an income, whether big or small. The disparity lies in the income earned by a person or profit margin marked by a business, such that the higher the income or profit margin, the smaller the portion of the income or profit that is eaten by VAT. A converso, the lower the income or profit margin, the bigger the part that the VAT eats away. At the end of the day, it is really the lower income group or businesses with low-profit margins that is always hardest hit.

Nevertheless, the Constitution does not really prohibit the imposition of indirect taxes, like the VAT. What it simply provides is that Congress shall "evolve a progressive system of taxation." The Court stated in the Tolentino case, thus: The Constitution does not really prohibit the imposition of indirect taxes which, like the VAT, are regressive. What it simply provides is that Congress shall evolve a progressive system of taxation. The constitutional provision has been interpreted to mean simply that direct taxes are . . . to be preferred [and] as much as possible, indirect taxes should be minimized. (E. FERNANDO, THE CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES 221 (Second ed. 1977)) Indeed, the mandate to Congress is not to prescribe, but to evolve, a progressive tax system. Otherwise, sales taxes, which perhaps are the oldest form of indirect taxes, would have been prohibited with the proclamation of Art. VIII, 17 (1) of the 1973 Constitution from which the present Art. VI, 28 (1) was taken. Sales taxes are also regressive. Resort to indirect taxes should be minimized but not avoided entirely because it is difficult, if not impossible, to avoid them by imposing such taxes according to the taxpayers' ability to pay. In the case of the VAT, the law minimizes the regressive effects of this imposition by providing for zero rating of certain transactions (R.A. No. 7716, 3, amending 102 (b) of the NIRC), while granting exemptions to other transactions. (R.A. No. 7716, 4 amending 103 of the NIRC)99 CONCLUSION It has been said that taxes are the lifeblood of the government. In this case, it is just an enema, a

first-aid measure to resuscitate an economy in distress. The Court is neither blind nor is it turning a deaf ear on the plight of the masses. But it does not have the panacea for the malady that the law seeks to remedy. As in other cases, the Court cannot strike down a law as unconstitutional simply because of its yokes. Let us not be overly influenced by the plea that for every wrong there is a remedy, and that the judiciary should stand ready to afford relief. There are undoubtedly many wrongs the judicature may not correct, for instance, those involving political questions. . . . Let us likewise disabuse our minds from the notion that the judiciary is the repository of remedies for all political or social ills; We should not forget that the Constitution has judiciously allocated the powers of government to three distinct and separate compartments; and that judicial interpretation has tended to the preservation of the independence of the three, and a zealous regard of the prerogatives of each, knowing full well that one is not the guardian of the others and that, for official wrong-doing, each may be brought to account, either by impeachment, trial or by the ballot box.100 The words of the Court in Vera vs. Avelino101 holds true then, as it still holds true now. All things considered, there is no raison d'tre for the unconstitutionality of R.A. No. 9337. WHEREFORE, Republic Act No. 9337 not being unconstitutional, the petitions in G.R. Nos. 168056, 168207, 168461, 168463, and 168730, are hereby DISMISSED. There being no constitutional impediment to the full enforcement and implementation of R.A. No. 9337, the temporary restraining order issued by the Court on July 1, 2005 is LIFTED upon

finality of herein decision. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. L-59431 July 25, 1984 ANTERO M. SISON, JR., petitioner, vs. RUBEN B. ANCHETA, Acting Commissioner, Bureau of Internal Revenue; ROMULO VILLA, Deputy Commissioner, Bureau of Internal Revenue; TOMAS TOLEDO Deputy Commissioner, Bureau of Internal Revenue; MANUEL ALBA, Minister of Budget, FRANCISCO TANTUICO, Chairman, Commissioner on Audit, and CESAR E. A. VIRATA, Minister of Finance, respondents. Antero Sison for petitioner and for his own behalf. The Solicitor General for respondents. FERNANDO, C.J.: The success of the challenge posed in this suit for declaratory relief or prohibition proceeding 1 on the validity of Section I of Batas Pambansa Blg. 135 depends upon a showing of its constitutional infirmity. The assailed provision further amends Section 21 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1977, which provides for rates of tax on citizens or residents on (a) taxable compensation income, (b) taxable net income, (c) royalties, prizes, and other winnings, (d) interest from bank deposits and yield or any other monetary benefit from deposit substitutes and from trust fund and similar arrangements, (e) dividends and share of individual partner in the net profits of taxable

partnership, (f) adjusted gross income. 2 Petitioner 3 as taxpayer alleges that by virtue thereof, "he would be unduly discriminated against by the imposition of higher rates of tax upon his income arising from the exercise of his profession vis-a-vis those which are imposed upon fixed income or salaried individual taxpayers. 4 He characterizes the above sction as arbitrary amounting to class legislation, oppressive and capricious in character 5 For petitioner, therefore, there is a transgression of both the equal protection and due process clauses 6 of the Constitution as well as of the rule requiring uniformity in taxation. 7 The Court, in a resolution of January 26, 1982, required respondents to file an answer within 10 days from notice. Such an answer, after two extensions were granted the Office of the Solicitor General, was filed on May 28, 1982. 8 The facts as alleged were admitted but not the allegations which to their mind are "mere arguments, opinions or conclusions on the part of the petitioner, the truth [for them] being those stated [in their] Special and Affirmative Defenses." 9 The answer then affirmed: "Batas Pambansa Big. 135 is a valid exercise of the State's power to tax. The authorities and cases cited while correctly quoted or paraghraph do not support petitioner's stand." 10 The prayer is for the dismissal of the petition for lack of merit. This Court finds such a plea more than justified. The petition must be dismissed. 1. It is manifest that the field of state activity has assumed a much wider scope, The

reason was so clearly set forth by retired Chief Justice Makalintal thus: "The areas which used to be left to private enterprise and initiative and which the government was called upon to enter optionally, and only 'because it was better equipped to administer for the public welfare than is any private individual or group of individuals,' continue to lose their well-defined boundaries and to be absorbed within activities that the government must undertake in its sovereign capacity if it is to meet the increasing social challenges of the times." 11 Hence the need for more revenues. The power to tax, an inherent prerogative, has to be availed of to assure the performance of vital state functions. It is the source of the bulk of public funds. To praphrase a recent decision, taxes being the lifeblood of the government, their prompt and certain availability is of the essence. 12 2. The power to tax moreover, to borrow from Justice Malcolm, "is an attribute of sovereignty. It is the strongest of all the powers of of government." 13 It is, of course, to be admitted that for all its plenitude 'the power to tax is not unconfined. There are restrictions. The Constitution sets forth such limits . Adversely affecting as it does properly rights, both the due process and equal protection clauses inay properly be invoked, all petitioner does, to invalidate in appropriate cases a revenue measure. if it were otherwise, there would -be truth to the 1803 dictum of Chief Justice Marshall that "the power to tax involves the power to destroy." 14 In a separate opinion in Graves v. New York, 15 Justice Frankfurter, after referring to it as an 1, unfortunate remark characterized it as "a flourish of rhetoric [attributable to] the intellectual fashion of the

times following] a free use of absolutes." 16 This is merely to emphasize that it is riot and there cannot be such a constitutional mandate. Justice Frankfurter could rightfully conclude: "The web of unreality spun from Marshall's famous dictum was brushed away by one stroke of Mr. Justice Holmess pen: 'The power to tax is not the power to destroy while this Court sits." 17 So it is in the Philippines. 3. This Court then is left with no choice. The Constitution as the fundamental law overrides any legislative or executive, act that runs counter to it. In any case therefore where it can be demonstrated that the challenged statutory provision as petitioner here alleges fails to abide by its command, then this Court must so declare and adjudge it null. The injury thus is centered on the question of whether the imposition of a higher tax rate on taxable net income derived from business or profession than on compensation is constitutionally infirm. 4, The difficulty confronting petitioner is thus apparent. He alleges arbitrariness. A mere allegation, as here. does not suffice. There must be a factual foundation of such unconstitutional taint. Considering that petitioner here would condemn such a provision as void or its face, he has not made out a case. This is merely to adhere to the authoritative doctrine that were the due process and equal protection clauses are invoked, considering that they arc not fixed rules but rather broad standards, there is a need for of such persuasive character as would lead to such a conclusion. Absent such a showing, the presumption of validity must prevail. 18

5. It is undoubted that the due process clause may be invoked where a taxing statute is so arbitrary that it finds no support in the Constitution. An obvious example is where it can be shown to amount to the confiscation of property. That would be a clear abuse of power. It then becomes the duty of this Court to say that such an arbitrary act amounted to the exercise of an authority not conferred. That properly calls for the application of the Holmes dictum. It has also been held that where the assailed tax measure is beyond the jurisdiction of the state, or is not for a public purpose, or, in case of a retroactive statute is so harsh and unreasonable, it is subject to attack on due process grounds. 19 6. Now for equal protection. The applicable standard to avoid the charge that there is a denial of this constitutional mandate whether the assailed act is in the exercise of the lice power or the power of eminent domain is to demonstrated that the governmental act assailed, far from being inspired by the attainment of the common weal was prompted by the spirit of hostility, or at the very least, discrimination that finds no support in reason. It suffices then that the laws operate equally and uniformly on all persons under similar circumstances or that all persons must be treated in the same manner, the conditions not being different, both in the privileges conferred and the liabilities imposed. Favoritism and undue preference cannot be allowed. For the principle is that equal protection and security shall be given to every person under circumtances which if not Identical are analogous. If law be looked upon in terms of burden or charges, those that fall within a class should be treated in the same fashion,

whatever restrictions cast on some in the group equally binding on the rest." 20 That same formulation applies as well to taxation measures. The equal protection clause is, of course, inspired by the noble concept of approximating the Ideal of the laws benefits being available to all and the affairs of men being governed by that serene and impartial uniformity, which is of the very essence of the Idea of law. There is, however, wisdom, as well as realism in these words of Justice Frankfurter: "The equality at which the 'equal protection' clause aims is not a disembodied equality. The Fourteenth Amendment enjoins 'the equal protection of the laws,' and laws are not abstract propositions. They do not relate to abstract units A, B and C, but are expressions of policy arising out of specific difficulties, address to the attainment of specific ends by the use of specific remedies. The Constitution does not require things which are different in fact or opinion to be treated in law as though they were the same." 21 Hence the constant reiteration of the view that classification if rational in character is allowable. As a matter of fact, in a leading case of Lutz V. Araneta, 22 this Court, through Justice J.B.L. Reyes, went so far as to hold "at any rate, it is inherent in the power to tax that a state be free to select the subjects of taxation, and it has been repeatedly held that 'inequalities which result from a singling out of one particular class for taxation, or exemption infringe no constitutional limitation.'" 23 7. Petitioner likewise invoked the kindred concept of uniformity. According to the Constitution: "The rule of taxation shag be uniform and equitable." 24 This requirement

is met according to Justice Laurel in Philippine Trust Company v. Yatco, 25 decided in 1940, when the tax "operates with the same force and effect in every place where the subject may be found. " 26 He likewise added: "The rule of uniformity does not call for perfect uniformity or perfect equality, because this is hardly attainable." 27 The problem of classification did not present itself in that case. It did not arise until nine years later, when the Supreme Court held: "Equality and uniformity in taxation means that all taxable articles or kinds of property of the same class shall be taxed at the same rate. The taxing power has the authority to make reasonable and natural classifications for purposes of taxation, ... . 28 As clarified by Justice Tuason, where "the differentiation" complained of "conforms to the practical dictates of justice and equity" it "is not discriminatory within the meaning of this clause and is therefore uniform." 29 There is quite a similarity then to the standard of equal protection for all that is required is that the tax "applies equally to all persons, firms and corporations placed in similar situation." 30 8. Further on this point. Apparently, what misled petitioner is his failure to take into consideration the distinction between a tax rate and a tax base. There is no legal objection to a broader tax base or taxable income by eliminating all deductible items and at the same time reducing the applicable tax rate. Taxpayers may be classified into different categories. To repeat, it. is enough that the classification must rest upon substantial distinctions that make real differences. In the case of the gross income

taxation embodied in Batas Pambansa Blg. 135, the, discernible basis of classification is the susceptibility of the income to the application of generalized rules removing all deductible items for all taxpayers within the class and fixing a set of reduced tax rates to be applied to all of them. Taxpayers who are recipients of compensation income are set apart as a class. As there is practically no overhead expense, these taxpayers are e not entitled to make deductions for income tax purposes because they are in the same situation more or less. On the other hand, in the case of professionals in the practice of their calling and businessmen, there is no uniformity in the costs or expenses necessary to produce their income. It would not be just then to disregard the disparities by giving all of them zero deduction and indiscriminately impose on all alike the same tax rates on the basis of gross income. There is ample justification then for the Batasang Pambansa to adopt the gross system of income taxation to compensation income, while continuing the system of net income taxation as regards professional and business income. 9. Nothing can be clearer, therefore, than that the petition is without merit, considering the (1) lack of factual foundation to show the arbitrary character of the assailed provision; 31 (2) the force of controlling doctrines on due process, equal protection, and uniformity in taxation and (3) the reasonableness of the distinction between compensation and taxable net income of professionals and businessman certainly not a suspect classification,

WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed. Costs against petitioner.

G.R. No. 81311 June 30, 1988 KAPATIRAN NG MGA NAGLILINGKOD SA PAMAHALAAN NG PILIPINAS, INC., HERMINIGILDO C. DUMLAO, GERONIMO Q. QUADRA, and MARIO C. VILLANUEVA, petitioners, vs. HON. BIENVENIDO TAN, as Commissioner of Internal Revenue, respondent. G.R. No. 81820 June 30, 1988 KILUSANG MAYO UNO LABOR CENTER (KMU), its officers and affiliated labor federations and alliances, petitioners, vs. THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, SECRETARY OF FINANCE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, and SECRETARY OF BUDGET, respondents. G.R. No. 81921 June 30, 1988 INTEGRATED CUSTOMS BROKERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES and JESUS B. BANAL, petitioners, vs. The HON. COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, respondent. G.R. No. 82152 June 30, 1988 RICARDO C. VALMONTE, petitioner,

vs. THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, SECRETARY OF FINANCE, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE and SECRETARY OF BUDGET, respondent. Franklin S. Farolan for petitioner Kapatiran in G.R. No. 81311. Jaime C. Opinion for individual petitioners in G.R. No. 81311. Banzuela, Flores, Miralles, Raeses, Sy, Taquio and Associates for petitioners in G.R. No 81820. Union of Lawyers and Advocates for Peoples Right collaborating counsel for petitioners in G.R. No 81820. Jose C. Leabres and Joselito R. Enriquez for petitioners in G.R. No. 81921. PADILLA, J.: These four (4) petitions, which have been consolidated because of the similarity of the main issues involved therein, seek to nullify Executive Order No. 273 (EO 273, for short), issued by the President of the Philippines on 25 July 1987, to take effect on 1 January 1988, and which amended certain sections of the National Internal Revenue Code and adopted the value-added tax (VAT, for short), for being unconstitutional in that its enactment is not alledgedly within the powers of the President; that the VAT is oppressive, discriminatory, regressive, and violates the due process and equal

protection clauses and other provisions of the 1987 Constitution. The Solicitor General prays for the dismissal of the petitions on the ground that the petitioners have failed to show justification for the exercise of its judicial powers, viz. (1) the existence of an appropriate case; (2) an interest, personal and substantial, of the party raising the constitutional questions; (3) the constitutional question should be raised at the earliest opportunity; and (4) the question of constitutionality is directly and necessarily involved in a justiciable controversy and its resolution is essential to the protection of the rights of the parties. According to the Solicitor General, only the third requisite that the constitutional question should be raised at the earliest opportunity has been complied with. He also questions the legal standing of the petitioners who, he contends, are merely asking for an advisory opinion from the Court, there being no justiciable controversy for resolution. Objections to taxpayers' suit for lack of sufficient personality standing, or interest are, however, in the main procedural matters. Considering the importance to the public of the cases at bar, and in keeping with the Court's duty, under the 1987 Constitution, to determine wether or not the other branches of government have kept themselves within the limits of the Constitution and the laws and that they have not abused the discretion given to them, the Court has brushed aside technicalities of procedure and has taken cognizance of these petitions. But, before resolving the issues raised, a brief look into the tax law in question is in

order. The VAT is a tax levied on a wide range of goods and services. It is a tax on the value, added by every seller, with aggregate gross annual sales of articles and/or services, exceeding P200,00.00, to his purchase of goods and services, unless exempt. VAT is computed at the rate of 0% or 10% of the gross selling price of goods or gross receipts realized from the sale of services. The VAT is said to have eliminated privilege taxes, multiple rated sales tax on manufacturers and producers, advance sales tax, and compensating tax on importations. The framers of EO 273 that it is principally aimed to rationalize the system of taxing goods and services; simplify tax administration; and make the tax system more equitable, to enable the country to attain economic recovery. The VAT is not entirely new. It was already in force, in a modified form, before EO 273 was issued. As pointed out by the Solicitor General, the Philippine sales tax system, prior to the issuance of EO 273, was essentially a single stage value added tax system computed under the "cost subtraction method" or "cost deduction method" and was imposed only on original sale, barter or exchange of articles by manufacturers, producers, or importers. Subsequent sales of such articles were not subject to sales tax. However, with the issuance of PD 1991 on 31 October 1985, a 3% tax was imposed on a second sale, which was reduced to 1.5% upon the issuance of PD 2006 on 31 December 1985, to take effect 1 January 1986. Reduced sales taxes were imposed not

only on the second sale, but on every subsequent sale, as well. EO 273 merely increased the VAT on every sale to 10%, unless zero-rated or exempt. Petitioners first contend that EO 273 is unconstitutional on the Ground that the President had no authority to issue EO 273 on 25 July 1987. The contention is without merit. It should be recalled that under Proclamation No. 3, which decreed a Provisional Constitution, sole legislative authority was vested upon the President. Art. II, sec. 1 of the Provisional Constitution states:
Sec. 1. Until a legislature is elected and convened under a new Constitution, the President shall continue to exercise legislative powers.

On 15 October 1986, the Constitutional Commission of 1986 adopted a new Constitution for the Republic of the Philippines which was ratified in a plebiscite conducted on 2 February 1987. Article XVIII, sec. 6 of said Constitution, hereafter referred to as the 1987 Constitution, provides:
Sec. 6. The incumbent President shall continue to exercise legislative powers until the first Congress is convened.

It should be noted that, under both the Provisional and the 1987 Constitutions, the President is vested with legislative powers until a legislature under a new Constitution is convened. The first Congress, created and elected under the 1987 Constitution, was convened on 27 July 1987. Hence, the enactment of EO 273 on 25 July 1987, two (2)

days before Congress convened on 27 July 1987, was within the President's constitutional power and authority to legislate. Petitioner Valmonte claims, additionally, that Congress was really convened on 30 June 1987 (not 27 July 1987). He contends that the word "convene" is synonymous with "the date when the elected members of Congress assumed office." The contention is without merit. The word "convene" which has been interpreted to mean "to call together, cause to assemble, or convoke," 1 is clearly different from assumption of office by the individual members of Congress or their taking the oath of office. As an example, we call to mind the interim National Assembly created under the 1973 Constitution, which had not been "convened" but some members of the body, more particularly the delegates to the 1971 Constitutional Convention who had opted to serve therein by voting affirmatively for the approval of said Constitution, had taken their oath of office. To uphold the submission of petitioner Valmonte would stretch the definition of the word "convene" a bit too far. It would also defeat the purpose of the framers of the 1987 Constitutional and render meaningless some other provisions of said Constitution. For example, the provisions of Art. VI, sec. 15, requiring Congress to convene once every year on the fourth Monday of July for its regular session would be a contrariety, since Congress would already be deemed to be in session after the individual members have taken their oath of office. A portion of the provisions of Art. VII, sec. 10, requiring

Congress to convene for the purpose of enacting a law calling for a special election to elect a President and Vice-President in case a vacancy occurs in said offices, would also be a surplusage. The portion of Art. VII, sec. 11, third paragraph, requiring Congress to convene, if not in session, to decide a conflict between the President and the Cabinet as to whether or not the President and the Cabinet as to whether or not the President can re-assume the powers and duties of his office, would also be redundant. The same is true with the portion of Art. VII, sec. 18, which requires Congress to convene within twenty-four (24) hours following the declaration of martial law or the suspension of the privilage of the writ of habeas corpus. The 1987 Constitution mentions a specific date when the President loses her power to legislate. If the framers of said Constitution had intended to terminate the exercise of legislative powers by the President at the beginning of the term of office of the members of Congress, they should have so stated (but did not) in clear and unequivocal terms. The Court has not power to re-write the Constitution and give it a meaning different from that intended. The Court also finds no merit in the petitioners' claim that EO 273 was issued by the President in grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. "Grave abuse of discretion" has been defined, as follows:
Grave abuse of discretion" implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction (Abad Santos vs. Province of Tarlac, 38 Off. Gaz. 834), or, in other words, where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner

by reason of passion or personal hostility, and it must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. (Tavera-Luna, Inc. vs. Nable, 38 Off. Gaz. 62). 2

Petitioners have failed to show that EO 273 was issued capriciously and whimsically or in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility. It appears that a comprehensive study of the VAT had been extensively discussed by this framers and other government agencies involved in its implementation, even under the past administration. As the Solicitor General correctly sated. "The signing of E.O. 273 was merely the last stage in the exercise of her legislative powers. The legislative process started long before the signing when the data were gathered, proposals were weighed and the final wordings of the measure were drafted, revised and finalized. Certainly, it cannot be said that the President made a jump, so to speak, on the Congress, two days before it convened." 3 Next, the petitioners claim that EO 273 is oppressive, discriminatory, unjust and regressive, in violation of the provisions of Art. VI, sec. 28(1) of the 1987 Constitution, which states:
Sec. 28 (1) The rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable. The Congress shall evolve a progressive system of taxation.

The petitioners" assertions in this regard are not supported by facts and circumstances to warrant their conclusions. They have failed to adequately show that the VAT is

oppressive, discriminatory or unjust. Petitioners merely rely upon newspaper articles which are actually hearsay and have evidentiary value. To justify the nullification of a law. there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, not a doubtful and argumentative implication. 4 As the Court sees it, EO 273 satisfies all the requirements of a valid tax. It is uniform. The court, in City of Baguio vs. De Leon, 5 said:
... In Philippine Trust Company v. Yatco (69 Phil. 420), Justice Laurel, speaking for the Court, stated: "A tax is considered uniform when it operates with the same force and effect in every place where the subject may be found." There was no occasion in that case to consider the possible effect on such a constitutional requirement where there is a classification. The opportunity came in Eastern Theatrical Co. v. Alfonso (83 Phil. 852, 862). Thus: "Equality and uniformity in taxation means that all taxable articles or kinds of property of the same class shall be taxed at the same rate. The taxing power has the authority to make reasonable and natural classifications for purposes of taxation; . . ." About two years later, Justice Tuason, speaking for this Court in Manila Race Horses Trainers Assn. v. de la Fuente (88 Phil. 60, 65) incorporated the above excerpt in his opinion and continued; "Taking everything into account, the differentiation against which the plaintiffs complain conforms to the practical dictates of justice and equity and is not discriminatory within the meaning of the Constitution." To satisfy this requirement then, all that is needed as held in another case decided two

years later, (Uy Matias v. City of Cebu, 93 Phil. 300) is that the statute or ordinance in question "applies equally to all persons, firms and corporations placed in similar situation." This Court is on record as accepting the view in a leading American case (Carmichael v. Southern Coal and Coke Co., 301 US 495) that "inequalities which result from a singling out of one particular class for taxation or exemption infringe no constitutional limitation." (Lutz v. Araneta, 98 Phil. 148, 153).

The sales tax adopted in EO 273 is applied similarly on all goods and services sold to the public, which are not exempt, at the constant rate of 0% or 10%. The disputed sales tax is also equitable. It is imposed only on sales of goods or services by persons engage in business with an aggregate gross annual sales exceeding P200,000.00. Small corner sari-sari stores are consequently exempt from its application. Likewise exempt from the tax are sales of farm and marine products, spared as they are from the incidence of the VAT, are expected to be relatively lower and within the reach of the general public. 6 The Court likewise finds no merit in the contention of the petitioner Integrated Customs Brokers Association of the Philippines that EO 273, more particularly the new Sec. 103 (r) of the National Internal Revenue Code, unduly discriminates against customs brokers. The contested provision states:
Sec. 103. Exempt transactions. The following shall be exempt from the value-added tax: xxx xxx xxx

(r) Service performed in the exercise of profession or calling (except customs brokers) subject to the occupation tax under the Local Tax Code, and professional services performed by registered general professional partnerships;

The phrase "except customs brokers" is not meant to discriminate against customs brokers. It was inserted in Sec. 103(r) to complement the provisions of Sec. 102 of the Code, which makes the services of customs brokers subject to the payment of the VAT and to distinguish customs brokers from other professionals who are subject to the payment of an occupation tax under the Local Tax Code. Pertinent provisions of Sec. 102 read:
Sec. 102. Value-added tax on sale of services. There shall be levied, assessed and collected, a value-added tax equivalent to 10% percent of gross receipts derived by any person engaged in the sale of services. The phrase sale of services" means the performance of all kinds of services for others for a fee, remuneration or consideration, including those performed or rendered by construction and service contractors; stock, real estate, commercial, customs and immigration brokers; lessors of personal property; lessors or distributors of cinematographic films; persons engaged in milling, processing, manufacturing or repacking goods for others; and similar services regardless of whether or not the performance thereof call for the exercise or use of the physical or mental faculties: ...

With the insertion of the clarificatory phrase "except customs brokers" in Sec. 103(r), a potential conflict between the two sections, (Secs. 102 and 103), insofar as customs brokers are concerned, is averted.

At any rate, the distinction of the customs brokers from the other professionals who are subject to occupation tax under the Local Tax Code is based upon material differences, in that the activities of customs brokers (like those of stock, real estate and immigration brokers) partake more of a business, rather than a profession and were thus subjected to the percentage tax under Sec. 174 of the National Internal Revenue Code prior to its amendment by EO 273. EO 273 abolished the percentage tax and replaced it with the VAT. If the petitioner Association did not protest the classification of customs brokers then, the Court sees no reason why it should protest now. The Court takes note that EO 273 has been in effect for more than five (5) months now, so that the fears expressed by the petitioners that the adoption of the VAT will trigger skyrocketing of prices of basic commodities and services, as well as mass actions and demonstrations against the VAT should by now be evident. The fact that nothing of the sort has happened shows that the fears and apprehensions of the petitioners appear to be more imagined than real. It would seem that the VAT is not as bad as we are made to believe. In any event, if petitioners seriously believe that the adoption and continued application of the VAT are prejudicial to the general welfare or the interests of the majority of the people, they should seek recourse and relief from the political branches of the government. The Court, following the time-honored doctrine of separation of powers, cannot substitute its judgment for that of the President as to the wisdom, justice and advisability of the adoption of the VAT. The Court can only look into and determine

whether or not EO 273 was enacted and made effective as law, in the manner required by, and consistent with, the Constitution, and to make sure that it was not issued in grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and, in this regard, the Court finds no reason to impede its application or continued implementation. WHEREFORE, the petitions are DISMISSED. Without pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. 109289 October 3, 1994 RUFINO R. TAN, petitioner, vs. RAMON R. DEL ROSARIO, JR., as SECRETARY OF FINANCE & JOSE U. ONG, as COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, respondents. G.R. No. 109446 October 3, 1994 CARAG, CABALLES, JAMORA AND SOMERA LAW OFFICES, CARLO A. CARAG, MANUELITO O. CABALLES, ELPIDIO C. JAMORA, JR. and BENJAMIN A. SOMERA, JR., petitioners, vs. RAMON R. DEL ROSARIO, in his capacity as SECRETARY OF FINANCE and JOSE U. ONG, in his capacity as COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, respondents.

Rufino R. Tan for and in his own behalf. Carag, Caballes, Jamora & Zomera Law Offices for petitioners in G.R. 109446. VITUG, J.: These two consolidated special civil actions for prohibition challenge, in G.R. No. 109289, the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 7496, also commonly known as the Simplified Net Income Taxation Scheme ("SNIT"), amending certain provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code and, in G.R. No. 109446, the validity of Section 6, Revenue Regulations No. 2-93, promulgated by public respondents pursuant to said law. Petitioners claim to be taxpayers adversely affected by the continued implementation of the amendatory legislation. In G.R. No. 109289, it is asserted that the enactment of Republic Act No. 7496 violates the following provisions of the Constitution:
Article VI, Section 26(1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof. Article VI, Section 28(1) The rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable. The Congress shall evolve a progressive system of taxation. Article III, Section 1 No person shall be deprived of . . . property without due process

of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

In G.R. No. 109446, petitioners, assailing Section 6 of Revenue Regulations No. 2-93, argue that public respondents have exceeded their rule-making authority in applying SNIT to general professional partnerships. The Solicitor General espouses the position taken by public respondents. The Court has given due course to both petitions. The parties, in compliance with the Court's directive, have filed their respective memoranda. G.R. No. 109289 Petitioner contends that the title of House Bill No. 34314, progenitor of Republic Act No. 7496, is a misnomer or, at least, deficient for being merely entitled, "Simplified Net Income Taxation Scheme for the Self-Employed and Professionals Engaged in the Practice of their Profession" (Petition in G.R. No. 109289). The full text of the title actually reads:
An Act Adopting the Simplified Net Income Taxation Scheme For The Self-Employed and Professionals Engaged In The Practice of Their Profession, Amending Sections 21 and 29 of the National Internal Revenue Code, as Amended.

The pertinent provisions of Sections 21 and 29, so referred to, of the National Internal Revenue Code, as now amended, provide:

Sec. 21. Tax on citizens or residents. xxx xxx xxx (f) Simplified Net Income Tax for the Self-Employed and/or Professionals Engaged in the Practice of Profession. A tax is hereby imposed upon the taxable net income as determined in Section 27 received during each taxable year from all sources, other than income covered by paragraphs (b), (c), (d) and (e) of this section by every individual whether a citizen of the Philippines or an alien residing in the Philippines who is self-employed or practices his profession herein, determined in accordance with the following schedule: Not over P10,000 3% Over P10,000 P300 + 9% but not over P30,000 of excess over P10,000 Over P30,000 P2,100 + 15% but not over P120,00 of excess over P30,000 Over P120,000 P15,600 + 20% but not over P350,000 of excess over P120,000 Over P350,000 P61,600 + 30% of excess over P350,000 Sec. 29. Deductions from gross income. In computing taxable income subject to tax under Sections 21(a), 24(a), (b) and (c); and 25 (a)(1), there shall be allowed as deductions the items specified in paragraphs (a) to (i) of this section: Provided, however,

That in computing taxable income subject to tax under Section 21 (f) in the case of individuals engaged in business or practice of profession, only the following direct costs shall be allowed as deductions: (a) Raw materials, supplies and direct labor; (b) Salaries of employees directly engaged in activities in the course of or pursuant to the business or practice of their profession; (c) Telecommunications, electricity, fuel, light and water; (d) Business rentals; (e) Depreciation; (f) Contributions made to the Government and accredited relief organizations for the rehabilitation of calamity stricken areas declared by the President; and (g) Interest paid or accrued within a taxable year on loans contracted from accredited financial institutions which must be proven to have been incurred in connection with the conduct of a taxpayer's profession, trade or business. For individuals whose cost of goods sold and direct costs are difficult to determine, a maximum of forty per cent (40%) of their gross receipts shall be allowed as deductions to answer for business or professional expenses as the case may be.

On the basis of the above language of the law, it would be difficult to accept petitioner's view that the amendatory law should be considered as having now adopted a gross income, instead of as having still retained the net income, taxation scheme. The allowance for deductible items, it is true, may have significantly been reduced by the

questioned law in comparison with that which has prevailed prior to the amendment; limiting, however, allowable deductions from gross income is neither discordant with, nor opposed to, the net income tax concept. The fact of the matter is still that various deductions, which are by no means inconsequential, continue to be well provided under the new law. Article VI, Section 26(1), of the Constitution has been envisioned so as (a) to prevent log-rolling legislation intended to unite the members of the legislature who favor any one of unrelated subjects in support of the whole act, (b) to avoid surprises or even fraud upon the legislature, and (c) to fairly apprise the people, through such publications of its proceedings as are usually made, of the subjects of legislation. 1 The above objectives of the fundamental law appear to us to have been sufficiently met. Anything else would be to require a virtual compendium of the law which could not have been the intendment of the constitutional mandate. Petitioner intimates that Republic Act No. 7496 desecrates the constitutional requirement that taxation "shall be uniform and equitable" in that the law would now attempt to tax single proprietorships and professionals differently from the manner it imposes the tax on corporations and partnerships. The contention clearly forgets, however, that such a system of income taxation has long been the prevailing rule even prior to Republic Act No. 7496. Uniformity of taxation, like the kindred concept of equal protection, merely requires that

all subjects or objects of taxation, similarly situated, are to be treated alike both in privileges and liabilities (Juan Luna Subdivision vs. Sarmiento, 91 Phil. 371). Uniformity does not forfend classification as long as: (1) the standards that are used therefor are substantial and not arbitrary, (2) the categorization is germane to achieve the legislative purpose, (3) the law applies, all things being equal, to both present and future conditions, and (4) the classification applies equally well to all those belonging to the same class (Pepsi Cola vs. City of Butuan, 24 SCRA 3; Basco vs. PAGCOR, 197 SCRA 52). What may instead be perceived to be apparent from the amendatory law is the legislative intent to increasingly shift the income tax system towards the schedular approach 2 in the income taxation of individual taxpayers and to maintain, by and large, the present global treatment 3 on taxable corporations. We certainly do not view this classification to be arbitrary and inappropriate. Petitioner gives a fairly extensive discussion on the merits of the law, illustrating, in the process, what he believes to be an imbalance between the tax liabilities of those covered by the amendatory law and those who are not. With the legislature primarily lies the discretion to determine the nature (kind), object (purpose), extent (rate), coverage (subjects) and situs (place) of taxation. This court cannot freely delve into those matters which, by constitutional fiat, rightly rest on legislative judgment. Of course, where a tax measure becomes so unconscionable and unjust as to amount to

confiscation of property, courts will not hesitate to strike it down, for, despite all its plenitude, the power to tax cannot override constitutional proscriptions. This stage, however, has not been demonstrated to have been reached within any appreciable distance in this controversy before us. Having arrived at this conclusion, the plea of petitioner to have the law declared unconstitutional for being violative of due process must perforce fail. The due process clause may correctly be invoked only when there is a clear contravention of inherent or constitutional limitations in the exercise of the tax power. No such transgression is so evident to us. G.R. No. 109446 The several propositions advanced by petitioners revolve around the question of whether or not public respondents have exceeded their authority in promulgating Section 6, Revenue Regulations No. 2-93, to carry out Republic Act No. 7496. The questioned regulation reads:
Sec. 6. General Professional Partnership The general professional partnership (GPP) and the partners comprising the GPP are covered by R. A. No. 7496. Thus, in determining the net profit of the partnership, only the direct costs mentioned in said law are to be deducted from partnership income. Also, the expenses paid or incurred by partners in their individual capacities in the practice of their profession which are not reimbursed or paid by the partnership but are not considered as direct cost, are not deductible from his gross income.

The real objection of petitioners is focused on the administrative interpretation of public respondents that would apply SNIT to partners in general professional partnerships. Petitioners cite the pertinent deliberations in Congress during its enactment of Republic Act No. 7496, also quoted by the Honorable Hernando B. Perez, minority floor leader of the House of Representatives, in the latter's privilege speech by way of commenting on the questioned implementing regulation of public respondents following the effectivity of the law, thusly:
MR. ALBANO, Now Mr. Speaker, I would like to get the correct impression of this bill. Do we speak here of individuals who are earning, I mean, who earn through business enterprises and therefore, should file an income tax return? MR. PEREZ. That is correct, Mr. Speaker. This does not apply to corporations. It applies only to individuals. (See Deliberations on H. B. No. 34314, August 6, 1991, 6:15 P.M.; Emphasis ours). Other deliberations support this position, to wit: MR. ABAYA . . . Now, Mr. Speaker, did I hear the Gentleman from Batangas say that this bill is intended to increase collections as far as individuals are concerned and to make collection of taxes equitable? MR. PEREZ. That is correct, Mr. Speaker. (Id. at 6:40 P.M.; Emphasis ours). In fact, in the sponsorship speech of Senator Mamintal Tamano on the Senate version of the SNITS, it is categorically stated, thus:

This bill, Mr. President, is not applicable to business corporations or to partnerships; it is only with respect to individuals and professionals. (Emphasis ours)

The Court, first of all, should like to correct the apparent misconception that general professional partnerships are subject to the payment of income tax or that there is a difference in the tax treatment between individuals engaged in business or in the practice of their respective professions and partners in general professional partnerships. The fact of the matter is that a general professional partnership, unlike an ordinary business partnership (which is treated as a corporation for income tax purposes and so subject to the corporate income tax), is not itself an income taxpayer. The income tax is imposed not on the professional partnership, which is tax exempt, but on the partners themselves in their individual capacity computed on their distributive shares of partnership profits. Section 23 of the Tax Code, which has not been amended at all by Republic Act 7496, is explicit:
Sec. 23. Tax liability of members of general professional partnerships. (a) Persons exercising a common profession in general partnership shall be liable for income tax only in their individual capacity, and the share in the net profits of the general professional partnership to which any taxable partner would be entitled whether distributed or otherwise, shall be returned for taxation and the tax paid in accordance with the provisions of this Title. (b) In determining his distributive share in the net income of the partnership, each partner

(1) Shall take into account separately his distributive share of the partnership's income, gain, loss, deduction, or credit to the extent provided by the pertinent provisions of this Code, and (2) Shall be deemed to have elected the itemized deductions, unless he declares his distributive share of the gross income undiminished by his share of the deductions.

There is, then and now, no distinction in income tax liability between a person who practices his profession alone or individually and one who does it through partnership (whether registered or not) with others in the exercise of a common profession. Indeed, outside of the gross compensation income tax and the final tax on passive investment income, under the present income tax system all individuals deriving income from any source whatsoever are treated in almost invariably the same manner and under a common set of rules. We can well appreciate the concern taken by petitioners if perhaps we were to consider Republic Act No. 7496 as an entirely independent, not merely as an amendatory, piece of legislation. The view can easily become myopic, however, when the law is understood, as it should be, as only forming part of, and subject to, the whole income tax concept and precepts long obtaining under the National Internal Revenue Code. To elaborate a little, the phrase "income taxpayers" is an all embracing term used in the Tax Code, and it practically covers all persons who derive taxable income. The law, in levying the tax, adopts the most comprehensive tax situs of nationality and residence of

the taxpayer (that renders citizens, regardless of residence, and resident aliens subject to income tax liability on their income from all sources) and of the generally accepted and internationally recognized income taxable base (that can subject non-resident aliens and foreign corporations to income tax on their income from Philippine sources). In the process, the Code classifies taxpayers into four main groups, namely: (1) Individuals, (2) Corporations, (3) Estates under Judicial Settlement and (4) Irrevocable Trusts (irrevocable both as to corpus and as to income). Partnerships are, under the Code, either "taxable partnerships" or "exempt partnerships." Ordinarily, partnerships, no matter how created or organized, are subject to income tax (and thus alluded to as "taxable partnerships") which, for purposes of the above categorization, are by law assimilated to be within the context of, and so legally contemplated as, corporations. Except for few variances, such as in the application of the "constructive receipt rule" in the derivation of income, the income tax approach is alike to both juridical persons. Obviously, SNIT is not intended or envisioned, as so correctly pointed out in the discussions in Congress during its deliberations on Republic Act 7496, aforequoted, to cover corporations and partnerships which are independently subject to the payment of income tax. "Exempt partnerships," upon the other hand, are not similarly identified as corporations nor even considered as independent taxable entities for income tax purposes. A general professional partnership is such an example. 4 Here, the partners themselves,

not the partnership (although it is still obligated to file an income tax return [mainly for administration and data]), are liable for the payment of income tax in their individual capacity computed on their respective and distributive shares of profits. In the determination of the tax liability, a partner does so as an individual, and there is no choice on the matter. In fine, under the Tax Code on income taxation, the general professional partnership is deemed to be no more than a mere mechanism or a flowthrough entity in the generation of income by, and the ultimate distribution of such income to, respectively, each of the individual partners. Section 6 of Revenue Regulation No. 2-93 did not alter, but merely confirmed, the above standing rule as now so modified by Republic Act No. 7496 on basically the extent of allowable deductions applicable to all individual income taxpayers on their non-compensation income. There is no evident intention of the law, either before or after the amendatory legislation, to place in an unequal footing or in significant variance the income tax treatment of professionals who practice their respective professions individually and of those who do it through a general professional partnership. WHEREFORE, the petitions are DISMISSED. No special pronouncement on costs. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. L-77194 March 15, 1988 VIRGILIO GASTON, HORTENCIA STARKE, ROMEO GUANZON, OSCAR VILLANUEVA, JOSE ABELLO, REMO RAMOS, CAROLINA LOPEZ, JESUS ISASI, MANUEL LACSON, JAVIER LACSON, TITO TAGARAO, EDUARDO SUATENGCO, AUGUSTO LLAMAS, RODOLFO SIASON, PACIFICO MAGHARI, JR., JOSE JAMANDRE, AURELIO GAMBOA, ET AL., petitioners, vs. REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK, PHILIPPINE SUGAR COMMISSION, and SUGAR REGULATORY ADMINISTRATION, respondents, ANGEL H. SEVERINO, JR., GLICERIO JAVELLANA, GLORIA P. DE LA PAZ, JOEY P. DE LA PAZ, ET AL., and NATIONAL FEDERATION OF SUGARCANE PLANTERS, intervenors. MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.: Petitioners are sugar producers, sugarcane planters and millers, who have come to this Court in their individual capacities and in representation of other sugar producers, planters and millers, said to be so numerous that it is impracticable to bring them all before the Court although the subject matter of the present controversy is of common interest to all sugar producers, whether parties in this action or not. Respondent Philippine Sugar Commission (PHILSUCOM, for short) was formerly the government office tasked with the function of regulating and supervising the sugar

industry until it was superseded by its co-respondent Sugar Regulatory Administration (SRA, for brevity) under Executive Order No. 18 on May 28, 1986. Although said Executive Order abolished the PHILSUCOM, its existence as a juridical entity was mandated to continue for three (3) more years "for the purpose of prosecuting and defending suits by or against it and enables it to settle and close its affairs, to dispose of and convey its property and to distribute its assets." Respondent Republic Planters Bank (briefly, the Bank) is a commercial banking corporation. Angel H. Severino, Jr., et al., who are sugarcane planters planting and milling their sugarcane in different mill districts of Negros Occidental, were allowed to intervene by the Court, since they have common cause with petitioners and respondents having interposed no objection to their intervention. Subsequently, on January 14,1988, the National Federation of Sugar Planters (NFSP) also moved to intervene, which the Court allowed on February 16,1988. Petitioners and Intervenors have come to this Court praying for a Writ of mandamus commanding respondents:
TO IMPLEMENT AND ACCOMPLISH THE PRIVATIZATION OF REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK BY THE TRANSFER AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE SHARES OF STOCK IN THE SAID BANK; NOW HELD BY AND STILL CARRIED IN THE NAME OF THE PHILIPPINE SUGAR COMMISSION, TO THE SUGAR PRODUCERS, PLANTERS AND MILLERS, WHO ARE THE TRUE BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF THE 761,416

COMMON SHARES VALUED AT P36,548.000.00, AND 53,005,045 PREFERRED SHARES (A, B & C) WITH A TOTAL PAR VALUE OF P254,424,224.72, OR A TOTAL INVESTMENT OF P290,972,224.72, THE SAID INVESTMENT HAVING BEEN FUNDED BY THE DEDUCTION OF Pl.00 PER PICUL FROM SUGAR PROCEEDS OF THE SUGAR PRODUCERS COMMENCING THE YEAR 1978-79 UNTIL THE PRESENT AS STABILIZATION FUND PURSUANT TO P.D. # 388.

Respondent Bank does not take issue with either petitioners or its correspondents as it has no beneficial or equitable interest that may be affected by the ruling in this Petition, but welcomes the filing of the Petition since it will settle finally the issue of legal ownership of the questioned shares of stock. Respondents PHILSUCOM and SRA, for their part, squarely traverse the petition arguing that no trust results from Section 7 of P.D. No. 388; that the stabilization fees collected are considered government funds under the Government Auditing Code; that the transfer of shares of stock from PHILSUCOM to the sugar producers would be irregular, if not illegal; and that this suit is barred by laches. The Solicitor General aptly summarizes the basic issues thus: (1) whether the stabilization fees collected from sugar planters and millers pursuant to Section 7 of P.D. No. 388 are funds in trust for them, or public funds; and (2) whether shares of stock in respondent Bank paid for with said stabilization fees belong to the PHILSUCOM or to the different sugar planters and millers from whom the fees were collected or levied. P. D. No. 388, promulgated on February 2,1974, which created the PHILSUCOM,

provided for the collection of a Stabilization Fund as follows:

SEC. 7. Capitalization, Special Fund of the Commission, Development and Stabilization Fund. There is hereby established a fund for the commission for the purpose of financing the growth and development of the sugar industry and all its components, stabilization of the domestic market including the foreign market to be administered in trust by the Commission and deposited in the Philippine National Bank derived in the manner herein below cited from the following sources: a. Stabilization fund shall be collected as provided for in the various provisions of this Decree. b. Stabilization fees shall be collected from planters and millers in the amount of Two (P2.00) Pesos for every picul produced and milled for a period of five years from the approval of this Decree and One (Pl.00) Peso for every picul produced and milled every year thereafter. Provided: That fifty (P0.50) centavos per picul of the amount levied on planters, millers and traders under Section 4(c) of this Decree will be used for the payment of salaries and wages of personnel, fringe benefits and allowances of officers and employees for the purpose of accomplishing and employees for the purpose of accomplishing the efficient performance of the duties of the Commission. Provided, further: That said amount shall constitute a lien on the sugar quedan and/or warehouse receipts and shall be paid immediately by the planters and mill companies, sugar centrals and refineries to the Commission. (paragraphing and bold supplied).

Section 7 of P.D. No. 388 does provide that the stabilization fees collected "shall be

administered in trust by the Commission." However, while the element of an intent to create a trust is present, a resulting trust in favor of the sugar producers, millers and planters cannot be said to have ensued because the presumptive intention of the parties is not reasonably ascertainable from the language of the statute itself.
The doctrine of resulting trusts is founded on the presumed intention of the parties; and as a general rule, it arises where, and only where such may be reasonably presumed to be the intention of the parties, as determined from the facts and circumstances existing at the time of the transaction out of which it is sought to be established (89 C.J.S. 947).

No implied trust in favor of the sugar producers either can be deduced from the imposition of the levy. "The essential Idea of an implied trust involves a certain antagonism between the cestui que trust and the trustee even when the trust has not arisen out of fraud nor out of any transaction of a fraudulent or immoral character (65 CJ 222). It is not clearly shown from the statute itself that the PHILSUCOM imposed on itself the obligation of holding the stabilization fund for the benefit of the sugar producers. It must be categorically demonstrated that the very administrative agency which is the source of such regulation would place a burden on itself (Batchelder v. Central Bank of the Philippines, L-25071, July 29,1972,46 SCRA 102, citing People v. Que Po Lay, 94 Phil. 640 [1954]). Neither can petitioners place reliance on the history of respondents Bank. They recite that at the beginning, the Bank was owned by the Roman-Rojas Group. Because it underwent difficulties early in the year 1978, Mr. Roberto S. Benedicto, then Chairman

of the PHILSUCOM, submitted a proposal to the Central Bank for the rehabilitation of the Bank. The Central Bank acted favorably on the proposal at the meeting of the Monetary Board on March 31, 1978 subject to the infusion of fresh capital by the Benedicto Group. Petitioners maintain that this infusion of fresh capital was accomplished, not by any capital investment by Mr. Benedicto, but by PHILSUCOM, which set aside the proceeds of the P1.00 per picul stabilization fund to pay for its subscription in shares of stock of respondent Bank. It is petitioners' submission that all shares were placed in PHILSUCOM's name only out of convenience and necessity and that they are the true and beneficial owners thereof. In point of fact, we cannot see our way clear to upholding petitioners' position that the investment of the proceeds from the stabilization fund in subscriptions to the capital stock of the Bank were being made for and on their behalf. That could have been clarified by the Trust Agreement, dated May 28, 1986, entered into between PHILSUCOM, as "Trustor" acting through Mr. Fred J. Elizalde as Officer-in-Charge, and respondent RPB- Trust Department' as "Trustee," acknowledging that PHILSUCOM holds said shares for and in behalf of the sugar producers," the latter "being the true and beneficial owners thereof." The Agreement, however, did not get off the ground because it failed to receive the approval of the PHILSUCOM Board of Commissioners as required in the Agreement itself. The SRA, which succeeded PHILSUCOM, neither approved the Agreement because of the adverse opinion of the SRA, Resident Auditor, dated June 25,1986, which was

aimed by the Chairman of the Commission on Audit, on January 26,1987. On February 19, 1987, the SRA, resolved to revoke the Trust Agreement "in the light of the ruling of the Commission on Audit that the aforementioned Agreement is of doubtful validity." From the legal standpoint, we find basis for the opinion of the Commission on Audit reading:
That the government, PHILSUCOM or its successor-in-interest, Sugar Regulatory Administration, in particular, owns and stocks. While it is true that the collected stabilization fees were set aside by PHILSUCOM to pay its subscription to RPB, it did not collect said fees for the account of the sugar producers. That stabilization fees are charges/levies on sugar produced and milled which accrued to PHILSUCOM under PD 338, as amended. ...

The stabilization fees collected are in the nature of a tax, which is within the power of the State to impose for the promotion of the sugar industry (Lutz vs. Araneta, 98 Phil. 148). They constitute sugar liens (Sec. 7[b], P.D. No. 388). The collections made accrue to a "Special Fund," a "Development and Stabilization Fund," almost Identical to the "Sugar Adjustment and Stabilization Fund" created under Section 6 of Commonwealth Act 567. 1 The tax collected is not in a pure exercise of the taxing power. It is levied with a regulatory purpose, to provide means for the stabilization of the sugar industry. The levy is primarily in the exercise of the police power of the State (Lutz vs. Araneta, supra.).

The protection of a large industry constituting one of the great sources of the state's wealth and therefore directly or indirectly affecting the welfare of so great a portion of the population of the State is affected to such an extent by public interests as to be within the police power of the sovereign. (Johnson vs. State ex rel. Marey, 128 So. 857, cited in Lutz vs. Araneta, supra).

The stabilization fees in question are levied by the State upon sugar millers, planters and producers for a special purpose that of "financing the growth and development of the sugar industry and all its components, stabilization of the domestic market including the foreign market the fact that the State has taken possession of moneys pursuant to law is sufficient to constitute them state funds, even though they are held for a special purpose (Lawrence vs. American Surety Co., 263 Mich 586, 249 ALR 535, cited in 42 Am. Jur. Sec. 2, p. 718). Having been levied for a special purpose, the revenues collected are to be treated as a special fund, to be, in the language of the statute, "administered in trust' for the purpose intended. Once the purpose has been fulfilled or abandoned, the balance, if any, is to be transferred to the general funds of the Government. That is the essence of the trust intended (See 1987 Constitution, Article VI, Sec. 29(3), lifted from the 1935 Constitution, Article VI, Sec. 23(l]). 2 The character of the Stabilization Fund as a special fund is emphasized by the fact that the funds are deposited in the Philippine National Bank and not in the Philippine Treasury, moneys from which may be paid out only in pursuance of an appropriation made by law (1987) Constitution, Article VI, Sec. 29[1],1973 Constitution, Article VIII,

Sec. 18[l]). That the fees were collected from sugar producers, planters and millers, and that the funds were channeled to the purchase of shares of stock in respondent Bank do not convert the funds into a trust fired for their benefit nor make them the beneficial owners of the shares so purchased. It is but rational that the fees be collected from them since it is also they who are to be benefited from the expenditure of the funds derived from it. The investment in shares of respondent Bank is not alien to the purpose intended because of the Bank's character as a commodity bank for sugar conceived for the industry's growth and development. Furthermore, of note is the fact that one-half, (1/2) or PO.50 per picul, of the amount levied under P.D. No. 388 is to be utilized for the "payment of salaries and wages of personnel, fringe benefits and allowances of officers and employees of PHILSUCOM" thereby immediately negating the claim that the entire amount levied is in trust for sugar, producers, planters and millers. To rule in petitioners' favor would contravene the general principle that revenues derived from taxes cannot be used for purely private purposes or for the exclusive benefit of private persons. The Stabilization Fund is to be utilized for the benefit of the entire sugar industry, "and all its components, stabilization of the domestic market," including the foreign market the industry being of vital importance to the country's economy and to national interest. WHEREFORE, the Writ of mandamus is denied and the Petition hereby dismissed. No

costs. This Decision is immediately executory. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 166006 March 14, 2008 PLANTERS PRODUCTS, INC., Petitioner, vs. FERTIPHIL CORPORATION, Respondent. DECISION REYES, R.T., J.: THE Regional Trial Courts (RTC) have the authority and jurisdiction to consider the constitutionality of statutes, executive orders, presidential decrees and other issuances. The Constitution vests that power not only in the Supreme Court but in all Regional Trial Courts. The principle is relevant in this petition for review on certiorari of the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) affirming with modification that of the RTC in Makati City,2 finding petitioner Planters Products, Inc. (PPI) liable to private respondent Fertiphil Corporation (Fertiphil) for the levies it paid under Letter of Instruction (LOI) No. 1465. The Facts Petitioner PPI and private respondent Fertiphil are private corporations incorporated under Philippine laws.3 They are both engaged in the importation and distribution of fertilizers, pesticides and agricultural chemicals. On June 3, 1985, then President Ferdinand Marcos, exercising his legislative powers, issued LOI No. 1465 which provided, among others, for the imposition of a capital recovery component

(CRC) on the domestic sale of all grades of fertilizers in the Philippines.4 The LOI provides: 3. The Administrator of the Fertilizer Pesticide Authority to include in its fertilizer pricing formula a capital contribution component of not less than P10 per bag. This capital contribution shall be collected until adequate capital is raised to make PPI viable. Such capital contribution shall be applied by FPA to all domestic sales of fertilizers in the Philippines.5 (Underscoring supplied) Pursuant to the LOI, Fertiphil paid P10 for every bag of fertilizer it sold in the domestic market to the Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority (FPA). FPA then remitted the amount collected to the Far East Bank and Trust Company, the depositary bank of PPI. Fertiphil paid P6,689,144 to FPA from July 8, 1985 to January 24, 1986.6 After the 1986 Edsa Revolution, FPA voluntarily stopped the imposition of the P10 levy. With the return of democracy, Fertiphil demanded from PPI a refund of the amounts it paid under LOI No. 1465, but PPI refused to accede to the demand.7 Fertiphil filed a complaint for collection and damages8 against FPA and PPI with the RTC in Makati. It questioned the constitutionality of LOI No. 1465 for being unjust, unreasonable, oppressive, invalid and an unlawful imposition that amounted to a denial of due process of law.9 Fertiphil alleged that the LOI solely favored PPI, a privately owned corporation, which used the proceeds to maintain its monopoly of the fertilizer industry. In its Answer,10 FPA, through the Solicitor General, countered that the issuance of LOI No.

1465 was a valid exercise of the police power of the State in ensuring the stability of the fertilizer industry in the country. It also averred that Fertiphil did not sustain any damage from the LOI because the burden imposed by the levy fell on the ultimate consumer, not the seller. RTC Disposition On November 20, 1991, the RTC rendered judgment in favor of Fertiphil, disposing as follows: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court hereby renders judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant Planters Product, Inc., ordering the latter to pay the former: 1) the sum of P6,698,144.00 with interest at 12% from the time of judicial demand; 2) the sum of P100,000 as attorneys fees; 3) the cost of suit. SO ORDERED.11 Ruling that the imposition of the P10 CRC was an exercise of the States inherent power of taxation, the RTC invalidated the levy for violating the basic principle that taxes can only be levied for public purpose, viz.: It is apparent that the imposition of P10 per fertilizer bag sold in the country by LOI 1465 is purportedly in the exercise of the power of taxation. It is a settled principle that the power of taxation by the state is plenary. Comprehensive and supreme, the principal check upon its abuse resting in the responsibility of the members of the legislature to their constituents. However, there are two kinds of limitations on the power of taxation: the inherent limitations and the

constitutional limitations. One of the inherent limitations is that a tax may be levied only for public purposes: The power to tax can be resorted to only for a constitutionally valid public purpose. By the same token, taxes may not be levied for purely private purposes, for building up of private fortunes, or for the redress of private wrongs. They cannot be levied for the improvement of private property, or for the benefit, and promotion of private enterprises, except where the aid is incident to the public benefit. It is well-settled principle of constitutional law that no general tax can be levied except for the purpose of raising money which is to be expended for public use. Funds cannot be exacted under the guise of taxation to promote a purpose that is not of public interest. Without such limitation, the power to tax could be exercised or employed as an authority to destroy the economy of the people. A tax, however, is not held void on the ground of want of public interest unless the want of such interest is clear. (71 Am. Jur. pp. 371-372) In the case at bar, the plaintiff paid the amount of P6,698,144.00 to the Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority pursuant to the P10 per bag of fertilizer sold imposition under LOI 1465 which, in turn, remitted the amount to the defendant Planters Products, Inc. thru the latters depository bank, Far East Bank and Trust Co. Thus, by virtue of LOI 1465 the plaintiff, Fertiphil Corporation, which is a private domestic corporation, became poorer by the amount of P6,698,144.00 and the defendant, Planters Product, Inc., another private domestic corporation, became richer by the amount of P6,698,144.00. Tested by the standards of constitutionality as set forth in the afore-quoted jurisprudence, it is

quite evident that LOI 1465 insofar as it imposes the amount of P10 per fertilizer bag sold in the country and orders that the said amount should go to the defendant Planters Product, Inc. is unlawful because it violates the mandate that a tax can be levied only for a public purpose and not to benefit, aid and promote a private enterprise such as Planters Product, Inc.12 PPI moved for reconsideration but its motion was denied.13 PPI then filed a notice of appeal with the RTC but it failed to pay the requisite appeal docket fee. In a separate but related proceeding, this Court14 allowed the appeal of PPI and remanded the case to the CA for proper disposition. CA Decision On November 28, 2003, the CA handed down its decision affirming with modification that of the RTC, with the following fallo: IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED, subject to the MODIFICATION that the award of attorneys fees is hereby DELETED.15 In affirming the RTC decision, the CA ruled that the lis mota of the complaint for collection was the constitutionality of LOI No. 1465, thus: The question then is whether it was proper for the trial court to exercise its power to judicially determine the constitutionality of the subject statute in the instant case. As a rule, where the controversy can be settled on other grounds, the courts will not resolve the constitutionality of a law (Lim v. Pacquing, 240 SCRA 649 [1995]). The policy of the courts is

to avoid ruling on constitutional questions and to presume that the acts of political departments are valid, absent a clear and unmistakable showing to the contrary. However, the courts are not precluded from exercising such power when the following requisites are obtaining in a controversy before it: First, there must be before the court an actual case calling for the exercise of judicial review. Second, the question must be ripe for adjudication. Third, the person challenging the validity of the act must have standing to challenge. Fourth, the question of constitutionality must have been raised at the earliest opportunity; and lastly, the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case (Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Zamora, 338 SCRA 81 [2000]). Indisputably, the present case was primarily instituted for collection and damages. However, a perusal of the complaint also reveals that the instant action is founded on the claim that the levy imposed was an unlawful and unconstitutional special assessment. Consequently, the requisite that the constitutionality of the law in question be the very lis mota of the case is present, making it proper for the trial court to rule on the constitutionality of LOI 1465.16 The CA held that even on the assumption that LOI No. 1465 was issued under the police power of the state, it is still unconstitutional because it did not promote public welfare. The CA explained: In declaring LOI 1465 unconstitutional, the trial court held that the levy imposed under the said law was an invalid exercise of the States power of taxation inasmuch as it violated the inherent and constitutional prescription that taxes be levied only for public purposes. It reasoned out that

the amount collected under the levy was remitted to the depository bank of PPI, which the latter used to advance its private interest. On the other hand, appellant submits that the subject statutes passage was a valid exercise of police power. In addition, it disputes the court a quos findings arguing that the collections under LOI 1465 was for the benefit of Planters Foundation, Incorporated (PFI), a foundation created by law to hold in trust for millions of farmers, the stock ownership of PPI. Of the three fundamental powers of the State, the exercise of police power has been characterized as the most essential, insistent and the least limitable of powers, extending as it does to all the great public needs. It may be exercised as long as the activity or the property sought to be regulated has some relevance to public welfare (Constitutional Law, by Isagani A. Cruz, p. 38, 1995 Edition). Vast as the power is, however, it must be exercised within the limits set by the Constitution, which requires the concurrence of a lawful subject and a lawful method. Thus, our courts have laid down the test to determine the validity of a police measure as follows: (1) the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, requires its exercise; and (2) the means employed are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individuals (National Development Company v. Philippine Veterans Bank, 192 SCRA 257 [1990]). It is upon applying this established tests that We sustain the trial courts holding LOI 1465 unconstitutional. To be sure, ensuring the continued supply and distribution of fertilizer in the

country is an undertaking imbued with public interest. However, the method by which LOI 1465 sought to achieve this is by no means a measure that will promote the public welfare. The governments commitment to support the successful rehabilitation and continued viability of PPI, a private corporation, is an unmistakable attempt to mask the subject statutes impartiality. There is no way to treat the self-interest of a favored entity, like PPI, as identical with the general interest of the countrys farmers or even the Filipino people in general. Well to stress, substantive due process exacts fairness and equal protection disallows distinction where none is needed. When a statutes public purpose is spoiled by private interest, the use of police power becomes a travesty which must be struck down for being an arbitrary exercise of government power. To rule in favor of appellant would contravene the general principle that revenues derived from taxes cannot be used for purely private purposes or for the exclusive benefit of private individuals.17 The CA did not accept PPIs claim that the levy imposed under LOI No. 1465 was for the benefit of Planters Foundation, Inc., a foundation created to hold in trust the stock ownership of PPI. The CA stated: Appellant next claims that the collections under LOI 1465 was for the benefit of Planters Foundation, Incorporated (PFI), a foundation created by law to hold in trust for millions of farmers, the stock ownership of PFI on the strength of Letter of Undertaking (LOU) issued by then Prime Minister Cesar Virata on April 18, 1985 and affirmed by the Secretary of Justice in an Opinion dated October 12, 1987, to wit:

"2. Upon the effective date of this Letter of Undertaking, the Republic shall cause FPA to include in its fertilizer pricing formula a capital recovery component, the proceeds of which will be used initially for the purpose of funding the unpaid portion of the outstanding capital stock of Planters presently held in trust by Planters Foundation, Inc. (Planters Foundation), which unpaid capital is estimated at approximately P206 million (subject to validation by Planters and Planters Foundation) (such unpaid portion of the outstanding capital stock of Planters being hereafter referred to as the Unpaid Capital), and subsequently for such capital increases as may be required for the continuing viability of Planters. The capital recovery component shall be in the minimum amount of P10 per bag, which will be added to the price of all domestic sales of fertilizer in the Philippines by any importer and/or fertilizer mother company. In this connection, the Republic hereby acknowledges that the advances by Planters to Planters Foundation which were applied to the payment of the Planters shares now held in trust by Planters Foundation, have been assigned to, among others, the Creditors. Accordingly, the Republic, through FPA, hereby agrees to deposit the proceeds of the capital recovery component in the special trust account designated in the notice dated April 2, 1985, addressed by counsel for the Creditors to Planters Foundation. Such proceeds shall be deposited by FPA on or before the 15th day of each month. The capital recovery component shall continue to be charged and collected until payment in full of (a) the Unpaid Capital and/or (b) any shortfall in the payment of the Subsidy Receivables, (c) any carrying cost accruing from the date hereof on the amounts which may be outstanding from time to time of the Unpaid Capital and/or the Subsidy Receivables and (d) the capital increases

contemplated in paragraph 2 hereof. For the purpose of the foregoing clause (c), the carrying cost shall be at such rate as will represent the full and reasonable cost to Planters of servicing its debts, taking into account both its peso and foreign currency-denominated obligations." (Records, pp. 42-43) Appellants proposition is open to question, to say the least. The LOU issued by then Prime Minister Virata taken together with the Justice Secretarys Opinion does not preponderantly demonstrate that the collections made were held in trust in favor of millions of farmers. Unfortunately for appellant, in the absence of sufficient evidence to establish its claims, this Court is constrained to rely on what is explicitly provided in LOI 1465 that one of the primary aims in imposing the levy is to support the successful rehabilitation and continued viability of PPI.18 PPI moved for reconsideration but its motion was denied.19 It then filed the present petition with this Court. Issues Petitioner PPI raises four issues for Our consideration, viz.: I THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF LOI 1465 CANNOT BE COLLATERALLY ATTACKED AND BE DECREED VIA A DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN A CASE FILED FOR COLLECTION AND DAMAGES WHERE THE ISSUE OF CONSTITUTIONALITY IS NOT

THE VERY LIS MOTA OF THE CASE. NEITHER CAN LOI 1465 BE CHALLENGED BY ANY PERSON OR ENTITY WHICH HAS NO STANDING TO DO SO. II LOI 1465, BEING A LAW IMPLEMENTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSURING THE FERTILIZER SUPPLY AND DISTRIBUTION IN THE COUNTRY, AND FOR BENEFITING A FOUNDATION CREATED BY LAW TO HOLD IN TRUST FOR MILLIONS OF FARMERS THEIR STOCK OWNERSHIP IN PPI CONSTITUTES A VALID LEGISLATION PURSUANT TO THE EXERCISE OF TAXATION AND POLICE POWER FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES. III THE AMOUNT COLLECTED UNDER THE CAPITAL RECOVERY COMPONENT WAS REMITTED TO THE GOVERNMENT, AND BECAME GOVERNMENT FUNDS PURSUANT TO AN EFFECTIVE AND VALIDLY ENACTED LAW WHICH IMPOSED DUTIES AND CONFERRED RIGHTS BY VIRTUE OF THE PRINCIPLE OF "OPERATIVE FACT" PRIOR TO ANY DECLARATION OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF LOI 1465. IV THE PRINCIPLE OF UNJUST VEXATION (SHOULD BE ENRICHMENT) FINDS NO APPLICATION IN THE INSTANT CASE.20 (Underscoring supplied) Our Ruling

We shall first tackle the procedural issues of locus standi and the jurisdiction of the RTC to resolve constitutional issues. Fertiphil has locus standi because it suffered direct injury; doctrine of standing is a mere procedural technicality which may be waived. PPI argues that Fertiphil has no locus standi to question the constitutionality of LOI No. 1465 because it does not have a "personal and substantial interest in the case or will sustain direct injury as a result of its enforcement."21 It asserts that Fertiphil did not suffer any damage from the CRC imposition because "incidence of the levy fell on the ultimate consumer or the farmers themselves, not on the seller fertilizer company."22 We cannot agree. The doctrine of locus standi or the right of appearance in a court of justice has been adequately discussed by this Court in a catena of cases. Succinctly put, the doctrine requires a litigant to have a material interest in the outcome of a case. In private suits, locus standi requires a litigant to be a "real party in interest," which is defined as "the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit or the party entitled to the avails of the suit."23 In public suits, this Court recognizes the difficulty of applying the doctrine especially when plaintiff asserts a public right on behalf of the general public because of conflicting public policy issues. 24 On one end, there is the right of the ordinary citizen to petition the courts to be freed from unlawful government intrusion and illegal official action. At the other end, there is the public policy precluding excessive judicial interference in official acts, which may

unnecessarily hinder the delivery of basic public services. In this jurisdiction, We have adopted the "direct injury test" to determine locus standi in public suits. In People v. Vera,25 it was held that a person who impugns the validity of a statute must have "a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain direct injury as a result." The "direct injury test" in public suits is similar to the "real party in interest" rule for private suits under Section 2, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.26 Recognizing that a strict application of the "direct injury" test may hamper public interest, this Court relaxed the requirement in cases of "transcendental importance" or with "far reaching implications." Being a mere procedural technicality, it has also been held that locus standi may be waived in the public interest.27 Whether or not the complaint for collection is characterized as a private or public suit, Fertiphil has locus standi to file it. Fertiphil suffered a direct injury from the enforcement of LOI No. 1465. It was required, and it did pay, the P10 levy imposed for every bag of fertilizer sold on the domestic market. It may be true that Fertiphil has passed some or all of the levy to the ultimate consumer, but that does not disqualify it from attacking the constitutionality of the LOI or from seeking a refund. As seller, it bore the ultimate burden of paying the levy. It faced the possibility of severe sanctions for failure to pay the levy. The fact of payment is sufficient injury to Fertiphil. Moreover, Fertiphil suffered harm from the enforcement of the LOI because it was compelled to factor in its product the levy. The levy certainly rendered the fertilizer products of Fertiphil and

other domestic sellers much more expensive. The harm to their business consists not only in fewer clients because of the increased price, but also in adopting alternative corporate strategies to meet the demands of LOI No. 1465. Fertiphil and other fertilizer sellers may have shouldered all or part of the levy just to be competitive in the market. The harm occasioned on the business of Fertiphil is sufficient injury for purposes of locus standi. Even assuming arguendo that there is no direct injury, We find that the liberal policy consistently adopted by this Court on locus standi must apply. The issues raised by Fertiphil are of paramount public importance. It involves not only the constitutionality of a tax law but, more importantly, the use of taxes for public purpose. Former President Marcos issued LOI No. 1465 with the intention of rehabilitating an ailing private company. This is clear from the text of the LOI. PPI is expressly named in the LOI as the direct beneficiary of the levy. Worse, the levy was made dependent and conditional upon PPI becoming financially viable. The LOI provided that "the capital contribution shall be collected until adequate capital is raised to make PPI viable." The constitutionality of the levy is already in doubt on a plain reading of the statute. It is Our constitutional duty to squarely resolve the issue as the final arbiter of all justiciable controversies. The doctrine of standing, being a mere procedural technicality, should be waived, if at all, to adequately thresh out an important constitutional issue. RTC may resolve constitutional issues; the constitutional issue was adequately raised in the complaint; it is the lis mota of the case.

PPI insists that the RTC and the CA erred in ruling on the constitutionality of the LOI. It asserts that the constitutionality of the LOI cannot be collaterally attacked in a complaint for collection.28 Alternatively, the resolution of the constitutional issue is not necessary for a determination of the complaint for collection.29 Fertiphil counters that the constitutionality of the LOI was adequately pleaded in its complaint. It claims that the constitutionality of LOI No. 1465 is the very lis mota of the case because the trial court cannot determine its claim without resolving the issue.30 It is settled that the RTC has jurisdiction to resolve the constitutionality of a statute, presidential decree or an executive order. This is clear from Section 5, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, which provides: SECTION 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: xxxx (2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in: (a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question. (Underscoring supplied) In Mirasol v. Court of Appeals,31 this Court recognized the power of the RTC to resolve constitutional issues, thus:

On the first issue. It is settled that Regional Trial Courts have the authority and jurisdiction to consider the constitutionality of a statute, presidential decree, or executive order. The Constitution vests the power of judicial review or the power to declare a law, treaty, international or executive agreement, presidential decree, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation not only in this Court, but in all Regional Trial Courts.32 In the recent case of Equi-Asia Placement, Inc. v. Department of Foreign Affairs,33 this Court reiterated: There is no denying that regular courts have jurisdiction over cases involving the validity or constitutionality of a rule or regulation issued by administrative agencies. Such jurisdiction, however, is not limited to the Court of Appeals or to this Court alone for even the regional trial courts can take cognizance of actions assailing a specific rule or set of rules promulgated by administrative bodies. Indeed, the Constitution vests the power of judicial review or the power to declare a law, treaty, international or executive agreement, presidential decree, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation in the courts, including the regional trial courts.34 Judicial review of official acts on the ground of unconstitutionality may be sought or availed of through any of the actions cognizable by courts of justice, not necessarily in a suit for declaratory relief. Such review may be had in criminal actions, as in People v. Ferrer 35 involving the constitutionality of the now defunct Anti-Subversion law, or in ordinary actions, as in Krivenko v. Register of Deeds36 involving the constitutionality of laws prohibiting aliens from acquiring public lands. The constitutional issue, however, (a) must be properly raised and

presented in the case, and (b) its resolution is necessary to a determination of the case, i.e., the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota presented.37 Contrary to PPIs claim, the constitutionality of LOI No. 1465 was properly and adequately raised in the complaint for collection filed with the RTC. The pertinent portions of the complaint allege: 6. The CRC of P10 per bag levied under LOI 1465 on domestic sales of all grades of fertilizer in the Philippines, is unlawful, unjust, uncalled for, unreasonable, inequitable and oppressive because: xxxx (c) It favors only one private domestic corporation, i.e., defendant PPPI, and imposed at the expense and disadvantage of the other fertilizer importers/distributors who were themselves in tight business situation and were then exerting all efforts and maximizing management and marketing skills to remain viable; xxxx (e) It was a glaring example of crony capitalism, a forced program through which the PPI, having been presumptuously masqueraded as "the" fertilizer industry itself, was the sole and anointed beneficiary; 7. The CRC was an unlawful; and unconstitutional special assessment and its imposition is tantamount to illegal exaction amounting to a denial of due process since the persons of entities

which had to bear the burden of paying the CRC derived no benefit therefrom; that on the contrary it was used by PPI in trying to regain its former despicable monopoly of the fertilizer industry to the detriment of other distributors and importers.38 (Underscoring supplied) The constitutionality of LOI No. 1465 is also the very lis mota of the complaint for collection. Fertiphil filed the complaint to compel PPI to refund the levies paid under the statute on the ground that the law imposing the levy is unconstitutional. The thesis is that an unconstitutional law is void. It has no legal effect. Being void, Fertiphil had no legal obligation to pay the levy. Necessarily, all levies duly paid pursuant to an unconstitutional law should be refunded under the civil code principle against unjust enrichment. The refund is a mere consequence of the law being declared unconstitutional. The RTC surely cannot order PPI to refund Fertiphil if it does not declare the LOI unconstitutional. It is the unconstitutionality of the LOI which triggers the refund. The issue of constitutionality is the very lis mota of the complaint with the RTC. The P10 levy under LOI No. 1465 is an exercise of the power of taxation. At any rate, the Court holds that the RTC and the CA did not err in ruling against the constitutionality of the LOI. PPI insists that LOI No. 1465 is a valid exercise either of the police power or the power of taxation. It claims that the LOI was implemented for the purpose of assuring the fertilizer supply and distribution in the country and for benefiting a foundation created by law to hold in trust for millions of farmers their stock ownership in PPI. Fertiphil counters that the LOI is unconstitutional because it was enacted to give benefit to a

private company. The levy was imposed to pay the corporate debt of PPI. Fertiphil also argues that, even if the LOI is enacted under the police power, it is still unconstitutional because it did not promote the general welfare of the people or public interest. Police power and the power of taxation are inherent powers of the State. These powers are distinct and have different tests for validity. Police power is the power of the State to enact legislation that may interfere with personal liberty or property in order to promote the general welfare,39 while the power of taxation is the power to levy taxes to be used for public purpose. The main purpose of police power is the regulation of a behavior or conduct, while taxation is revenue generation. The "lawful subjects" and "lawful means" tests are used to determine the validity of a law enacted under the police power.40 The power of taxation, on the other hand, is circumscribed by inherent and constitutional limitations. We agree with the RTC that the imposition of the levy was an exercise by the State of its taxation power. While it is true that the power of taxation can be used as an implement of police power,41 the primary purpose of the levy is revenue generation. If the purpose is primarily revenue, or if revenue is, at least, one of the real and substantial purposes, then the exaction is properly called a tax.42 In Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Edu,43 it was held that the imposition of a vehicle registration fee is not an exercise by the State of its police power, but of its taxation power, thus: It is clear from the provisions of Section 73 of Commonwealth Act 123 and Section 61 of the

Land Transportation and Traffic Code that the legislative intent and purpose behind the law requiring owners of vehicles to pay for their registration is mainly to raise funds for the construction and maintenance of highways and to a much lesser degree, pay for the operating expenses of the administering agency. x x x Fees may be properly regarded as taxes even though they also serve as an instrument of regulation. Taxation may be made the implement of the state's police power (Lutz v. Araneta, 98 Phil. 148). If the purpose is primarily revenue, or if revenue is, at least, one of the real and substantial purposes, then the exaction is properly called a tax. Such is the case of motor vehicle registration fees. The same provision appears as Section 59(b) in the Land Transportation Code. It is patent therefrom that the legislators had in mind a regulatory tax as the law refers to the imposition on the registration, operation or ownership of a motor vehicle as a "tax or fee." x x x Simply put, if the exaction under Rep. Act 4136 were merely a regulatory fee, the imposition in Rep. Act 5448 need not be an "additional" tax. Rep. Act 4136 also speaks of other "fees" such as the special permit fees for certain types of motor vehicles (Sec. 10) and additional fees for change of registration (Sec. 11). These are not to be understood as taxes because such fees are very minimal to be revenue-raising. Thus, they are not mentioned by Sec. 59(b) of the Code as taxes like the motor vehicle registration fee and chauffeurs license fee. Such fees are to go into the expenditures of the Land Transportation Commission as provided for in the last proviso of Sec. 61.44 (Underscoring supplied) The P10 levy under LOI No. 1465 is too excessive to serve a mere regulatory purpose. The levy, no doubt, was a big burden on the seller or the ultimate consumer. It increased the price of a bag

of fertilizer by as much as five percent.45 A plain reading of the LOI also supports the conclusion that the levy was for revenue generation. The LOI expressly provided that the levy was imposed "until adequate capital is raised to make PPI viable." Taxes are exacted only for a public purpose. The P10 levy is unconstitutional because it was not for a public purpose. The levy was imposed to give undue benefit to PPI. An inherent limitation on the power of taxation is public purpose. Taxes are exacted only for a public purpose. They cannot be used for purely private purposes or for the exclusive benefit of private persons.46 The reason for this is simple. The power to tax exists for the general welfare; hence, implicit in its power is the limitation that it should be used only for a public purpose. It would be a robbery for the State to tax its citizens and use the funds generated for a private purpose. As an old United States case bluntly put it: "To lay with one hand, the power of the government on the property of the citizen, and with the other to bestow it upon favored individuals to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes, is nonetheless a robbery because it is done under the forms of law and is called taxation."47 The term "public purpose" is not defined. It is an elastic concept that can be hammered to fit modern standards. Jurisprudence states that "public purpose" should be given a broad interpretation. It does not only pertain to those purposes which are traditionally viewed as essentially government functions, such as building roads and delivery of basic services, but also includes those purposes designed to promote social justice. Thus, public money may now be used for the relocation of illegal settlers, low-cost housing and urban or agrarian reform.

While the categories of what may constitute a public purpose are continually expanding in light of the expansion of government functions, the inherent requirement that taxes can only be exacted for a public purpose still stands. Public purpose is the heart of a tax law. When a tax law is only a mask to exact funds from the public when its true intent is to give undue benefit and advantage to a private enterprise, that law will not satisfy the requirement of "public purpose." The purpose of a law is evident from its text or inferable from other secondary sources. Here, We agree with the RTC and that CA that the levy imposed under LOI No. 1465 was not for a public purpose. First, the LOI expressly provided that the levy be imposed to benefit PPI, a private company. The purpose is explicit from Clause 3 of the law, thus: 3. The Administrator of the Fertilizer Pesticide Authority to include in its fertilizer pricing formula a capital contribution component of not less than P10 per bag. This capital contribution shall be collected until adequate capital is raised to make PPI viable. Such capital contribution shall be applied by FPA to all domestic sales of fertilizers in the Philippines.48 (Underscoring supplied) It is a basic rule of statutory construction that the text of a statute should be given a literal meaning. In this case, the text of the LOI is plain that the levy was imposed in order to raise capital for PPI. The framers of the LOI did not even hide the insidious purpose of the law. They were cavalier enough to name PPI as the ultimate beneficiary of the taxes levied under the LOI. We find it utterly repulsive that a tax law would expressly name a private company as the

ultimate beneficiary of the taxes to be levied from the public. This is a clear case of crony capitalism. Second, the LOI provides that the imposition of the P10 levy was conditional and dependent upon PPI becoming financially "viable." This suggests that the levy was actually imposed to benefit PPI. The LOI notably does not fix a maximum amount when PPI is deemed financially "viable." Worse, the liability of Fertiphil and other domestic sellers of fertilizer to pay the levy is made indefinite. They are required to continuously pay the levy until adequate capital is raised for PPI. Third, the RTC and the CA held that the levies paid under the LOI were directly remitted and deposited by FPA to Far East Bank and Trust Company, the depositary bank of PPI. 49 This proves that PPI benefited from the LOI. It is also proves that the main purpose of the law was to give undue benefit and advantage to PPI. Fourth, the levy was used to pay the corporate debts of PPI. A reading of the Letter of Understanding50 dated May 18, 1985 signed by then Prime Minister Cesar Virata reveals that PPI was in deep financial problem because of its huge corporate debts. There were pending petitions for rehabilitation against PPI before the Securities and Exchange Commission. The government guaranteed payment of PPIs debts to its foreign creditors. To fund the payment, President Marcos issued LOI No. 1465. The pertinent portions of the letter of understanding read: Republic of the Philippines

Office of the Prime Minister Manila LETTER OF UNDERTAKING May 18, 1985 TO: THE BANKING AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS LISTED IN ANNEX A HERETO WHICH ARE CREDITORS (COLLECTIVELY, THE "CREDITORS") OF PLANTERS PRODUCTS, INC. ("PLANTERS") Gentlemen: This has reference to Planters which is the principal importer and distributor of fertilizer, pesticides and agricultural chemicals in the Philippines. As regards Planters, the Philippine Government confirms its awareness of the following: (1) that Planters has outstanding obligations in foreign currency and/or pesos, to the Creditors, (2) that Planters is currently experiencing financial difficulties, and (3) that there are presently pending with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Philippines a petition filed at Planters own behest for the suspension of payment of all its obligations, and a separate petition filed by Manufacturers Hanover Trust Company, Manila Offshore Branch for the appointment of a rehabilitation receiver for Planters.

In connection with the foregoing, the Republic of the Philippines (the "Republic") confirms that it considers and continues to consider Planters as a major fertilizer distributor. Accordingly, for and in consideration of your expressed willingness to consider and participate in the effort to rehabilitate Planters, the Republic hereby manifests its full and unqualified support of the successful rehabilitation and continuing viability of Planters, and to that end, hereby binds and obligates itself to the creditors and Planters, as follows: xxxx 2. Upon the effective date of this Letter of Undertaking, the Republic shall cause FPA to include in its fertilizer pricing formula a capital recovery component, the proceeds of which will be used initially for the purpose of funding the unpaid portion of the outstanding capital stock of Planters presently held in trust by Planters Foundation, Inc. ("Planters Foundation"), which unpaid capital is estimated at approximately P206 million (subject to validation by Planters and Planters Foundation) such unpaid portion of the outstanding capital stock of Planters being hereafter referred to as the "Unpaid Capital"), and subsequently for such capital increases as may be required for the continuing viability of Planters. xxxx The capital recovery component shall continue to be charged and collected until

payment in full of (a) the Unpaid Capital and/or (b) any shortfall in the payment of the Subsidy Receivables, (c) any carrying cost accruing from the date hereof on the amounts which may be outstanding from time to time of the Unpaid Capital and/or the Subsidy Receivables, and (d) the capital increases contemplated in paragraph 2 hereof. For the purpose of the foregoing clause (c), the "carrying cost" shall be at such rate as will represent the full and reasonable cost to Planters of servicing its debts, taking into account both its peso and foreign currency-denominated obligations. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES By: (signed) CESAR E. A. VIRATA Prime Minister and Minister of Finance51 It is clear from the Letter of Understanding that the levy was imposed precisely to pay the corporate debts of PPI. We cannot agree with PPI that the levy was imposed to ensure the stability of the fertilizer industry in the country. The letter of understanding and the plain text of the LOI clearly indicate that the levy was exacted for the benefit of a private corporation. All told, the RTC and the CA did not err in holding that the levy imposed under LOI No. 1465 was not for a public purpose. LOI No. 1465 failed to comply with the public purpose

requirement for tax laws. The LOI is still unconstitutional even if enacted under the police power; it did not promote public interest. Even if We consider LOI No. 1695 enacted under the police power of the State, it would still be invalid for failing to comply with the test of "lawful subjects" and "lawful means." Jurisprudence states the test as follows: (1) the interest of the public generally, as distinguished from those of particular class, requires its exercise; and (2) the means employed are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individuals.52 For the same reasons as discussed, LOI No. 1695 is invalid because it did not promote public interest. The law was enacted to give undue advantage to a private corporation. We quote with approval the CA ratiocination on this point, thus: It is upon applying this established tests that We sustain the trial courts holding LOI 1465 unconstitutional.1awphil To be sure, ensuring the continued supply and distribution of fertilizer in the country is an undertaking imbued with public interest. However, the method by which LOI 1465 sought to achieve this is by no means a measure that will promote the public welfare. The governments commitment to support the successful rehabilitation and continued viability of PPI, a private corporation, is an unmistakable attempt to mask the subject statutes impartiality. There is no way to treat the self-interest of a favored entity, like PPI, as identical with the general interest of the countrys farmers or even the Filipino people in general. Well to stress, substantive due process exacts fairness and equal protection disallows distinction where

none is needed. When a statutes public purpose is spoiled by private interest, the use of police power becomes a travesty which must be struck down for being an arbitrary exercise of government power. To rule in favor of appellant would contravene the general principle that revenues derived from taxes cannot be used for purely private purposes or for the exclusive benefit of private individuals. (Underscoring supplied) The general rule is that an unconstitutional law is void; the doctrine of operative fact is inapplicable. PPI also argues that Fertiphil cannot seek a refund even if LOI No. 1465 is declared unconstitutional. It banks on the doctrine of operative fact, which provides that an unconstitutional law has an effect before being declared unconstitutional. PPI wants to retain the levies paid under LOI No. 1465 even if it is subsequently declared to be unconstitutional. We cannot agree. It is settled that no question, issue or argument will be entertained on appeal, unless it has been raised in the court a quo.53 PPI did not raise the applicability of the doctrine of operative fact with the RTC and the CA. It cannot belatedly raise the issue with Us in order to extricate itself from the dire effects of an unconstitutional law. At any rate, We find the doctrine inapplicable. The general rule is that an unconstitutional law is void. It produces no rights, imposes no duties and affords no protection. It has no legal effect. It is, in legal contemplation, inoperative as if it has not been passed.54 Being void, Fertiphil is not required to pay the levy. All levies paid should be refunded in accordance with the general civil code principle against unjust enrichment. The general rule is supported by Article 7 of the Civil

Code, which provides: ART. 7. Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their violation or non-observance shall not be excused by disuse or custom or practice to the contrary. When the courts declare a law to be inconsistent with the Constitution, the former shall be void and the latter shall govern. The doctrine of operative fact, as an exception to the general rule, only applies as a matter of equity and fair play.55 It nullifies the effects of an unconstitutional law by recognizing that the existence of a statute prior to a determination of unconstitutionality is an operative fact and may have consequences which cannot always be ignored. The past cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration.56 The doctrine is applicable when a declaration of unconstitutionality will impose an undue burden on those who have relied on the invalid law. Thus, it was applied to a criminal case when a declaration of unconstitutionality would put the accused in double jeopardy57 or would put in limbo the acts done by a municipality in reliance upon a law creating it.58 Here, We do not find anything iniquitous in ordering PPI to refund the amounts paid by Fertiphil under LOI No. 1465. It unduly benefited from the levy. It was proven during the trial that the levies paid were remitted and deposited to its bank account. Quite the reverse, it would be inequitable and unjust not to order a refund. To do so would unjustly enrich PPI at the expense of Fertiphil. Article 22 of the Civil Code explicitly provides that "every person who, through an

act of performance by another comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground shall return the same to him." We cannot allow PPI to profit from an unconstitutional law. Justice and equity dictate that PPI must refund the amounts paid by Fertiphil. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals Decision dated November 28, 2003 is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. L- 41383 August 15, 1988 PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., plaintiff-appellant, vs. ROMEO F. EDU in his capacity as Land Transportation Commissioner, and UBALDO CARBONELL, in his capacity as National Treasurer, defendantsappellants. Ricardo V. Puno, Jr. and Conrado A. Boro for plaintiff-appellant. GUTIERREZ, JR., J.: What is the nature of motor vehicle registration fees? Are they taxes or regulatory fees? This question has been brought before this Court in the past. The parties are, in effect, asking for a re-examination of the latest decision on this issue. This appeal was certified to us as one involving a pure question of law by the Court of Appeals in a case where the then Court of First Instance of Rizal dismissed the portionabout complaint for refund of registration fees paid under protest. The disputed registration fees were imposed by the appellee, Commissioner Romeo F. Elevate pursuant to Section 8, Republic Act No. 4136, otherwise known as the Land Transportation and Traffic Code. The Philippine Airlines (PAL) is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of

the Philippines and engaged in the air transportation business under a legislative franchise, Act No. 42739, as amended by Republic Act Nos. 25). and 269.1 Under its franchise, PAL is exempt from the payment of taxes. The pertinent provision of the franchise provides as follows:
Section 13. In consideration of the franchise and rights hereby granted, the grantee shall pay to the National Government during the life of this franchise a tax of two per cent of the gross revenue or gross earning derived by the grantee from its operations under this franchise. Such tax shall be due and payable quarterly and shall be in lieu of all taxes of any kind, nature or description, levied, established or collected by any municipal, provincial or national automobiles, Provided, that if, after the audit of the accounts of the grantee by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, a deficiency tax is shown to be due, the deficiency tax shall be payable within the ten days from the receipt of the assessment. The grantee shall pay the tax on its real property in conformity with existing law.

On the strength of an opinion of the Secretary of Justice (Op. No. 307, series of 1956) PAL has, since 1956, not been paying motor vehicle registration fees. Sometime in 1971, however, appellee Commissioner Romeo F. Elevate issued a regulation requiring all tax exempt entities, among them PAL to pay motor vehicle registration fees. Despite PAL's protestations, the appellee refused to register the appellant's motor vehicles unless the amounts imposed under Republic Act 4136 were paid. The

appellant thus paid, under protest, the amount of P19,529.75 as registration fees of its motor vehicles. After paying under protest, PAL through counsel, wrote a letter dated May 19,1971, to Commissioner Edu demanding a refund of the amounts paid, invoking the ruling in Calalang v. Lorenzo (97 Phil. 212 [1951]) where it was held that motor vehicle registration fees are in reality taxes from the payment of which PAL is exempt by virtue of its legislative franchise. Appellee Edu denied the request for refund basing his action on the decision in Republic v. Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc., (32 SCRA 211, March 30, 1970) to the effect that motor vehicle registration fees are regulatory exceptional. and not revenue measures and, therefore, do not come within the exemption granted to PAL? under its franchise. Hence, PAL filed the complaint against Land Transportation Commissioner Romeo F. Edu and National Treasurer Ubaldo Carbonell with the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch 18 where it was docketed as Civil Case No. Q-15862. Appellee Romeo F. Elevate in his capacity as LTC Commissioner, and LOI Carbonell in his capacity as National Treasurer, filed a motion to dismiss alleging that the complaint states no cause of action. In support of the motion to dismiss, defendants repatriation the ruling in Republic v. Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc., (supra) that registration fees of motor vehicles are not taxes, but regulatory fees imposed as an incident of the exercise of the police power of the state. They contended that while Act 4271 exempts

PAL from the payment of any tax except two per cent on its gross revenue or earnings, it does not exempt the plaintiff from paying regulatory fees, such as motor vehicle registration fees. The resolution of the motion to dismiss was deferred by the Court until after trial on the merits. On April 24, 1973, the trial court rendered a decision dismissing the appellant's complaint "moved by the later ruling laid down by the Supreme Court in the case or Republic v. Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc., (supra)." From this judgment, PAL appealed to the Court of Appeals which certified the case to us. Calalang v. Lorenzo (supra) and Republic v. Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. (supra) cited by PAL and Commissioner Romeo F. Edu respectively, discuss the main points of contention in the case at bar. Resolving the issue in the Philippine Rabbit case, this Court held:
"The registration fee which defendant-appellee had to pay was imposed by Section 8 of the Revised Motor Vehicle Law (Republic Act No. 587 [1950]). Its heading speaks of "registration fees." The term is repeated four times in the body thereof. Equally so, mention is made of the "fee for registration." (Ibid., Subsection G) A subsection starts with a categorical statement "No fees shall be charged." (lbid., Subsection H) The conclusion is difficult to resist therefore that the Motor Vehicle Act requires the payment not of a tax but of a registration fee under the police power. Hence the incipient, of the section relied upon by defendant-appellee under the Back Pay Law, It is not held liable for a tax but for a registration fee. It therefore cannot make use of a backpay certificate

to meet such an obligation. Any vestige of any doubt as to the correctness of the above conclusion should be dissipated by Republic Act No. 5448. ([1968]. Section 3 thereof as to the imposition of additional tax on privately-owned passenger automobiles, motorcycles and scooters was amended by Republic Act No. 5470 which is (sic) approved on May 30, 1969.) A special science fund was thereby created and its title expressly sets forth that a tax on privatelyowned passenger automobiles, motorcycles and scooters was imposed. The rates thereof were provided for in its Section 3 which clearly specifies the" Philippine tax."(Cooley to be paid as distinguished from the registration fee under the Motor Vehicle Act. There cannot be any clearer expression therefore of the legislative will, even on the assumption that the earlier legislation could by subdivision the point be susceptible of the interpretation that a tax rather than a fee was levied. What is thus most apparent is that where the legislative body relies on its authority to tax it expressly so states, and where it is enacting a regulatory measure, it is equally exploded (at p. 22,1969

In direct refutation is the ruling in Calalang v. Lorenzo (supra), where the Court, on the other hand, held:
The charges prescribed by the Revised Motor Vehicle Law for the registration of motor vehicles are in section 8 of that law called "fees". But the appellation is no impediment to their being considered taxes if taxes they really are. For not the name but the object of the charge determines whether it is a tax or a fee. Geveia speaking, taxes are for revenue, whereas fees are exceptional. for purposes of regulation and inspection and are for that reason limited in amount to what is necessary to cover the cost of the

services rendered in that connection. Hence, a charge fixed by statute for the service to be person,-When by an officer, where the charge has no relation to the value of the services performed and where the amount collected eventually finds its way into the treasury of the branch of the government whose officer or officers collected the chauffeur, is not a fee but a tax."(Cooley on Taxation, Vol. 1, 4th ed., p. 110.) From the data submitted in the court below, it appears that the expenditures of the Motor Vehicle Office are but a small portionabout 5 per centumof the total collections from motor vehicle registration fees. And as proof that the money collected is not intended for the expenditures of that office, the law itself provides that all such money shall accrue to the funds for the construction and maintenance of public roads, streets and bridges. It is thus obvious that the fees are not collected for regulatory purposes, that is to say, as an incident to the enforcement of regulations governing the operation of motor vehicles on public highways, for their express object is to provide revenue with which the Government is to discharge one of its principal functionsthe construction and maintenance of public highways for everybody's use. They are veritable taxes, not merely fees. As a matter of fact, the Revised Motor Vehicle Law itself now regards those fees as taxes, for it provides that "no other taxes or fees than those prescribed in this Act shall be imposed," thus implying that the charges therein imposedthough called feesare of the category of taxes. The provision is contained in section 70, of subsection (b), of the law, as amended by section 17 of Republic Act 587, which reads: Sec. 70(b) No other taxes or fees than those prescribed in this Act shall be imposed for the registration or operation or on the ownership of any motor

vehicle, or for the exercise of the profession of chauffeur, by any municipal corporation, the provisions of any city charter to the contrary notwithstanding: Provided, however, That any provincial board, city or municipal council or board, or other competent authority may exact and collect such reasonable and equitable toll fees for the use of such bridges and ferries, within their respective jurisdiction, as may be authorized and approved by the W and Communications, and also for the use of such public roads, as may be authorized by the President of the Philippines upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Public Works and Communications, but in none of these cases, shall any toll fee." be charged or collected until and unless the approved schedule of tolls shall have been posted levied, in a conspicuous place at such toll station. (at pp. 213-214)

Motor vehicle registration fees were matters originally governed by the Revised Motor Vehicle Law (Act 3992 [19511) as amended by Commonwealth Act 123 and Republic Acts Nos. 587 and 1621. Today, the matter is governed by Rep. Act 4136 [1968]), otherwise known as the Land Transportation Code, (as amended by Rep. Acts Nos. 5715 and 64-67, P.D. Nos. 382, 843, 896, 110.) and BP Blg. 43, 74 and 398). Section 73 of Commonwealth Act 123 (which amended Sec. 73 of Act 3992 and remained unsegregated, by Rep. Act Nos. 587 and 1603) states:
Section 73. Disposal of moneys collected.Twenty per centum of the money collected under the provisions of this Act shall accrue to the road and bridge funds of the different

provinces and chartered cities in proportion to the centum shall during the next previous year and the remaining eighty per centum shall be deposited in the Philippine Treasury to create a special fund for the construction and maintenance of national and provincial roads and bridges. as well as the streets and bridges in the chartered cities to be alloted by the Secretary of Public Works and Communications for projects recommended by the Director of Public Works in the different provinces and chartered cities. ....

Presently, Sec. 61 of the Land Transportation and Traffic Code provides:

Sec. 61. Disposal of Mortgage. CollectedMonies collected under the provisions of this Act shall be deposited in a special trust account in the National Treasury to constitute the Highway Special Fund, which shall be apportioned and expended in accordance with the provisions of the" Philippine Highway Act of 1935. "Provided, however, That the amount necessary to maintain and equip the Land Transportation Commission but not to exceed twenty per cent of the total collection during one year, shall be set aside for the purpose. (As amended by RA 64-67, approved August 6, 1971).

It appears clear from the above provisions that the legislative intent and purpose behind the law requiring owners of vehicles to pay for their registration is mainly to raise funds for the construction and maintenance of highways and to a much lesser degree, pay for the operating expenses of the administering agency. On the other hand, the Philippine Rabbit case mentions a presumption arising from the use of the term "fees," which appears to have been favored by the legislature to distinguish fees from other taxes such as those mentioned in Section 13 of Rep. Act 4136 which reads:
Sec. 13. Payment of taxes upon registration.No original registration of motor vehicles

subject to payment of taxes, customs s duties or other charges shall be accepted unless proof of payment of the taxes due thereon has been presented to the Commission.

referring to taxes other than those imposed on the registration, operation or ownership of a motor vehicle (Sec. 59, b, Rep. Act 4136, as amended). Fees may be properly regarded as taxes even though they also serve as an instrument of regulation, As stated by a former presiding judge of the Court of Tax Appeals and writer on various aspects of taxpayers
It is possible for an exaction to be both tax arose. regulation. License fees are changes. looked to as a source of revenue as well as a means of regulation (Sonzinky v. U.S., 300 U.S. 506) This is true, for example, of automobile license fees. Isabela such case, the fees may properly be regarded as taxes even though they also serve as an instrument of regulation. If the purpose is primarily revenue, or if revenue is at least one of the real and substantial purposes, then the exaction is properly called a tax. (1955 CCH Fed. tax Course, Par. 3101, citing Cooley on Taxation (2nd Ed.) 592, 593; Calalang v. Lorenzo. 97 Phil. 213-214) Lutz v. Araneta 98 Phil. 198.) These exactions are sometimes called regulatory taxes. (See Secs. 4701, 4711, 4741, 4801, 4811, 4851, and 4881, U.S. Internal Revenue Code of 1954, which classify taxes on tobacco and alcohol as regulatory taxes.) (Umali, Reviewer in Taxation, 1980, pp. 12-13, citing Cooley on Taxation, 2nd Edition, 591-593).

Indeed, taxation may be made the implement of the state's police power (Lutz v. Araneta, 98 Phil. 148).

If the purpose is primarily revenue, or if revenue is, at least, one of the real and substantial purposes, then the exaction is properly called a tax (Umali, Id.) Such is the case of motor vehicle registration fees. The conclusions become inescapable in view of Section 70(b) of Rep. Act 587 quoted in the Calalang case. The same provision appears as Section 591-593). in the Land Transportation code. It is patent therefrom that the legislators had in mind a regulatory tax as the law refers to the imposition on the registration, operation or ownership of a motor vehicle as a "tax or fee." Though nowhere in Rep. Act 4136 does the law specifically state that the imposition is a tax, Section 591-593). speaks of "taxes." or fees ... for the registration or operation or on the ownership of any motor vehicle, or for the exercise of the profession of chauffeur ..." making the intent to impose a tax more apparent. Thus, even Rep. Act 5448 cited by the respondents, speak of an "additional" tax," where the law could have referred to an original tax and not one in addition to the tax already imposed on the registration, operation, or ownership of a motor vehicle under Rep. Act 41383. Simply put, if the exaction under Rep. Act 4136 were merely a regulatory fee, the imposition in Rep. Act 5448 need not be an "additional" tax. Rep. Act 4136 also speaks of other "fees," such as the special permit fees for certain types of motor vehicles (Sec. 10) and additional fees for change of registration (Sec. 11). These are not to be understood as taxes because such fees are very minimal to be revenue-raising. Thus, they are not mentioned by Sec. 591-593). of the Code as taxes like the motor vehicle registration fee and chauffers' license fee. Such fees are to go into the expenditures of the Land

Transportation Commission as provided for in the last proviso of see. 61, aforequoted. It is quite apparent that vehicle registration fees were originally simple exceptional. intended only for rigidly purposes in the exercise of the State's police powers. Over the years, however, as vehicular traffic exploded in number and motor vehicles became absolute necessities without which modem life as we know it would stand still, Congress found the registration of vehicles a very convenient way of raising much needed revenues. Without changing the earlier deputy. of registration payments as "fees," their nature has become that of "taxes." In view of the foregoing, we rule that motor vehicle registration fees as at present exacted pursuant to the Land Transportation and Traffic Code are actually taxes intended for additional revenues. of government even if one fifth or less of the amount collected is set aside for the operating expenses of the agency administering the program. May the respondent administrative agency be required to refund the amounts stated in the complaint of PAL? The answer is NO. The claim for refund is made for payments given in 1971. It is not clear from the records as to what payments were made in succeeding years. We have ruled that Section 24 of Rep. Act No. 5448 dated June 27, 1968, repealed all earlier tax exemptions Of corporate taxpayers found in legislative franchises similar to that invoked by PAL in this

case. In Radio Communications of the Philippines, Inc. v. Court of Tax Appeals, et al. (G.R. No. 615)." July 11, 1985), this Court ruled:
Under its original franchise, Republic Act No. 21); enacted in 1957, petitioner Radio Communications of the Philippines, Inc., was subject to both the franchise tax and income tax. In 1964, however, petitioner's franchise was amended by Republic Act No. 41-42). to the effect that its franchise tax of one and one-half percentum (1-1/2%) of all gross receipts was provided as "in lieu of any and all taxes of any kind, nature, or description levied, established, or collected by any authority whatsoever, municipal, provincial, or national from which taxes the grantee is hereby expressly exempted." The issue raised to this Court now is the validity of the respondent court's decision which ruled that the exemption under Republic Act No. 41-42). was repealed by Section 24 of Republic Act No. 5448 dated June 27, 1968 which reads: "(d) The provisions of existing special or general laws to the contrary notwithstanding, all corporate taxpayers not specifically exempt under Sections 24 (c) (1) of this Code shall pay the rates provided in this section. All corporations, agencies, or instrumentalities owned or controlled by the government, including the Government Service Insurance System and the Social Security System but excluding educational institutions, shall pay such rate of tax upon their taxable net income as are imposed by this section upon associations or corporations engaged in a similar business or industry. " An examination of Section 24 of the Tax Code as amended shows clearly that the law

intended all corporate taxpayers to pay income tax as provided by the statute. There can be no doubt as to the power of Congress to repeal the earlier exemption it granted. Article XIV, Section 8 of the 1935 Constitution and Article XIV, Section 5 of the Constitution as amended in 1973 expressly provide that no franchise shall be granted to any individual, firm, or corporation except under the condition that it shall be subject to amendment, alteration, or repeal by the legislature when the public interest so requires. There is no question as to the public interest involved. The country needs increased revenues. The repealing clause is clear and unambiguous. There is a listing of entities entitled to tax exemption. The petitioner is not covered by the provision. Considering the foregoing, the Court Resolved to DENY the petition for lack of merit. The decision of the respondent court is affirmed.

Any registration fees collected between June 27, 1968 and April 9, 1979, were correctly imposed because the tax exemption in the franchise of PAL was repealed during the period. However, an amended franchise was given to PAL in 1979. Section 13 of Presidential Decree No. 1590, now provides:
In consideration of the franchise and rights hereby granted, the grantee shall pay to the Philippine Government during the lifetime of this franchise whichever of subsections (a) and (b) hereunder will result in a lower taxes.) (a) The basic corporate income tax based on the grantee's annual net taxable income computed in accordance with the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code; or (b) A franchise tax of two per cent (2%) of the gross revenues. derived by the

grantees from all specific. without distinction as to transport or nontransport corporations; provided that with respect to international airtransport service, only the gross passengers, mail, and freight revenues. from its outgoing flights shall be subject to this law. The tax paid by the grantee under either of the above alternatives shall be in lieu of all other taxes, duties, royalties, registration, license and other fees and charges of any kind, nature or description imposed, levied, established, assessed, or collected by any municipal, city, provincial, or national authority or government, agency, now or in the future, including but not limited to the following: xxx xxx xxx (5) All taxes, fees and other charges on the registration, license, acquisition, and transfer of airtransport equipment, motor vehicles, and all other personal or real property of the gravitates (Pres. Decree 1590, 75 OG No. 15, 3259, April 9, 1979).

PAL's current franchise is clear and specific. It has removed the ambiguity found in the earlier law. PAL is now exempt from the payment of any tax, fee, or other charge on the registration and licensing of motor vehicles. Such payments are already included in the basic tax or franchise tax provided in Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 13, P.D. 1590, and may no longer be exacted. WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby partially GRANTED. The prayed for refund of registration fees paid in 1971 is DENIED. The Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) is enjoined functions-the collecting any tax, fee, or other

charge on the registration and licensing of the petitioner's motor vehicles from April 9, 1979 as provided in Presidential Decree No. 1590.

G.R. No. L-2947 January 11, 1951 MANILA RACE HORSE TRAINERS ASSOCIATION, INC., and JUAN T. SORDAN, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. MANUEL DE LA FUENTE, defendant-appellee. Soriano, Garde and Cervania for appellants. City Fiscal Eugenio Angeles and Assistant Fiscal Arsenio Naawa for appellee. TUASON, J.: This action was instituted for a declaratory relief by the Manila Race Horses Trainers Association, Inc., a non-stock corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the Philippines, who allege that they are owners of boarding stables for race horses and that their rights as such are affected by Ordinance No. 3065 of the City of Manila approved on July 1, 1947.1 They made the Mayor of Manila defendant and prayed that said ordinance be declared invalid as violative of the Philippine Constitution. The case was submitted on the pleadings, and the decision was that the ordinance in question "is constitutional and valid and has been enacted in accordance with the powers of the Municipal Board granted by the Charter of the City of Manila." On appeal, the plaintiffs as appellants make three assignments of error, the first two of which are discussed jointly in their brief under two separate topics.

First, it is maintained that the ordinance under consideration is a tax on race horses as distinct from boarding stables. It is argued that by section 2 the basis of the license fees "is the number of race horses kept or maintained in the boarding stables to be paid by the maintainers at the rate of P10.00 a year for each race horse;" that "the fee is increased correspondingly P10 for each additional race horse maintained or fed in the stable;" and that "by the same token, an empty stable for race horse pays no license fee at all." The spirit, rather than the letter, of an ordinance determines the construction thereof, and the court looks less to its words and more to the context, subject matter, consequence and effect. Accordingly, what is within the spirit is within the ordinance although it is not within the letter thereof, while that which is in the letter, although not within the spirit, is not within the ordinance. (62 C. J. S., 845.) From the context of Ordinance No. 3065, the intent to tax or license stables and not horses is clearly manifest. The tax is assessed not on the owners of the horses but on the owners of the stables, as counsel admit in their brief, although there is nothing, of course, to stop stable owners from shifting the tax to the horse owners in the form of increased rents or fees, which is generally the case. It is also plain from the text of the whole ordinance that the number of horses is used in the assessment purely as a method of fixing an equitable and practical distribution of the burden imposed by the measure. Far from being obnoxious, the method is fair and just. It is but fair and just that for a boarding stable where only one horse is maintained proportionately less amount should be exacted than for a stable where more horses are kept and from which greater income is derived.

We do not share plaintiff's opinion, apropos the second proposition, that the ordinance in question is discriminatory and savors of class legislation. In taxing only boarding stables for race horses, we do not believe that the ordinance, makes arbitrary classification. In the case of Eastern Theatrical Co. Inc., vs. Alfonso, 46 Off. Gaz. Supp. to No. 11, p. 303,* it was said there is equality and uniformity in taxation if all articles or kinds of property of the same class are taxed at the same rate. Thus, it was held in that case, that "the fact that some places of amusement are not taxed while others, such as cinematographs, theaters, vaudeville companies, theatrical shows, and boxing exhibitions and other kinds of amusements or places of amusement are taxed, is not argument at all against the equality and uniformity of tax imposition." Applying this criterion to the present case, there would be discrimination if some boarding stables of the same class used for the same number of horses were not taxed or were made to pay less or more than others. From the viewpoint of economics and public policy the taxing of boarding stables for race horses to the exclusion of boarding stables for horses dedicated to other purposes is not indefensible. The owners of boarding stables for race horses and, for that matter, the race horse owners themselves, who in the scheme of shifting may carry the taxation burden, are a class by themselves and appropriately taxed where owners of other kinds of horses are taxed less or not at all, considering that equity in taxation is generally conceived in terms of ability to pay in relation to the benefits received by the taxpayer and by the public from the business or property taxed. Race horses are devoted to gambling if legalized, their owners derive fat income and the public hardly any profit from horse racing, and this business demands relatively heavy police

supervision. Taking everything into account, the differentiation against which the plaintiffs complain conforms to the practical dictates of justice and equity and is not discrimatory within the meaning of the Constitution. One ground of attack in the court below on the constitutionality of the ordinance variance between the title and the subject matter apparently has been abandoned. In its place a new question is brought up on the appeal in the third and last assignment of error. It is now contended, for the first time, that "the Municipal Board of Manila (is) without power to enact ordinance taxing private stables for race horses," and that the lower court erred in not so declaring. This assignment of error has reference to Class B or the second sub-paragraph of section 1 of the ordinance. Not having been raised in the pleading, this question was properly ignored, not to say that even it had been raised it would not have been available as basis for a declaration of nullity of the ordinance. The clause of the ordinance taxing or licensing boarding stables for race horses does not prejudice the plaintiffs in any material way, and it is well settled that a person who is not adversely affected by a licensing ordinance may not attack its validity. Stated differently, he may not complain that a licensing ordinance is invalid as against a class other than that to which he belongs. (62 C. J. S.830, 831.) By analogy, where a municipal ordinance is valid in some of its parts and invalid as to others and the valid parts are separable from the invalid ones in which latter case the valid provisions stand as operative the plaintiff may contest the validity of the provisions that injure his interest but not those that do not.

We are of the opinion that the trial court committed no error and the judgment is affirmed with costs against the plaintiff-appellants.

G.R. No. L-1104 May 31, 1949 EASTERN THEATRICAL CO., INC., ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. VICTOR, ALFONSO as City Treasurer of Manila, THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF THE CITY OF MANILA, and JUAN NOLASCO, as Mayor of the City of Manila, defendantsappellees. Francisco Zulueta and Poblador Jr. for appellants. City Fiscal Jose P. Bengzon and Assistant City Fiscal Julio Villamor for appellees. Assistant Solicitor General Carmelino G. Alvendia, Solicitor Guillermo E.Torres and Manuel D. Baldeo as amicus curiae. PERFECTO, J.: Twelve corporation engaged in motion picture business have initiated these proceeding through a complaint dated May 5, 1946, to impugn the validity of Ordinance No. 2958 of the City of Manila which was enacted by the municipalBoard of said city on April 25 1946 approved by the Mayor on April 27, 1946 and took effect on May 1, 1946 said ordinance reading as follows: AN ORDINANCE IMPOSING A FEE ON THE PRICE OF EVERY ADMISSION TICKET SOLD BY CINEMATOGRAPHS, THEATERS VAUDEVILLE COMPANIES THEATRICAL SHOWS AND BOXING EXHIBITION AND PROVIDING FOR OTHER PURPOSES. SEC. 1. In addition to the fees paid by cinematographers, theaters, vaudeville companies,

theatrical shows and boxing exhibitions, as provided for in sections 633 and 778 of Ordinance No. 1600, known as the Revised Ordinance of the City of Manila, as amended, there shall be collected from the place of amusement which are specifically mentioned above the following fees on the price of every admission ticket sold by such enterprises: a. For every ticket sold the price of which is from P0.25 to P0.99 b. For every ticket sold the price of which is from P1 to P1.99 c. For every ticket sold the price of which is from P2 to P2.99 P0.05

0.10

0.15

d. for every ticket sold the 0.20 price of which is from P3 to P4.99 e. or every ticket sold the price of which is from P5 0.25

to P5.99 f. For every ticket sold the 0.35 price of which is from P0 to P14.99 g. For ticket sold thee 0.50 price of which is from P15 or more SEC. 2 It shall be the duty of every proprietor lessee, promoter, or operatorof such cinematographs, theater, vaudeville companies, theatrical show and boxing exhibition to provide himself with tickets which shall be serially numbered, indication therein the name of amusement place and the fee charge for admission. Before such ticket are sold he same shall be presented to the office of the city Treasurer for registration. Tickets once issued and presented at the gate of entrance shall be cut by the gatekeeper into halves, the first half to be returned to the customer and the other half to be retained by the gate keeper. It shall also be the duty of said proprietor lessee promoter or operator to deliver to the Office of the City Treasurer the fees corresponding to the number of ticket old by him within two days after the performances or exhibition has taken place. SEC. 3. The fees herein prescribed shall not be paid where the admission fees or charge are collection for and in behalf of any charitable education or religion institution or association.

All place of amusement which are operate by U.S. Army and Navy with fund belonging to the U.S. Government are hereby exempted from fees herein imposed. SEC. 4. Any person violation any of the provision of this ordinance shall upon conviction thereof be punished by a fine of not more than P200 or by imprisonment for not more than six months or by both such fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the court. If the violation is committed by the club firm or corporation the manager the managing director or person charged with the management of the business of such club firm or corporation shall be criminally responsible therefor. SEC. 5. This Ordinance shall take effect on the May 1, 1946. Plaintiffs, operator of theaters in Manila And distributor of local or imported films allege that they are interested in the provision of section 1,2 and 4 of said ordinance which they impugn as null and void upon the following grounds: (a) For violation the Constitution more particular the provision regarding the uniformity and equality of taxation and thee equal protection of the laws; (b) because the Municipal Board of Manila exceeded and over-stepped the power granted it the Charter of the City of Manila; (c) because it contravenes violates and is inconsistent with, existing nationallegislation more particularly revenue and tax laws and (d) because it is unfair, unjust, arbitrary capricious unreasonable oppressive and is contrary to and violation our basic and recognizes principles of taxation and licensing laws. Defendants allege as affirmative defenses the following: (a) That the ordinance was passed by the Municipal Board of Manila by virtue of its express legislative power to tax fix the license fee

and regulate the business of theaters, cinematographs and further to fix the location of and to tax, fix the license fee for and regulate the business of theatrical performances public exhibition circus and other performances and places of amusement; (b) that the graduated tax required by said ordinance being applied to all cinematographs, theaters, vaudeville companies theatricalshow and boxing exhibitions similarly situated and as a class without distinction or exception the same does not violate the prohibition against uniformity and equality of taxation; (c) that the graduated tax onadmission tickets to theaters and other places of amusement imposed by the National Internal Revenue Code (Commonwealth Act No. 466) is collected by and for the purposes of the National Government, whereas, Ordinance No.2958 imposes and requires the collection of a similar tax by and for the purposes of the Government of the City of Manila, and there is no case of double taxation, (d) that said ordinance having been enacted under the express power of the Municipal Board to tax for revenue as distinguishedfrom its power to license for purely police purposes, the fact that the amount collected thereunder are higher than what are needed for police regulation and supervision does not render said ordinance unfair unjust capricious unreasonable and oppressive; (e) that consideration the nature of the business of the plaintiffs and the enormous volume of business they handle the graduated tax fixed by the ordinance is not unreasonable. Defendants allege also that since May 1, 1946, when the ordinance in question took effect plaintiffs have been charging the theater-going public increased prices for admission to the cinematographs owned and operated to the graduated tax imposed by said ordinance and as a result while refusing to pay said tax but at the same time collecting an amount equal to said tax

plaintiffs have taken undue advantage of said ordinance to realized more profits. On September 5, 1946, Judge Emilio Pena of the court of first Instance of Manila rendered a decision upholding the validity of Ordinance No. 2958. Plaintiffs appellants assign in the their brief three errors committed by the trial court. We will consider them separately. Appellants contend that the lower court erred in holding that under section 2444 (m) of the Revised administrative Code the Municipal Board of the City ofManila had the power to enact Ordinance No. 2958. Section 2444 (m) of the Revised Administrative code reads as follows: To tax fix the license fee and regulate the business of hotels restaurants refreshment places, cafes, lodging houses, boarding houses livery garages warehouses, pawnshops theaters, cinematographs; and further to fix the location of and to tax fix the license fee for and regulate the businessof lively stables, the license fee for and regulate the business of livery stable, boarding stables, embalmers, public billiard table public pool tables, bowling alleys, dance halls, public dancing halls, cabarets, circusand other similar parades, public vehicles, race tracks, horse races,Junk dealers, theatrical performances, public exhibitions, circus andother performances and places of amusements, match factories, blacksmith shops, foundries, steam boilers, lumber yards, shipyards, thestorage and sale of gunpowder, tar, pitch, resin, coal, oil, gasoline,benzene, turpentine, 'hemp, cotton, nitroglycerin, petroleum or any Ofthe products thereof and of all other highly combustible or explosivematerials and

other establishment likely to endanger the public safety or give rise to conflagration or explosion and subject to the provision of ordinance issue by the (Philippines Health Service) Bureau of Health in accordance with law tanneries, renders tallow chandlers bone factories and soap factories. Appellants line of argument runs as follows: By virtue of the specific power granted in the above quoted provision of the Revised Administration Code Ordinance No. 2958 was enacted. On August 7, 1940 the National Assembly enacted Commonwealth Act No. 466, known as the National Internal Revenue Code section 18, 260 and 261 of which read as follows: SEC. 18. Sources of revenue. The following taxes fees and charges are deemed to be national internal revenue taxes: (a) Income tax; (b) Estate inheritance and gift taxes; (c) Specific taxes on certain articles; (d) Privilege taxes on business or occupation; (e) Documentary stamp taxes; (f) Mining taxes; (g) Miscellaneous taxes fees and charges, namely, taxes on banks and insurance companies franchise taxes on amusements charges on forest product fees for sealing weights and measures firearms license fees radio registration fees and water rentals.

SEC. 260. Amusement taxes. There shall be collected from the proprietor, lessee, or operation of theater cinematographs, concert halls, circuses, boxing exhibition and other places of amusement the following taxes: (a) When the amount paid for admission exceeds twenty-nine centavos, two centavos on each admission; (b) When the amount paid for admission exceeds twenty-nine but does not exceed thirtynine centavos, three centavos on each admission; (c) When the amount paid for admission exceeds thirty-nine centavos but does not exceed forty-nine centavos four centavos on each admission. (d) When the amount paid for admission exceeds forty-nine centavos but does not exceed fifty-nine centavos five admission. (e) When the amount paid for admission exceeds fifty-nine centavos but does not exceed sixty-nine centavos six centavos on each admission. (f) When the amount paid for admission exceeds sixty-nine centavos but does not exceed seventy nine centavos seven centavos on each admission. (g) When the amount paid for admission exceeds seventy nine centavos but does not exceed eighty-nine centavos eight centavos on each admission; (h) When the amount paid for admission exceeds eighty-nine centavos but does not exceed ninty-nine centavos, nine centavos on each admission;

(i) When the amount paid for admission exceeds ninety-nine centavos, ten centavos on each admission. In the case of theaters or cinematographs, the taxes herein prescribed shall first be decuted and withheld by the proprietros, lessees, or operators of such theaters or cinematogrphs and paid to the Collector of Internal Revenue before the gross receipts are divided between the proprietros, lessees, or operators of the theaters of cinematographs and the distributors of the cinematographic films. In the case of cockpits, race tracks, and cabarets, there shall be collected from the proprietor, lessee, or operator a tax equivalent to ten per centum of the gross receipts, irrespective of whether or not any amount is charged or paid for admission: Provided, however, That in the case of race tracks, this tax is in addition to the privilege tax prescribed in seciton 193. for the purpose of the amusement tax, the term "gross receipts" embraces all the receipts of the proprietor, lessee, or operator of the amusement place, excluding the receipts derived by him from the sale of liquors, beverages, or other articles subject to specific tax, or from any business subject to tax under this Code. (This section was amended by section 8, Republic Act No. 39, effective October 1, 1946. We are quoting the original provision to show the status of the law when the Ordinance was passed.) SEC. 261. Exemption. The tax herein imposed shall not be paid where the admission fee or charges are collected by or for and in behalf of any religious, charitable, scientific, or educational institution or association, and where no part of the net proceeds of such

admission fees or charges inures to the benefit of any private stockholder or individual. Ordinance No. 2958 does not specify the kind of the tax sought to be imposed but the seven schedules and other details of said ordinance are, in every respect, identical with the amusement tax provided by section 260 of Commonwealth Act No. 466. But, plaintiffs argue, that section 2444(m) of the Revised Administrative Code confers upon the City of Manila the power to impose a tax on business but not on amusement and, consequently, Ordinance No. 2958 was enacted beyond the charter powers of the City of Manila. The whole argument of plaintiffs hinges, therefore, on the assumption that the power granted to the City of Manila by section 2444(m) of the Revised Administrative Code is limited to the authority to impose a tax on business, with exclusion of the power to impose a tax amusement; but, the assumption is based on an arbitrary labeling of the kind of tax authorized by said section 2444(m). The distinction made by plaintiffs as to the power to tax on business and the power to tax on amusement has no ground under the provisions of section 2444(m) of the Revised Administrative Code. The tax therein authorized cannot be defined as tax on business and cannot be restricted within a smaller scope than what is authorized by the words used, to the extent of excluding what plaintiffs describe as tax on amusement. The very fact that section 2444 (m) of the Revised Administrative Code includes theaters, cinematographs, public billiard tables, public pool tables, bowling alleys, dance halls, public dancing halls, cabarets, circuses and other similar places, race tracks, horse races, theatrical performances, public exhibition, circus and other performances and places of amusements, will

show conclusively that the power to tax amusement is expressly included within the power granted by section 2444(m) of the Revised Administrative Code. Plaintiffs-appellants contend that the lower court erred in not holding that section 2444 (m) of the Revised Administrative Code was repealed or the power therein contained was withdrawn by the National Assembly by the enactment of Commonwealth Act No. 466 known as the National Internal Revenue Code. In support of this contention, plaintiffs aver that the Charter of the City of Manila, containing section 2444(m) of the Revised Administrative Code, was enacted on December 8, 1929. On April 25, 1940, the National Assembly enacted Commonwealth Act No. 466, including provisions on amusement tax, covering the whole field on taxation and provided for more than what the ordinance in question has provided. As a result, there are two taxing powers seeking to occupy exactly the same field of legislation, and so the apparent conflict must be resolved with the conclusion that, with the enactment of Commonwealth Act No. 466, as later amended by Republic Act No. 39, section 2444(m) of the Revised Administrative Code has been impliedly repealed and the power therein delegated to the City of Manila withdrawn. We see absolutely no force in plaintiffs' contention. The conflict pointed out by them is imaginary. Both provisions of law may stand together and be enforced at the same time without any incompatibility among themselves. Finally, plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred in not holding that Ordinance No. 2958 violated the principle of equality and uniformity of taxation enjoined by the Constitution (sec.

22, sub-sec. 1, Art. VI, Constitution of the philippines). To support this contenttion, appellantts point out to the fact that the ordinance in question does not tax "many more kinds of amusements" than those therein specified, such as "race tracks, cockpits, cabarets, concert halls, circuses, and other places of amusement." the argument has absolutely no merit. The fact that some places of amusement are not taxed while others, such as cinematographs, theaters, vaudeville companies, theatrical shows, and boxing exhibitions and other kinds of amusements or places of amusement are taxed, is no argument at all against the equality and uniformity of the tax imposition. Equality and uniformity of the tax imposition. Equality and uniformity in taxation means that all taxable articles or kinds of property of the same class shall be taxed at the same rate. The taxing power has the authority to make reasonable and natural classifications for purposes of taxation; and the appellants cannot point out what places of amusement taxed by the ordinance do not constitute a class by themselves and which can be confused with those not included in the ordinance. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed with costs against appellants.

G.R. No. L-22814 August 28, 1968 PEPSI-COLA BOTTLING CO. OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC., plaintiff-appellant, vs. CITY OF BUTUAN, MEMBERS OF THE MUNICIPAL BOARD, THE CITY MAYOR and THE CITY TREASURER, all of the CITY OF BUTUAN, defendants-appellees. Sabido, Sabido and Associates for plaintiff-appellant. The City Attorney of Butuan City for defendants-appellees. CONCEPCION, C.J.: Direct appeal to this Court, from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Agusan, dismissing plaintiff's complaint, with costs. Plaintiff, Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company of the Philippines, is a domestic corporation with offices and principal place of business in Quezon City. The defendants are the City of Butuan, its City Mayor, the members of its municipal board and its City Treasurer. Plaintiff seeks to recover the sums paid by it to the City of Butuan hereinafter referred to as the City and collected by the latter, pursuant to its Municipal Ordinance No. 110, as amended by Municipal Ordinance No. 122, both series of 1960, which plaintiff assails as null and void, and to prevent the enforcement thereof. Both parties submitted the case for decision in the lower court upon a stipulation to the effect: 1. That plaintiff's warehouse in the City of Butuan serves as a storage for its products the

"Pepsi-Cola" soft drinks for sale to customers in the City of Butuan and all the municipalities in the Province of Agusan. These "Pepsi-Cola Cola" soft drinks are bottled in Cebu City and shipped to the Butuan City warehouse of plaintiff for distribution and sale in the City of Butuan and all municipalities of Agusan. . 2. That on August 16, 1960, the City of Butuan enacted Ordinance No. 110 which was subsequently amended by Ordinance No. 122 and effective November 28, 1960. A copy of Ordinance No. 110, Series of 1960 and Ordinance No. 122 are incorporated herein as Exhibits "A" and "B", respectively. 3. That Ordinance No. 110 as amended, imposes a tax on any person, association, etc., of P0.10 per case of 24 bottles of Pepsi-Cola and the plaintiff paid under protest the amount of P4,926.63 from August 16 to December 31, 1960 and the amount of P9,250.40 from January 1 to July 30, 1961. 4. That the plaintiff filed the foregoing complaint for the recovery of the total amount of P14,177.03 paid under protest and those that if may later on pay until the termination of this case on the ground that Ordinance No. 110 as amended of the City of Butuan is illegal, that the tax imposed is excessive and that it is unconstitutional. 5. That pursuant to Ordinance No. 110 as amended, the City Treasurer of Butuan City, has prepared a form to be accomplished by the plaintiff for the computation of the tax. A copy of the form is enclosed herewith as Exhibit "C". 6. That the Profit and Loss Statement of the plaintiff for the period from January 1, 1961 to

July 30, 1961 of its warehouse in Butuan City is incorporated herein as Exhibits "D" to "D1" to "D-5". In this Profit and Loss Statement, the defendants claim that the plaintiff is not entitled to a depreciation of P3,052.63 but only P1,202.55 in which case the profit of plaintiff will be increased from P1,254.44 to P3,104.52. The plaintiff differs only on the claim of depreciation which the company claims to be P3,052.62. This is in accordance with the findings of the representative of the undersigned City Attorney who verified the records of the plaintiff. 7. That beginning November 21, 1960, the price of Pepsi-Cola per case of 24 bottles was increased to P1.92 which price is uniform throughout the Philippines. Said increase was made due to the increase in the production cost of its manufacture. 8. That the parties reserve the right to submit arguments on the constitutionality and illegality of Ordinance No. 110, as amended of the City of Butuan in their respective memoranda. xxx xxx x x x1wph1.t Section 1 of said Ordinance No. 110, as amended, states what products are "liquors", within the purview thereof. Section 2 provides for the payment by "any agent and/or consignee" of any dealer "engaged in selling liquors, imported or local, in the City," of taxes at specified rates. Section 3 prescribes a tax of P0.10 per case of 24 bottles of the soft drinks and carbonated beverages therein named, and "all other soft drinks or carbonated drinks." Section 3-A, defines the meaning of the term "consignee or agent" for purposes of the ordinance. Section 4 provides

that said taxes "shall be paid at the end of every calendar month." Pursuant to Section 5, the taxes "shall be based and computed from the cargo manifest or bill of lading or any other record showing the number of cases of soft drinks, liquors or all other soft drinks or carbonated drinks received within the month." Sections 6, 7 and 8 specify the surcharge to be added for failure to pay the taxes within the period prescribed and the penalties imposable for "deliberate and willful refusal to pay the tax mentioned in Sections 2 and 3" or for failure "to furnish the office of the City Treasurer a copy of the bill of lading or cargo manifest or record of soft drinks, liquors or carbonated drinks for sale in the City." Section 9 makes the ordinance applicable to soft drinks, liquors or carbonated drinks "received outside" but "sold within" the City. Section 10 of the ordinance provides that the revenue derived therefrom "shall be alloted as follows: 40% for Roads and Bridges Fund; 40% for the General Fund and 20% for the School Fund." Plaintiff maintains that the disputed ordinance is null and void because: (1) it partakes of the nature of an import tax; (2) it amounts to double taxation; (3) it is excessive, oppressive and confiscatory; (4) it is highly unjust and discriminatory; and (5) section 2 of Republic Act No. 2264, upon the authority of which it was enacted, is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative powers. The second and last objections are manifestly devoid of merit. Indeed independently of whether or not the tax in question, when considered in relation to the sales tax prescribed by Acts of Congress, amounts to double taxation, on which we need not and do not express any opinion - double taxation, in general, is not forbidden by our fundamental law. We have not adopted, as part thereof, the injunction against double taxation found in the Constitution of the

United States and of some States of the Union.1 Then, again, the general principle against delegation of legislative powers, in consequence of the theory of separation of powers2 is subject to one well-established exception, namely: legislative powers may be delegated to local governments to which said theory does not apply3 in respect of matters of local concern. The third objection is, likewise, untenable. The tax of "P0.10 per case of 24 bottles," of soft drinks or carbonated drinks in the production and sale of which plaintiff is engaged or less than P0.0042 per bottle, is manifestly too small to be excessive, oppressive, or confiscatory. The first and the fourth objections merit, however, serious consideration. In this connection, it is noteworthy that the tax prescribed in section 3 of Ordinance No. 110, as originally approved, was imposed upon dealers "engaged in selling" soft drinks or carbonated drinks. Thus, it would seem that the intent was then to levy a tax upon the sale of said merchandise. As amended by Ordinance No. 122, the tax is, however, imposed only upon "any agent and/or consignee of any person, association, partnership, company or corporation engaged in selling ... soft drinks or carbonated drinks." And, pursuant to section 3-A, which was inserted by said Ordinance No. 122: ... Definition of the Term Consignee or Agent. For purposes of this Ordinance, a consignee of agent shall mean any person, association, partnership, company or corporation who acts in the place of another by authority from him or one entrusted with the business of another or to whom is consigned or shipped no less than 1,000 cases of hard liquors or soft drinks every month for resale, either retail or wholesale.

As a consequence, merchants engaged in the sale of soft drink or carbonated drinks, are not subject to the tax, unless they are agents and/or consignees of another dealer, who, in the very nature of things, must be one engaged in business outside the City. Besides, the tax would not be applicable to such agent and/or consignee, if less than 1,000 cases of soft drinks are consigned or shipped to him every month. When we consider, also, that the tax "shall be based and computed from the cargo manifest or bill of lading ... showing the number of cases" not sold but "received" by the taxpayer, the intention to limit the application of the ordinance to soft drinks and carbonated drinks brought into the City from outside thereof becomes apparent. Viewed from this angle, the tax partakes of the nature of an import duty, which is beyond defendant's authority to impose by express provision of law.4 Even however, if the burden in question were regarded as a tax on the sale of said beverages, it would still be invalid, as discriminatory, and hence, violative of the uniformity required by the Constitution and the law therefor, since only sales by "agents or consignees" of outside dealers would be subject to the tax. Sales by local dealers, not acting for or on behalf of other merchants, regardless of the volume of their sales, and even if the same exceeded those made by said agents or consignees of producers or merchants established outside the City of Butuan, would be exempt from the disputed tax. It is true that the uniformity essential to the valid exercise of the power of taxation does not require identity or equality under all circumstances, or negate the authority to classify the objects of taxation.5 The classification made in the exercise of this authority, to be valid, must,

however, be reasonable6 and this requirement is not deemed satisfied unless: (1) it is based upon substantial distinctions which make real differences; (2) these are germane to the purpose of the legislation or ordinance; (3) the classification applies, not only to present conditions, but, also, to future conditions substantially identical to those of the present; and (4) the classification applies equally all those who belong to the same class.7 These conditions are not fully met by the ordinance in question.8 Indeed, if its purpose were merely to levy a burden upon the sale of soft drinks or carbonated beverages, there is no reason why sales thereof by sealers other than agents or consignees of producers or merchants established outside the City of Butuan should be exempt from the tax. WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed, and another one shall be entered annulling Ordinance No. 110, as amended by Ordinance No. 122, and sentencing the City of Butuan to refund to plaintiff herein the amounts collected from and paid under protest by the latter, with interest thereon at the legal rate from the date of the promulgation of this decision, in addition to the costs, and defendants herein are, accordingly, restrained and prohibited permanently from enforcing said Ordinance, as amended. It is so ordered.

G.R. No. 115455 October 30, 1995 ARTURO M. TOLENTINO, petitioner, vs. THE SECRETARY OF FINANCE and THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, respondents. G.R. No. 115525 October 30, 1995 JUAN T. DAVID, petitioner, vs. TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR., as Executive Secretary; ROBERTO DE OCAMPO, as Secretary of Finance; LIWAYWAY VINZONS-CHATO, as Commissioner of Internal Revenue; and their AUTHORIZED AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES, respondents. G.R. No. 115543 October 30, 1995 RAUL S. ROCO and the INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioners, vs. THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE; THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE AND BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, respondents. G.R. No. 115544 October 30, 1995

PHILIPPINE PRESS INSTITUTE, INC.; EGP PUBLISHING CO., INC.; KAMAHALAN PUBLISHING CORPORATION; PHILIPPINE JOURNALISTS, INC.; JOSE L. PAVIA; and OFELIA L. DIMALANTA, petitioners, vs. HON. LIWAYWAY V. CHATO, in her capacity as Commissioner of Internal Revenue; HON. TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR., in his capacity as Executive Secretary; and HON. ROBERTO B. DE OCAMPO, in his capacity as Secretary of Finance, respondents. G.R. No. 115754 October 30, 1995 CHAMBER OF REAL ESTATE AND BUILDERS ASSOCIATIONS, INC., (CREBA), petitioner, vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, respondent. G.R. No. 115781 October 30, 1995 KILOSBAYAN, INC., JOVITO R. SALONGA, CIRILO A. RIGOS, ERME CAMBA, EMILIO C. CAPULONG, JR., JOSE T. APOLO, EPHRAIM TENDERO, FERNANDO SANTIAGO, JOSE ABCEDE, CHRISTINE TAN, FELIPE L. GOZON, RAFAEL G. FERNANDO, RAOUL V. VICTORINO, JOSE CUNANAN, QUINTIN S. DOROMAL, MOVEMENT OF ATTORNEYS FOR BROTHERHOOD, INTEGRITY AND NATIONALISM, INC. ("MABINI"), FREEDOM FROM DEBT COALITION, INC., and

PHILIPPINE BIBLE SOCIETY, INC. and WIGBERTO TAADA, petitioners, vs. THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE SECRETARY OF FINANCE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE and THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, respondents. G.R. No. 115852 October 30, 1995 PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., petitioner, vs. THE SECRETARY OF FINANCE and COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, respondents. G.R. No. 115873 October 30, 1995 COOPERATIVE UNION OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. LIWAYWAY V. CHATO, in her capacity as the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, HON. TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR., in his capacity as Executive Secretary, and HON. ROBERTO B. DE OCAMPO, in his capacity as Secretary of Finance, respondents. G.R. No. 115931 October 30, 1995 PHILIPPINE EDUCATIONAL PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION, INC. and ASSOCIATION OF PHILIPPINE BOOK SELLERS, petitioners,

vs. HON. ROBERTO B. DE OCAMPO, as the Secretary of Finance; HON. LIWAYWAY V. CHATO, as the Commissioner of Internal Revenue; and HON. GUILLERMO PARAYNO, JR., in his capacity as the Commissioner of Customs, respondents. RESOLUTION MENDOZA, J.: These are motions seeking reconsideration of our decision dismissing the petitions filed in these cases for the declaration of unconstitutionality of R.A. No. 7716, otherwise known as the Expanded Value-Added Tax Law. The motions, of which there are 10 in all, have been filed by the several petitioners in these cases, with the exception of the Philippine Educational Publishers Association, Inc. and the Association of Philippine Booksellers, petitioners in G.R. No. 115931. The Solicitor General, representing the respondents, filed a consolidated comment, to which the Philippine Airlines, Inc., petitioner in G.R. No. 115852, and the Philippine Press Institute, Inc., petitioner in G.R. No. 115544, and Juan T. David, petitioner in G.R. No. 115525, each filed a reply. In turn the Solicitor General filed on June 1, 1995 a rejoinder to the PPI's reply. On June 27, 1995 the matter was submitted for resolution.

I. Power of the Senate to propose amendments to revenue bills. Some of the petitioners (Tolentino, Kilosbayan, Inc., Philippine Airlines (PAL), Roco, and Chamber of Real Estate and Builders Association (CREBA)) reiterate previous claims made by them that R.A. No. 7716 did not "originate exclusively" in the House of Representatives as required by Art. VI, 24 of the Constitution. Although they admit that H. No. 11197 was filed in the House of Representatives where it passed three readings and that afterward it was sent to the Senate where after first reading it was referred to the Senate Ways and Means Committee, they complain that the Senate did not pass it on second and third readings. Instead what the Senate did was to pass its own version (S. No. 1630) which it approved on May 24, 1994. Petitioner Tolentino adds that what the Senate committee should have done was to amend H. No. 11197 by striking out the text of the bill and substituting it with the text of S. No. 1630. That way, it is said, "the bill remains a House bill and the Senate version just becomes the text (only the text) of the House bill." The contention has no merit. The enactment of S. No. 1630 is not the only instance in which the Senate proposed an amendment to a House revenue bill by enacting its own version of a revenue bill. On at least two occasions during the Eighth Congress, the Senate passed its own version of revenue bills, which, in consolidation with House bills earlier passed, became the enrolled bills. These were:

R.A. No. 7369 (AN ACT TO AMEND THE OMNIBUS INVESTMENTS CODE OF 1987 BY EXTENDING FROM FIVE (5) YEARS TO TEN YEARS THE PERIOD FOR TAX AND DUTY EXEMPTION AND TAX CREDIT ON CAPITAL EQUIPMENT) which was approved by the President on April 10, 1992. This Act is actually a consolidation of H. No. 34254, which was approved by the House on January 29, 1992, and S. No. 1920, which was approved by the Senate on February 3, 1992. R.A. No. 7549 (AN ACT GRANTING TAX EXEMPTIONS TO WHOEVER SHALL GIVE REWARD TO ANY FILIPINO ATHLETE WINNING A MEDAL IN OLYMPIC GAMES) which was approved by the President on May 22, 1992. This Act is a consolidation of H. No. 22232, which was approved by the House of Representatives on August 2, 1989, and S. No. 807, which was approved by the Senate on October 21, 1991. On the other hand, the Ninth Congress passed revenue laws which were also the result of the consolidation of House and Senate bills. These are the following, with indications of the dates on which the laws were approved by the President and dates the separate bills of the two chambers of Congress were respectively passed:
1. R.A. NO. 7642 AN ACT INCREASING THE PENALTIES FOR TAX EVASION, AMENDING FOR THIS PURPOSE THE PERTINENT SECTIONS OF THE NATIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE CODE (December 28, 1992). House Bill No. 2165, October 5, 1992

Senate Bill No. 32, December 7, 1992 2. R.A. NO. 7643 AN ACT TO EMPOWER THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE TO REQUIRE THE PAYMENT OF THE VALUE-ADDED TAX EVERY MONTH AND TO ALLOW LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS TO SHARE IN VAT REVENUE, AMENDING FOR THIS PURPOSE CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE NATIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE CODE (December 28, 1992) House Bill No. 1503, September 3, 1992 Senate Bill No. 968, December 7, 1992 3. R.A. NO. 7646 AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE TO PRESCRIBE THE PLACE FOR PAYMENT OF INTERNAL REVENUE TAXES BY LARGE TAXPAYERS, AMENDING FOR THIS PURPOSE CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE NATIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, AS AMENDED (February 24, 1993) House Bill No. 1470, October 20, 1992 Senate Bill No. 35, November 19, 1992 4. R.A. NO. 7649 AN ACT REQUIRING THE GOVERNMENT OR ANY OF ITS POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS, INSTRUMENTALITIES OR AGENCIES INCLUDING GOVERNMENTOWNED OR CONTROLLED CORPORATIONS (GOCCS) TO DEDUCT AND WITHHOLD THE VALUE-ADDED TAX DUE AT THE RATE OF THREE PERCENT (3%)

ON GROSS PAYMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF GOODS AND SIX PERCENT (6%) ON GROSS RECEIPTS FOR SERVICES RENDERED BY CONTRACTORS (April 6, 1993) House Bill No. 5260, January 26, 1993 Senate Bill No. 1141, March 30, 1993 5. R.A. NO. 7656 AN ACT REQUIRING GOVERNMENT-OWNED OR CONTROLLED CORPORATIONS TO DECLARE DIVIDENDS UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS TO THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES (November 9, 1993) House Bill No. 11024, November 3, 1993 Senate Bill No. 1168, November 3, 1993 6. R.A. NO. 7660 AN ACT RATIONALIZING FURTHER THE STRUCTURE AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE DOCUMENTARY STAMP TAX, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE NATIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, AS AMENDED, ALLOCATING FUNDS FOR SPECIFIC PROGRAMS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES (December 23, 1993) House Bill No. 7789, May 31, 1993 Senate Bill No. 1330, November 18, 1993 7. R.A. NO. 7717

AN ACT IMPOSING A TAX ON THE SALE, BARTER OR EXCHANGE OF SHARES OF STOCK LISTED AND TRADED THROUGH THE LOCAL STOCK EXCHANGE OR THROUGH INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE THE NATIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, AS AMENDED, BY INSERTING A NEW SECTION AND REPEALING CERTAIN SUBSECTIONS THEREOF (May 5, 1994) House Bill No. 9187, November 3, 1993 Senate Bill No. 1127, March 23, 1994

Thus, the enactment of S. No. 1630 is not the only instance in which the Senate, in the exercise of its power to propose amendments to bills required to originate in the House, passed its own version of a House revenue measure. It is noteworthy that, in the particular case of S. No. 1630, petitioners Tolentino and Roco, as members of the Senate, voted to approve it on second and third readings. On the other hand, amendment by substitution, in the manner urged by petitioner Tolentino, concerns a mere matter of form. Petitioner has not shown what substantial difference it would make if, as the Senate actually did in this case, a separate bill like S. No. 1630 is instead enacted as a substitute measure, "taking into Consideration . . . H.B. 11197." Indeed, so far as pertinent, the Rules of the Senate only provide:
RULE XXIX AMENDMENTS

xxx xxx xxx 68. Not more than one amendment to the original amendment shall be considered. No amendment by substitution shall be entertained unless the text thereof is submitted in writing. Any of said amendments may be withdrawn before a vote is taken thereon. 69. No amendment which seeks the inclusion of a legislative provision foreign to the subject matter of a bill (rider) shall be entertained. xxx xxx xxx 70-A. A bill or resolution shall not be amended by substituting it with another which covers a subject distinct from that proposed in the original bill or resolution. (emphasis added).

Nor is there merit in petitioners' contention that, with regard to revenue bills, the Philippine Senate possesses less power than the U.S. Senate because of textual differences between constitutional provisions giving them the power to propose or concur with amendments. Art. I, 7, cl. 1 of the U.S. Constitution reads:
All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.

Art. VI, 24 of our Constitution reads:

All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing increase of the public debt, bills

of local application, and private bills shall originate exclusively in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments.

The addition of the word "exclusively" in the Philippine Constitution and the decision to drop the phrase "as on other Bills" in the American version, according to petitioners, shows the intention of the framers of our Constitution to restrict the Senate's power to propose amendments to revenue bills. Petitioner Tolentino contends that the word "exclusively" was inserted to modify "originate" and "the words 'as in any other bills' (sic) were eliminated so as to show that these bills were not to be like other bills but must be treated as a special kind." The history of this provision does not support this contention. The supposed indicia of constitutional intent are nothing but the relics of an unsuccessful attempt to limit the power of the Senate. It will be recalled that the 1935 Constitution originally provided for a unicameral National Assembly. When it was decided in 1939 to change to a bicameral legislature, it became necessary to provide for the procedure for lawmaking by the Senate and the House of Representatives. The work of proposing amendments to the Constitution was done by the National Assembly, acting as a constituent assembly, some of whose members, jealous of preserving the Assembly's lawmaking powers, sought to curtail the powers of the proposed Senate. Accordingly they proposed the following provision:
All bills appropriating public funds, revenue or tariff bills, bills of local application, and private bills shall originate exclusively in the Assembly, but the Senate may propose or

concur with amendments. In case of disapproval by the Senate of any such bills, the Assembly may repass the same by a two-thirds vote of all its members, and thereupon, the bill so repassed shall be deemed enacted and may be submitted to the President for corresponding action. In the event that the Senate should fail to finally act on any such bills, the Assembly may, after thirty days from the opening of the next regular session of the same legislative term, reapprove the same with a vote of two-thirds of all the members of the Assembly. And upon such reapproval, the bill shall be deemed enacted and may be submitted to the President for corresponding action.

The special committee on the revision of laws of the Second National Assembly vetoed the proposal. It deleted everything after the first sentence. As rewritten, the proposal was approved by the National Assembly and embodied in Resolution No. 38, as amended by Resolution No. 73. (J. ARUEGO, KNOW YOUR CONSTITUTION 65-66 (1950)). The proposed amendment was submitted to the people and ratified by them in the elections held on June 18, 1940. This is the history of Art. VI, 18 (2) of the 1935 Constitution, from which Art. VI, 24 of the present Constitution was derived. It explains why the word "exclusively" was added to the American text from which the framers of the Philippine Constitution borrowed and why the phrase "as on other Bills" was not copied. Considering the defeat of the proposal, the power of the Senate to propose amendments must be understood to be full, plenary and complete "as on other Bills." Thus, because revenue bills are required to originate exclusively in the House of Representatives, the Senate cannot enact revenue measures of its own without such bills. After a revenue bill is passed and sent

over to it by the House, however, the Senate certainly can pass its own version on the same subject matter. This follows from the coequality of the two chambers of Congress. That this is also the understanding of book authors of the scope of the Senate's power to concur is clear from the following commentaries:
The power of the Senate to propose or concur with amendments is apparently without restriction. It would seem that by virtue of this power, the Senate can practically re-write a bill required to come from the House and leave only a trace of the original bill. For example, a general revenue bill passed by the lower house of the United States Congress contained provisions for the imposition of an inheritance tax . This was changed by the Senate into a corporation tax. The amending authority of the Senate was declared by the United States Supreme Court to be sufficiently broad to enable it to make the alteration. [Flint v. Stone Tracy Company, 220 U.S. 107, 55 L. ed. 389]. (L. TAADA AND F. CARREON, POLITICAL LAW OF THE PHILIPPINES 247 (1961)) The above-mentioned bills are supposed to be initiated by the House of Representatives because it is more numerous in membership and therefore also more representative of the people. Moreover, its members are presumed to be more familiar with the needs of the country in regard to the enactment of the legislation involved. The Senate is, however, allowed much leeway in the exercise of its power to propose or concur with amendments to the bills initiated by the House of Representatives. Thus, in one case, a bill introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives was changed by the Senate to make a proposed inheritance tax a corporation tax. It is also accepted practice for the Senate to introduce what is known as an amendment by substitution, which may

entirely replace the bill initiated in the House of Representatives. (I. CRUZ, PHILIPPINE POLITICAL LAW 144-145 (1993)).

In sum, while Art. VI, 24 provides that all appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing increase of the public debt, bills of local application, and private bills must "originate exclusively in the House of Representatives," it also adds, "but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments." In the exercise of this power, the Senate may propose an entirely new bill as a substitute measure. As petitioner Tolentino states in a high school text, a committee to which a bill is referred may do any of the following:
(1) to endorse the bill without changes; (2) to make changes in the bill omitting or adding sections or altering its language; (3) to make and endorse an entirely new bill as a substitute, in which case it will be known as a committee bill; or (4) to make no report at all. (A. TOLENTINO, THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES 258 (1950))

To except from this procedure the amendment of bills which are required to originate in the House by prescribing that the number of the House bill and its other parts up to the enacting clause must be preserved although the text of the Senate amendment may be incorporated in place of the original body of the bill is to insist on a mere technicality. At any rate there is no rule prescribing this form. S. No. 1630, as a substitute measure, is therefore as much an amendment of H. No. 11197 as any which the Senate could have made.

II. S. No. 1630 a mere amendment of H. No. 11197. Petitioners' basic error is that they assume that S. No. 1630 is an independent and distinct bill. Hence their repeated references to its certification that it was passed by the Senate "in substitution of S.B. No. 1129, taking into consideration P.S. Res. No. 734 and H.B. No. 11197," implying that there is something substantially different between the reference to S. No. 1129 and the reference to H. No. 11197. From this premise, they conclude that R.A. No. 7716 originated both in the House and in the Senate and that it is the product of two "halfbaked bills because neither H. No. 11197 nor S. No. 1630 was passed by both houses of Congress." In point of fact, in several instances the provisions of S. No. 1630, clearly appear to be mere amendments of the corresponding provisions of H. No. 11197. The very tabular comparison of the provisions of H. No. 11197 and S. No. 1630 attached as Supplement A to the basic petition of petitioner Tolentino, while showing differences between the two bills, at the same time indicates that the provisions of the Senate bill were precisely intended to be amendments to the House bill. Without H. No. 11197, the Senate could not have enacted S. No. 1630. Because the Senate bill was a mere amendment of the House bill, H. No. 11197 in its original form did not have to pass the Senate on second and three readings. It was enough that after it was passed on first reading it was referred to the Senate Committee on Ways and Means. Neither was it required that S. No. 1630 be passed by the House of Representatives before the two bills could be referred to the Conference Committee.

There is legislative precedent for what was done in the case of H. No. 11197 and S. No. 1630. When the House bill and Senate bill, which became R.A. No. 1405 (Act prohibiting the disclosure of bank deposits), were referred to a conference committee, the question was raised whether the two bills could be the subject of such conference, considering that the bill from one house had not been passed by the other and vice versa. As Congressman Duran put the question:
MR. DURAN. Therefore, I raise this question of order as to procedure: If a House bill is passed by the House but not passed by the Senate, and a Senate bill of a similar nature is passed in the Senate but never passed in the House, can the two bills be the subject of a conference, and can a law be enacted from these two bills? I understand that the Senate bill in this particular instance does not refer to investments in government securities, whereas the bill in the House, which was introduced by the Speaker, covers two subject matters: not only investigation of deposits in banks but also investigation of investments in government securities. Now, since the two bills differ in their subject matter, I believe that no law can be enacted.

Ruling on the point of order raised, the chair (Speaker Jose B. Laurel, Jr.) said:
THE SPEAKER. The report of the conference committee is in order. It is precisely in cases like this where a conference should be had. If the House bill had been approved by the Senate, there would have been no need of a conference; but precisely because the Senate passed another bill on the same subject matter, the conference committee had to be created, and we are now considering the report of that committee. (2 CONG. REC. NO. 13, July 27, 1955, pp. 3841-42 (emphasis added))

III. The President's certification. The fallacy in thinking that H. No. 11197 and S. No. 1630 are distinct and unrelated measures also accounts for the petitioners' (Kilosbayan's and PAL's) contention that because the President separately certified to the need for the immediate enactment of these measures, his certification was ineffectual and void. The certification had to be made of the version of the same revenue bill which at the moment was being considered. Otherwise, to follow petitioners' theory, it would be necessary for the President to certify as many bills as are presented in a house of Congress even though the bills are merely versions of the bill he has already certified. It is enough that he certifies the bill which, at the time he makes the certification, is under consideration. Since on March 22, 1994 the Senate was considering S. No. 1630, it was that bill which had to be certified. For that matter on June 1, 1993 the President had earlier certified H. No. 9210 for immediate enactment because it was the one which at that time was being considered by the House. This bill was later substituted, together with other bills, by H. No. 11197. As to what Presidential certification can accomplish, we have already explained in the main decision that the phrase "except when the President certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment, etc." in Art. VI, 26 (2) qualifies not only the requirement that "printed copies [of a bill] in its final form [must be] distributed to the members three days before its passage" but also the requirement that before a bill can become a law it must have passed "three readings on separate days." There is not only textual support for such construction but historical basis as well.

Art. VI, 21 (2) of the 1935 Constitution originally provided:

(2) No bill shall be passed by either House unless it shall have been printed and copies thereof in its final form furnished its Members at least three calendar days prior to its passage, except when the President shall have certified to the necessity of its immediate enactment. Upon the last reading of a bill, no amendment thereof shall be allowed and the question upon its passage shall be taken immediately thereafter, and the yeas and nays entered on the Journal.

When the 1973 Constitution was adopted, it was provided in Art. VIII, 19 (2):
(2) No bill shall become a law unless it has passed three readings on separate days, and printed copies thereof in its final form have been distributed to the Members three days before its passage, except when the Prime Minister certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or emergency. Upon the last reading of a bill, no amendment thereto shall be allowed, and the vote thereon shall be taken immediately thereafter, and the yeas and nays entered in the Journal.

This provision of the 1973 document, with slight modification, was adopted in Art. VI, 26 (2) of the present Constitution, thus:
(2) No bill passed by either House shall become a law unless it has passed three readings on separate days, and printed copies thereof in its final form have been distributed to its Members three days before its passage, except when the President certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or emergency. Upon the last reading of a bill, no amendment thereto shall be allowed, and the vote thereon shall be taken immediately thereafter, and the yeas and nays entered in

the Journal.

The exception is based on the prudential consideration that if in all cases three readings on separate days are required and a bill has to be printed in final form before it can be passed, the need for a law may be rendered academic by the occurrence of the very emergency or public calamity which it is meant to address. Petitioners further contend that a "growing budget deficit" is not an emergency, especially in a country like the Philippines where budget deficit is a chronic condition. Even if this were the case, an enormous budget deficit does not make the need for R.A. No. 7716 any less urgent or the situation calling for its enactment any less an emergency. Apparently, the members of the Senate (including some of the petitioners in these cases) believed that there was an urgent need for consideration of S. No. 1630, because they responded to the call of the President by voting on the bill on second and third readings on the same day. While the judicial department is not bound by the Senate's acceptance of the President's certification, the respect due coequal departments of the government in matters committed to them by the Constitution and the absence of a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion caution a stay of the judicial hand. At any rate, we are satisfied that S. No. 1630 received thorough consideration in the Senate where it was discussed for six days. Only its distribution in advance in its final

printed form was actually dispensed with by holding the voting on second and third readings on the same day (March 24, 1994). Otherwise, sufficient time between the submission of the bill on February 8, 1994 on second reading and its approval on March 24, 1994 elapsed before it was finally voted on by the Senate on third reading. The purpose for which three readings on separate days is required is said to be twofold: (1) to inform the members of Congress of what they must vote on and (2) to give them notice that a measure is progressing through the enacting process, thus enabling them and others interested in the measure to prepare their positions with reference to it. (1 J. G. SUTHERLAND, STATUTES AND STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION 10.04, p. 282 (1972)). These purposes were substantially achieved in the case of R.A. No. 7716. IV. Power of Conference Committee. It is contended (principally by Kilosbayan, Inc. and the Movement of Attorneys for Brotherhood, Integrity and Nationalism, Inc. (MABINI)) that in violation of the constitutional policy of full public disclosure and the people's right to know (Art. II, 28 and Art. III, 7) the Conference Committee met for two days in executive session with only the conferees present. As pointed out in our main decision, even in the United States it was customary to hold such sessions with only the conferees and their staffs in attendance and it was only in 1975 when a new rule was adopted requiring open sessions. Unlike its American counterpart, the Philippine Congress has not adopted a rule prescribing open hearings for conference committees.

It is nevertheless claimed that in the United States, before the adoption of the rule in 1975, at least staff members were present. These were staff members of the Senators and Congressmen, however, who may be presumed to be their confidential men, not stenographers as in this case who on the last two days of the conference were excluded. There is no showing that the conferees themselves did not take notes of their proceedings so as to give petitioner Kilosbayan basis for claiming that even in secret diplomatic negotiations involving state interests, conferees keep notes of their meetings. Above all, the public's right to know was fully served because the Conference Committee in this case submitted a report showing the changes made on the differing versions of the House and the Senate. Petitioners cite the rules of both houses which provide that conference committee reports must contain "a detailed, sufficiently explicit statement of the changes in or other amendments." These changes are shown in the bill attached to the Conference Committee Report. The members of both houses could thus ascertain what changes had been made in the original bills without the need of a statement detailing the changes. The same question now presented was raised when the bill which became R.A. No. 1400 (Land Reform Act of 1955) was reported by the Conference Committee. Congressman Bengzon raised a point of order. He said:
MR. BENGZON. My point of order is that it is out of order to consider the report of the conference committee regarding House Bill No. 2557 by reason of the provision of

Section 11, Article XII, of the Rules of this House which provides specifically that the conference report must be accompanied by a detailed statement of the effects of the amendment on the bill of the House. This conference committee report is not accompanied by that detailed statement, Mr. Speaker. Therefore it is out of order to consider it.

Petitioner Tolentino, then the Majority Floor Leader, answered:

MR. TOLENTINO. Mr. Speaker, I should just like to say a few words in connection with the point of order raised by the gentleman from Pangasinan. There is no question about the provision of the Rule cited by the gentleman from Pangasinan, but this provision applies to those cases where only portions of the bill have been amended. In this case before us an entire bill is presented; therefore, it can be easily seen from the reading of the bill what the provisions are. Besides, this procedure has been an established practice.

After some interruption, he continued:

MR. TOLENTINO. As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, we have to look into the reason for the provisions of the Rules, and the reason for the requirement in the provision cited by the gentleman from Pangasinan is when there are only certain words or phrases inserted in or deleted from the provisions of the bill included in the conference report, and we cannot understand what those words and phrases mean and their relation to the bill. In that case, it is necessary to make a detailed statement on how those words and phrases will affect the bill as a whole; but when the entire bill itself is copied verbatim in the conference report, that is not necessary. So when the reason for the Rule does not exist,

the Rule does not exist. (2 CONG. REC. NO. 2, p. 4056. (emphasis added))

Congressman Tolentino was sustained by the chair. The record shows that when the ruling was appealed, it was upheld by viva voce and when a division of the House was called, it was sustained by a vote of 48 to 5. (Id., p. 4058) Nor is there any doubt about the power of a conference committee to insert new provisions as long as these are germane to the subject of the conference. As this Court held in Philippine Judges Association v. Prado, 227 SCRA 703 (1993), in an opinion written by then Justice Cruz, the jurisdiction of the conference committee is not limited to resolving differences between the Senate and the House. It may propose an entirely new provision. What is important is that its report is subsequently approved by the respective houses of Congress. This Court ruled that it would not entertain allegations that, because new provisions had been added by the conference committee, there was thereby a violation of the constitutional injunction that "upon the last reading of a bill, no amendment thereto shall be allowed."
Applying these principles, we shall decline to look into the petitioners' charges that an amendment was made upon the last reading of the bill that eventually became R.A. No. 7354 and that copies thereof in its final form were not distributed among the members of each House. Both the enrolled bill and the legislative journals certify that the measure was duly enacted i.e., in accordance with Article VI, Sec. 26 (2) of the Constitution. We

are bound by such official assurances from a coordinate department of the government, to which we owe, at the very least, a becoming courtesy. (Id. at 710. (emphasis added))

It is interesting to note the following description of conference committees in the Philippines in a 1979 study:
Conference committees may be of two types: free or instructed. These committees may be given instructions by their parent bodies or they may be left without instructions. Normally the conference committees are without instructions, and this is why they are often critically referred to as "the little legislatures." Once bills have been sent to them, the conferees have almost unlimited authority to change the clauses of the bills and in fact sometimes introduce new measures that were not in the original legislation. No minutes are kept, and members' activities on conference committees are difficult to determine. One congressman known for his idealism put it this way: "I killed a bill on export incentives for my interest group [copra] in the conference committee but I could not have done so anywhere else." The conference committee submits a report to both houses, and usually it is accepted. If the report is not accepted, then the committee is discharged and new members are appointed. (R. Jackson, Committees in the Philippine Congress, in COMMITTEES AND LEGISLATURES: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS 163 (J. D. LEES AND M. SHAW, eds.)).

In citing this study, we pass no judgment on the methods of conference committees. We cite it only to say that conference committees here are no different from their counterparts in the United States whose vast powers we noted in Philippine Judges

Association v. Prado, supra. At all events, under Art. VI, 16(3) each house has the power "to determine the rules of its proceedings," including those of its committees. Any meaningful change in the method and procedures of Congress or its committees must therefore be sought in that body itself. V. The titles of S. No. 1630 and H. No. 11197. PAL maintains that R.A. No. 7716 violates Art. VI, 26 (1) of the Constitution which provides that "Every bill passed by Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof." PAL contends that the amendment of its franchise by the withdrawal of its exemption from the VAT is not expressed in the title of the law. Pursuant to 13 of P.D. No. 1590, PAL pays a franchise tax of 2% on its gross revenue "in lieu of all other taxes, duties, royalties, registration, license and other fees and charges of any kind, nature, or description, imposed, levied, established, assessed or collected by any municipal, city, provincial or national authority or government agency, now or in the future." PAL was exempted from the payment of the VAT along with other entities by 103 of the National Internal Revenue Code, which provides as follows:
103. Exempt transactions. The following shall be exempt from the value-added tax: xxx xxx xxx (q) Transactions which are exempt under special laws or international agreements to which the Philippines is a signatory.

R.A. No. 7716 seeks to withdraw certain exemptions, including that granted to PAL, by amending 103, as follows:
103. Exempt transactions. The following shall be exempt from the value-added tax: xxx xxx xxx (q) Transactions which are exempt under special laws, except those granted under Presidential Decree Nos. 66, 529, 972, 1491, 1590. . . .

The amendment of 103 is expressed in the title of R.A. No. 7716 which reads:
AN ACT RESTRUCTURING THE VALUE-ADDED TAX (VAT) SYSTEM, WIDENING ITS TAX BASE AND ENHANCING ITS ADMINISTRATION, AND FOR THESE PURPOSES AMENDING AND REPEALING THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE NATIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, AS AMENDED, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

By stating that R.A. No. 7716 seeks to "[RESTRUCTURE] THE VALUE-ADDED TAX (VAT) SYSTEM [BY] WIDENING ITS TAX BASE AND ENHANCING ITS ADMINISTRATION, AND FOR THESE PURPOSES AMENDING AND REPEALING THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE NATIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, AS AMENDED AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," Congress thereby clearly expresses its intention to amend any provision of the NIRC which stands in the way of accomplishing the purpose of the law. PAL asserts that the amendment of its franchise must be reflected in the title of the law

by specific reference to P.D. No. 1590. It is unnecessary to do this in order to comply with the constitutional requirement, since it is already stated in the title that the law seeks to amend the pertinent provisions of the NIRC, among which is 103(q), in order to widen the base of the VAT. Actually, it is the bill which becomes a law that is required to express in its title the subject of legislation. The titles of H. No. 11197 and S. No. 1630 in fact specifically referred to 103 of the NIRC as among the provisions sought to be amended. We are satisfied that sufficient notice had been given of the pendency of these bills in Congress before they were enacted into what is now R.A. No. 7716. In Philippine Judges Association v. Prado, supra, a similar argument as that now made by PAL was rejected. R.A. No. 7354 is entitled AN ACT CREATING THE PHILIPPINE POSTAL CORPORATION, DEFINING ITS POWERS, FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES, PROVIDING FOR REGULATION OF THE INDUSTRY AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES CONNECTED THEREWITH. It contained a provision repealing all franking privileges. It was contended that the withdrawal of franking privileges was not expressed in the title of the law. In holding that there was sufficient description of the subject of the law in its title, including the repeal of franking privileges, this Court held:
To require every end and means necessary for the accomplishment of the general objectives of the statute to be expressed in its title would not only be unreasonable but would actually render legislation impossible. [Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, 8th Ed., p. 297] As has been correctly explained:

The details of a legislative act need not be specifically stated in its title, but matter germane to the subject as expressed in the title, and adopted to the accomplishment of the object in view, may properly be included in the act. Thus, it is proper to create in the same act the machinery by which the act is to be enforced, to prescribe the penalties for its infraction, and to remove obstacles in the way of its execution. If such matters are properly connected with the subject as expressed in the title, it is unnecessary that they should also have special mention in the title. (Southern Pac. Co. v. Bartine, 170 Fed. 725) (227 SCRA at 707-708)

VI. Claims of press freedom and religious liberty. We have held that, as a general proposition, the press is not exempt from the taxing power of the State and that what the constitutional guarantee of free press prohibits are laws which single out the press or target a group belonging to the press for special treatment or which in any way discriminate against the press on the basis of the content of the publication, and R.A. No. 7716 is none of these. Now it is contended by the PPI that by removing the exemption of the press from the VAT while maintaining those granted to others, the law discriminates against the press. At any rate, it is averred, "even nondiscriminatory taxation of constitutionally guaranteed freedom is unconstitutional." With respect to the first contention, it would suffice to say that since the law granted the

press a privilege, the law could take back the privilege anytime without offense to the Constitution. The reason is simple: by granting exemptions, the State does not forever waive the exercise of its sovereign prerogative. Indeed, in withdrawing the exemption, the law merely subjects the press to the same tax burden to which other businesses have long ago been subject. It is thus different from the tax involved in the cases invoked by the PPI. The license tax in Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 80 L. Ed. 660 (1936) was found to be discriminatory because it was laid on the gross advertising receipts only of newspapers whose weekly circulation was over 20,000, with the result that the tax applied only to 13 out of 124 publishers in Louisiana. These large papers were critical of Senator Huey Long who controlled the state legislature which enacted the license tax. The censorial motivation for the law was thus evident. On the other hand, in Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Comm'r of Revenue, 460 U.S. 575, 75 L. Ed. 2d 295 (1983), the tax was found to be discriminatory because although it could have been made liable for the sales tax or, in lieu thereof, for the use tax on the privilege of using, storing or consuming tangible goods, the press was not. Instead, the press was exempted from both taxes. It was, however, later made to pay a special use tax on the cost of paper and ink which made these items "the only items subject to the use tax that were component of goods to be sold at retail." The U.S. Supreme Court held that the differential treatment of the press "suggests that the goal of regulation is not related to suppression of expression, and such goal is presumptively

unconstitutional." It would therefore appear that even a law that favors the press is constitutionally suspect. (See the dissent of Rehnquist, J. in that case) Nor is it true that only two exemptions previously granted by E.O. No. 273 are withdrawn "absolutely and unqualifiedly" by R.A. No. 7716. Other exemptions from the VAT, such as those previously granted to PAL, petroleum concessionaires, enterprises registered with the Export Processing Zone Authority, and many more are likewise totally withdrawn, in addition to exemptions which are partially withdrawn, in an effort to broaden the base of the tax. The PPI says that the discriminatory treatment of the press is highlighted by the fact that transactions, which are profit oriented, continue to enjoy exemption under R.A. No. 7716. An enumeration of some of these transactions will suffice to show that by and large this is not so and that the exemptions are granted for a purpose. As the Solicitor General says, such exemptions are granted, in some cases, to encourage agricultural production and, in other cases, for the personal benefit of the end-user rather than for profit. The exempt transactions are:
(a) Goods for consumption or use which are in their original state (agricultural, marine and forest products, cotton seeds in their original state, fertilizers, seeds, seedlings, fingerlings, fish, prawn livestock and poultry feeds) and goods or services to enhance agriculture (milling of palay, corn, sugar cane and raw sugar, livestock, poultry feeds, fertilizer, ingredients used for the manufacture of feeds). (b) Goods used for personal consumption or use (household and personal effects of

citizens returning to the Philippines) or for professional use, like professional instruments and implements, by persons coming to the Philippines to settle here. (c) Goods subject to excise tax such as petroleum products or to be used for manufacture of petroleum products subject to excise tax and services subject to percentage tax. (d) Educational services, medical, dental, hospital and veterinary services, and services rendered under employer-employee relationship. (e) Works of art and similar creations sold by the artist himself. (f) Transactions exempted under special laws, or international agreements. (g) Export-sales by persons not VAT-registered. (h) Goods or services with gross annual sale or receipt not exceeding P500,000.00. (Respondents' Consolidated Comment on the Motions for Reconsideration, pp. 58-60)

The PPI asserts that it does not really matter that the law does not discriminate against the press because "even nondiscriminatory taxation on constitutionally guaranteed freedom is unconstitutional." PPI cites in support of this assertion the following statement in Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 87 L. Ed. 1292 (1943):
The fact that the ordinance is "nondiscriminatory" is immaterial. The protection afforded by the First Amendment is not so restricted. A license tax certainly does not acquire constitutional validity because it classifies the privileges protected by the First Amendment along with the wares and merchandise of hucksters and peddlers and treats them all alike. Such equality in treatment does not save the ordinance. Freedom of press,

freedom of speech, freedom of religion are in preferred position.

The Court was speaking in that case of a license tax, which, unlike an ordinary tax, is mainly for regulation. Its imposition on the press is unconstitutional because it lays a prior restraint on the exercise of its right. Hence, although its application to others, such those selling goods, is valid, its application to the press or to religious groups, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, in connection with the latter's sale of religious books and pamphlets, is unconstitutional. As the U.S. Supreme Court put it, "it is one thing to impose a tax on income or property of a preacher. It is quite another thing to exact a tax on him for delivering a sermon." A similar ruling was made by this Court in American Bible Society v. City of Manila, 101 Phil. 386 (1957) which invalidated a city ordinance requiring a business license fee on those engaged in the sale of general merchandise. It was held that the tax could not be imposed on the sale of bibles by the American Bible Society without restraining the free exercise of its right to propagate. The VAT is, however, different. It is not a license tax. It is not a tax on the exercise of a privilege, much less a constitutional right. It is imposed on the sale, barter, lease or exchange of goods or properties or the sale or exchange of services and the lease of properties purely for revenue purposes. To subject the press to its payment is not to burden the exercise of its right any more than to make the press pay income tax or subject it to general regulation is not to violate its freedom under the Constitution.

Additionally, the Philippine Bible Society, Inc. claims that although it sells bibles, the proceeds derived from the sales are used to subsidize the cost of printing copies which are given free to those who cannot afford to pay so that to tax the sales would be to increase the price, while reducing the volume of sale. Granting that to be the case, the resulting burden on the exercise of religious freedom is so incidental as to make it difficult to differentiate it from any other economic imposition that might make the right to disseminate religious doctrines costly. Otherwise, to follow the petitioner's argument, to increase the tax on the sale of vestments would be to lay an impermissible burden on the right of the preacher to make a sermon. On the other hand the registration fee of P1,000.00 imposed by 107 of the NIRC, as amended by 7 of R.A. No. 7716, although fixed in amount, is really just to pay for the expenses of registration and enforcement of provisions such as those relating to accounting in 108 of the NIRC. That the PBS distributes free bibles and therefore is not liable to pay the VAT does not excuse it from the payment of this fee because it also sells some copies. At any rate whether the PBS is liable for the VAT must be decided in concrete cases, in the event it is assessed this tax by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. VII. Alleged violations of the due process, equal protection and contract clauses and the rule on taxation. CREBA asserts that R.A. No. 7716 (1) impairs the obligations of contracts, (2) classifies transactions as covered or exempt without reasonable basis and (3) violates the rule that taxes should be uniform and equitable and that Congress

shall "evolve a progressive system of taxation." With respect to the first contention, it is claimed that the application of the tax to existing contracts of the sale of real property by installment or on deferred payment basis would result in substantial increases in the monthly amortizations to be paid because of the 10% VAT. The additional amount, it is pointed out, is something that the buyer did not anticipate at the time he entered into the contract. The short answer to this is the one given by this Court in an early case: "Authorities from numerous sources are cited by the plaintiffs, but none of them show that a lawful tax on a new subject, or an increased tax on an old one, interferes with a contract or impairs its obligation, within the meaning of the Constitution. Even though such taxation may affect particular contracts, as it may increase the debt of one person and lessen the security of another, or may impose additional burdens upon one class and release the burdens of another, still the tax must be paid unless prohibited by the Constitution, nor can it be said that it impairs the obligation of any existing contract in its true legal sense." (La Insular v. Machuca Go-Tauco and Nubla Co-Siong, 39 Phil. 567, 574 (1919)). Indeed not only existing laws but also "the reservation of the essential attributes of sovereignty, is . . . read into contracts as a postulate of the legal order." (Philippine-American Life Ins. Co. v. Auditor General, 22 SCRA 135, 147 (1968)) Contracts must be understood as having been made in reference to the possible exercise of the rightful authority of the government and no obligation of contract can extend to the defeat of that authority. (Norman v. Baltimore and Ohio R.R., 79 L. Ed.

885 (1935)). It is next pointed out that while 4 of R.A. No. 7716 exempts such transactions as the sale of agricultural products, food items, petroleum, and medical and veterinary services, it grants no exemption on the sale of real property which is equally essential. The sale of real property for socialized and low-cost housing is exempted from the tax, but CREBA claims that real estate transactions of "the less poor," i.e., the middle class, who are equally homeless, should likewise be exempted. The sale of food items, petroleum, medical and veterinary services, etc., which are essential goods and services was already exempt under 103, pars. (b) (d) (1) of the NIRC before the enactment of R.A. No. 7716. Petitioner is in error in claiming that R.A. No. 7716 granted exemption to these transactions, while subjecting those of petitioner to the payment of the VAT. Moreover, there is a difference between the "homeless poor" and the "homeless less poor" in the example given by petitioner, because the second group or middle class can afford to rent houses in the meantime that they cannot yet buy their own homes. The two social classes are thus differently situated in life. "It is inherent in the power to tax that the State be free to select the subjects of taxation, and it has been repeatedly held that 'inequalities which result from a singling out of one particular class for taxation, or exemption infringe no constitutional limitation.'" (Lutz v. Araneta, 98 Phil. 148, 153 (1955). Accord, City of Baguio v. De Leon, 134 Phil. 912 (1968); Sison, Jr. v. Ancheta, 130 SCRA 654, 663 (1984); Kapatiran ng mga Naglilingkod sa Pamahalaan ng Pilipinas, Inc. v. Tan, 163 SCRA 371

(1988)). Finally, it is contended, for the reasons already noted, that R.A. No. 7716 also violates Art. VI, 28(1) which provides that "The rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable. The Congress shall evolve a progressive system of taxation." Equality and uniformity of taxation means that all taxable articles or kinds of property of the same class be taxed at the same rate. The taxing power has the authority to make reasonable and natural classifications for purposes of taxation. To satisfy this requirement it is enough that the statute or ordinance applies equally to all persons, forms and corporations placed in similar situation. (City of Baguio v. De Leon, supra; Sison, Jr. v. Ancheta, supra) Indeed, the VAT was already provided in E.O. No. 273 long before R.A. No. 7716 was enacted. R.A. No. 7716 merely expands the base of the tax. The validity of the original VAT Law was questioned in Kapatiran ng Naglilingkod sa Pamahalaan ng Pilipinas, Inc. v. Tan, 163 SCRA 383 (1988) on grounds similar to those made in these cases, namely, that the law was "oppressive, discriminatory, unjust and regressive in violation of Art. VI, 28(1) of the Constitution." (At 382) Rejecting the challenge to the law, this Court held:
As the Court sees it, EO 273 satisfies all the requirements of a valid tax. It is uniform. . . . The sales tax adopted in EO 273 is applied similarly on all goods and services sold to the public, which are not exempt, at the constant rate of 0% or 10%. The disputed sales tax is also equitable. It is imposed only on sales of goods or services

by persons engaged in business with an aggregate gross annual sales exceeding P200,000.00. Small corner sari-sari stores are consequently exempt from its application. Likewise exempt from the tax are sales of farm and marine products, so that the costs of basic food and other necessities, spared as they are from the incidence of the VAT, are expected to be relatively lower and within the reach of the general public. (At 382-383)

The CREBA claims that the VAT is regressive. A similar claim is made by the Cooperative Union of the Philippines, Inc. (CUP), while petitioner Juan T. David argues that the law contravenes the mandate of Congress to provide for a progressive system of taxation because the law imposes a flat rate of 10% and thus places the tax burden on all taxpayers without regard to their ability to pay. The Constitution does not really prohibit the imposition of indirect taxes which, like the VAT, are regressive. What it simply provides is that Congress shall "evolve a progressive system of taxation." The constitutional provision has been interpreted to mean simply that "direct taxes are . . . to be preferred [and] as much as possible, indirect taxes should be minimized." (E. FERNANDO, THE CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES 221 (Second ed. (1977)). Indeed, the mandate to Congress is not to prescribe, but to evolve, a progressive tax system. Otherwise, sales taxes, which perhaps are the oldest form of indirect taxes, would have been prohibited with the proclamation of Art. VIII, 17(1) of the 1973 Constitution from which the present Art. VI, 28(1) was taken. Sales taxes are also regressive.

Resort to indirect taxes should be minimized but not avoided entirely because it is difficult, if not impossible, to avoid them by imposing such taxes according to the taxpayers' ability to pay. In the case of the VAT, the law minimizes the regressive effects of this imposition by providing for zero rating of certain transactions (R.A. No. 7716, 3, amending 102 (b) of the NIRC), while granting exemptions to other transactions. (R.A. No. 7716, 4, amending 103 of the NIRC). Thus, the following transactions involving basic and essential goods and services are exempted from the VAT:
(a) Goods for consumption or use which are in their original state (agricultural, marine and forest products, cotton seeds in their original state, fertilizers, seeds, seedlings, fingerlings, fish, prawn livestock and poultry feeds) and goods or services to enhance agriculture (milling of palay, corn sugar cane and raw sugar, livestock, poultry feeds, fertilizer, ingredients used for the manufacture of feeds). (b) Goods used for personal consumption or use (household and personal effects of citizens returning to the Philippines) and or professional use, like professional instruments and implements, by persons coming to the Philippines to settle here. (c) Goods subject to excise tax such as petroleum products or to be used for manufacture of petroleum products subject to excise tax and services subject to percentage tax. (d) Educational services, medical, dental, hospital and veterinary services, and services rendered under employer-employee relationship.

(e) Works of art and similar creations sold by the artist himself. (f) Transactions exempted under special laws, or international agreements. (g) Export-sales by persons not VAT-registered. (h) Goods or services with gross annual sale or receipt not exceeding P500,000.00. (Respondents' Consolidated Comment on the Motions for Reconsideration, pp. 58-60)

On the other hand, the transactions which are subject to the VAT are those which involve goods and services which are used or availed of mainly by higher income groups. These include real properties held primarily for sale to customers or for lease in the ordinary course of trade or business, the right or privilege to use patent, copyright, and other similar property or right, the right or privilege to use industrial, commercial or scientific equipment, motion picture films, tapes and discs, radio, television, satellite transmission and cable television time, hotels, restaurants and similar places, securities, lending investments, taxicabs, utility cars for rent, tourist buses, and other common carriers, services of franchise grantees of telephone and telegraph. The problem with CREBA's petition is that it presents broad claims of constitutional violations by tendering issues not at retail but at wholesale and in the abstract. There is no fully developed record which can impart to adjudication the impact of actuality. There is no factual foundation to show in the concrete the application of the law to actual contracts and exemplify its effect on property rights. For the fact is that petitioner's members have not even been assessed the VAT. Petitioner's case is not

made concrete by a series of hypothetical questions asked which are no different from those dealt with in advisory opinions.
The difficulty confronting petitioner is thus apparent. He alleges arbitrariness. A mere allegation, as here, does not suffice. There must be a factual foundation of such unconstitutional taint. Considering that petitioner here would condemn such a provision as void on its face, he has not made out a case. This is merely to adhere to the authoritative doctrine that where the due process and equal protection clauses are invoked, considering that they are not fixed rules but rather broad standards, there is a need for proof of such persuasive character as would lead to such a conclusion. Absent such a showing, the presumption of validity must prevail. (Sison, Jr. v. Ancheta, 130 SCRA at 661)

Adjudication of these broad claims must await the development of a concrete case. It may be that postponement of adjudication would result in a multiplicity of suits. This need not be the case, however. Enforcement of the law may give rise to such a case. A test case, provided it is an actual case and not an abstract or hypothetical one, may thus be presented. Nor is hardship to taxpayers alone an adequate justification for adjudicating abstract issues. Otherwise, adjudication would be no different from the giving of advisory opinion that does not really settle legal issues. We are told that it is our duty under Art. VIII, 1, 2 to decide whenever a claim is made that "there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of

jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government." This duty can only arise if an actual case or controversy is before us. Under Art . VIII, 5 our jurisdiction is defined in terms of "cases" and all that Art. VIII, 1, 2 can plausibly mean is that in the exercise of that jurisdiction we have the judicial power to determine questions of grave abuse of discretion by any branch or instrumentality of the government. Put in another way, what is granted in Art. VIII, 1, 2 is "judicial power," which is "the power of a court to hear and decide cases pending between parties who have the right to sue and be sued in the courts of law and equity" (Lamb v. Phipps, 22 Phil. 456, 559 (1912)), as distinguished from legislative and executive power. This power cannot be directly appropriated until it is apportioned among several courts either by the Constitution, as in the case of Art. VIII, 5, or by statute, as in the case of the Judiciary Act of 1948 (R.A. No. 296) and the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 (B.P. Blg. 129). The power thus apportioned constitutes the court's "jurisdiction," defined as "the power conferred by law upon a court or judge to take cognizance of a case, to the exclusion of all others." (United States v. Arceo, 6 Phil. 29 (1906)) Without an actual case coming within its jurisdiction, this Court cannot inquire into any allegation of grave abuse of discretion by the other departments of the government. VIII. Alleged violation of policy towards cooperatives. On the other hand, the Cooperative Union of the Philippines (CUP), after briefly surveying the course of legislation, argues that it was to adopt a definite policy of granting tax exemption to

cooperatives that the present Constitution embodies provisions on cooperatives. To subject cooperatives to the VAT would therefore be to infringe a constitutional policy. Petitioner claims that in 1973, P.D. No. 175 was promulgated exempting cooperatives from the payment of income taxes and sales taxes but in 1984, because of the crisis which menaced the national economy, this exemption was withdrawn by P.D. No. 1955; that in 1986, P.D. No. 2008 again granted cooperatives exemption from income and sales taxes until December 31, 1991, but, in the same year, E.O. No. 93 revoked the exemption; and that finally in 1987 the framers of the Constitution "repudiated the previous actions of the government adverse to the interests of the cooperatives, that is, the repeated revocation of the tax exemption to cooperatives and instead upheld the policy of strengthening the cooperatives by way of the grant of tax exemptions," by providing the following in Art. XII:
1. The goals of the national economy are a more equitable distribution of opportunities, income, and wealth; a sustained increase in the amount of goods and services produced by the nation for the benefit of the people; and an expanding productivity as the key to raising the quality of life for all, especially the underprivileged. The State shall promote industrialization and full employment based on sound agricultural development and agrarian reform, through industries that make full and efficient use of human and natural resources, and which are competitive in both domestic and foreign markets. However, the State shall protect Filipino enterprises against unfair foreign competition and trade practices. In the pursuit of these goals, all sectors of the economy and all regions of the country

shall be given optimum opportunity to develop. Private enterprises, including corporations, cooperatives, and similar collective organizations, shall be encouraged to broaden the base of their ownership. 15. The Congress shall create an agency to promote the viability and growth of cooperatives as instruments for social justice and economic development.

Petitioner's contention has no merit. In the first place, it is not true that P.D. No. 1955 singled out cooperatives by withdrawing their exemption from income and sales taxes under P.D. No. 175, 5. What P.D. No. 1955, 1 did was to withdraw the exemptions and preferential treatments theretofore granted to private business enterprises in general, in view of the economic crisis which then beset the nation. It is true that after P.D. No. 2008, 2 had restored the tax exemptions of cooperatives in 1986, the exemption was again repealed by E.O. No. 93, 1, but then again cooperatives were not the only ones whose exemptions were withdrawn. The withdrawal of tax incentives applied to all, including government and private entities. In the second place, the Constitution does not really require that cooperatives be granted tax exemptions in order to promote their growth and viability. Hence, there is no basis for petitioner's assertion that the government's policy toward cooperatives had been one of vacillation, as far as the grant of tax privileges was concerned, and that it was to put an end to this indecision that the constitutional provisions cited were adopted. Perhaps as a matter of policy cooperatives should be granted tax exemptions, but that is left to the discretion of Congress. If Congress does not grant exemption and there is no discrimination to

cooperatives, no violation of any constitutional policy can be charged. Indeed, petitioner's theory amounts to saying that under the Constitution cooperatives are exempt from taxation. Such theory is contrary to the Constitution under which only the following are exempt from taxation: charitable institutions, churches and parsonages, by reason of Art. VI, 28 (3), and non-stock, non-profit educational institutions by reason of Art. XIV, 4 (3). CUP's further ground for seeking the invalidation of R.A. No. 7716 is that it denies cooperatives the equal protection of the law because electric cooperatives are exempted from the VAT. The classification between electric and other cooperatives (farmers cooperatives, producers cooperatives, marketing cooperatives, etc.) apparently rests on a congressional determination that there is greater need to provide cheaper electric power to as many people as possible, especially those living in the rural areas, than there is to provide them with other necessities in life. We cannot say that such classification is unreasonable. We have carefully read the various arguments raised against the constitutional validity of R.A. No. 7716. We have in fact taken the extraordinary step of enjoining its enforcement pending resolution of these cases. We have now come to the conclusion that the law suffers from none of the infirmities attributed to it by petitioners and that its enactment by the other branches of the government does not constitute a grave abuse of discretion. Any question as to its necessity, desirability or expediency must be

addressed to Congress as the body which is electorally responsible, remembering that, as Justice Holmes has said, "legislators are the ultimate guardians of the liberties and welfare of the people in quite as great a degree as are the courts." (Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co. v. May, 194 U.S. 267, 270, 48 L. Ed. 971, 973 (1904)). It is not right, as petitioner in G.R. No. 115543 does in arguing that we should enforce the public accountability of legislators, that those who took part in passing the law in question by voting for it in Congress should later thrust to the courts the burden of reviewing measures in the flush of enactment. This Court does not sit as a third branch of the legislature, much less exercise a veto power over legislation. WHEREFORE, the motions for reconsideration are denied with finality and the temporary restraining order previously issued is hereby lifted. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 153793 August 29, 2006 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, vs. JULIANE BAIER-NICKEL, as represented by Marina Q. Guzman (Attorney-in-fact) Respondent. DECISION YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: Petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) appeals from the January 18, 2002 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 59794, which granted the tax refund of respondent Juliane Baier-Nickel and reversed the June 28, 2000 Decision2 of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) in C.T.A. Case No. 5633. Petitioner also assails the May 8, 2002 Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals denying its motion for reconsideration. The facts show that respondent Juliane Baier-Nickel, a non-resident German citizen, is the President of JUBANITEX, Inc., a domestic corporation engaged in "[m]anufacturing, marketing on wholesale only, buying or otherwise acquiring, holding, importing and exporting, selling and disposing embroidered textile products."4 Through JUBANITEXs General Manager, Marina Q. Guzman, the corporation appointed and engaged the services of respondent as commission agent. It was agreed that respondent will receive 10% sales commission on all sales actually concluded and collected through her efforts.5

In 1995, respondent received the amount of P1,707,772.64, representing her sales commission income from which JUBANITEX withheld the corresponding 10% withholding tax amounting to P170,777.26, and remitted the same to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). On October 17, 1997, respondent filed her 1995 income tax return reporting a taxable income of P1,707,772.64 and a tax due of P170,777.26.6 On April 14, 1998, respondent filed a claim to refund the amount of P170,777.26 alleged to have been mistakenly withheld and remitted by JUBANITEX to the BIR. Respondent contended that her sales commission income is not taxable in the Philippines because the same was a compensation for her services rendered in Germany and therefore considered as income from sources outside the Philippines. The next day, April 15, 1998, she filed a petition for review with the CTA contending that no action was taken by the BIR on her claim for refund.7 On June 28, 2000, the CTA rendered a decision denying her claim. It held that the commissions received by respondent were actually her remuneration in the performance of her duties as President of JUBANITEX and not as a mere sales agent thereof. The income derived by respondent is therefore an income taxable in the Philippines because JUBANITEX is a domestic corporation. On petition with the Court of Appeals, the latter reversed the Decision of the CTA, holding that respondent received the commissions as sales agent of JUBANITEX and not as President thereof. And since the "source" of income means the activity or service that produce the income, the sales commission received by respondent is not taxable in the Philippines because it arose

from the marketing activities performed by respondent in Germany. The dispositive portion of the appellate courts Decision, reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed decision of the Court of Tax Appeals dated June 28, 2000 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the respondent court is hereby directed to grant petitioner a tax refund in the amount of Php 170,777.26. SO ORDERED.8 Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied.9 Hence, the instant recourse. Petitioner maintains that the income earned by respondent is taxable in the Philippines because the source thereof is JUBANITEX, a domestic corporation located in the City of Makati. It thus implied that source of income means the physical source where the income came from. It further argued that since respondent is the President of JUBANITEX, any remuneration she received from said corporation should be construed as payment of her overall managerial services to the company and should not be interpreted as a compensation for a distinct and separate service as a sales commission agent. Respondent, on the other hand, claims that the income she received was payment for her marketing services. She contended that income of nonresident aliens like her is subject to tax only if the source of the income is within the Philippines. Source, according to respondent is the situs of the activity which produced the income. And since the source of her income were her marketing activities in Germany, the income she derived from said activities is not subject to Philippine income taxation.

The issue here is whether respondents sales commission income is taxable in the Philippines. Pertinent portion of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), states: SEC. 25. Tax on Nonresident Alien Individual. (A) Nonresident Alien Engaged in Trade or Business Within the Philippines. (1) In General. A nonresident alien individual engaged in trade or business in the Philippines shall be subject to an income tax in the same manner as an individual citizen and a resident alien individual, on taxable income received from all sources within the Philippines. A nonresident alien individual who shall come to the Philippines and stay therein for an aggregate period of more than one hundred eighty (180) days during any calendar year shall be deemed a nonresident alien doing business in the Philippines, Section 22(G) of this Code notwithstanding. xxxx (B) Nonresident Alien Individual Not Engaged in Trade or Business Within the Philippines. There shall be levied, collected and paid for each taxable year upon the entire income received from all sources within the Philippines by every nonresident alien individual not engaged in trade or business within the Philippines x x x a tax equal to twenty-five percent (25%) of such income. x x x Pursuant to the foregoing provisions of the NIRC, non-resident aliens, whether or not engaged in trade or business, are subject to Philippine income taxation on their income received from all

sources within the Philippines. Thus, the keyword in determining the taxability of non-resident aliens is the incomes "source." In construing the meaning of "source" in Section 25 of the NIRC, resort must be had on the origin of the provision. The first Philippine income tax law enacted by the Philippine Legislature was Act No. 2833,10 which took effect on January 1, 1920.11 Under Section 1 thereof, nonresident aliens are likewise subject to tax on income "from all sources within the Philippine Islands," thus SECTION 1. (a) There shall be levied, assessed, collected, and paid annually upon the entire net income received in the preceding calendar year from all sources by every individual, a citizen or resident of the Philippine Islands, a tax of two per centum upon such income; and a like tax shall be levied, assessed, collected, and paid annually upon the entire net income received in the preceding calendar year from all sources within the Philippine Islands by every individual, a nonresident alien, including interest on bonds, notes, or other interest-bearing obligations of residents, corporate or otherwise. Act No. 2833 substantially reproduced the United States (U.S.) Revenue Law of 1916 as amended by U.S. Revenue Law of 1917.12 Being a law of American origin, the authoritative decisions of the official charged with enforcing it in the U.S. have peculiar persuasive force in the Philippines.13 The Internal Revenue Code of the U.S. enumerates specific types of income to be treated as from sources within the U.S. and specifies when similar types of income are to be treated as

from sources outside the U.S.14 Under the said Code, compensation for labor and personal services performed in the U.S., is generally treated as income from U.S. sources; while compensation for said services performed outside the U.S., is treated as income from sources outside the U.S.15 A similar provision is found in Section 42 of our NIRC, thus: SEC. 42. x x x (A) Gross Income From Sources Within the Philippines. x x x xxxx (3) Services. Compensation for labor or personal services performed in the Philippines; xxxx (C) Gross Income From Sources Without the Philippines. x x x xxxx (3) Compensation for labor or personal services performed without the Philippines; The following discussions on sourcing of income under the Internal Revenue Code of the U.S., are instructive: The Supreme Court has said, in a definition much quoted but often debated, that income may be derived from three possible sources only: (1) capital and/or (2) labor; and/or (3) the sale of capital assets. While the three elements of this attempt at definition need not be accepted as allinclusive, they serve as useful guides in any inquiry into whether a particular item is from

"sources within the United States" and suggest an investigation into the nature and location of the activities or property which produce the income. If the income is from labor the place where the labor is done should be decisive; if it is done in this country, the income should be from "sources within the United States." If the income is from capital, the place where the capital is employed should be decisive; if it is employed in this country, the income should be from "sources within the United States." If the income is from the sale of capital assets, the place where the sale is made should be likewise decisive. Much confusion will be avoided by regarding the term "source" in this fundamental light. It is not a place, it is an activity or property. As such, it has a situs or location, and if that situs or location is within the United States the resulting income is taxable to nonresident aliens and foreign corporations. The intention of Congress in the 1916 and subsequent statutes was to discard the 1909 and 1913 basis of taxing nonresident aliens and foreign corporations and to make the test of taxability the "source," or situs of the activities or property which produce the income. The result is that, on the one hand, nonresident aliens and nonresident foreign corporations are prevented from deriving income from the United States free from tax, and, on the other hand, there is no undue imposition of a tax when the activities do not take place in, and the property producing income is not employed in, this country. Thus, if income is to be taxed, the recipient thereof must be resident within the jurisdiction, or the property or activities out of which the income issues or is derived must be situated within the jurisdiction so that the source of the income may be said to

have a situs in this country. The underlying theory is that the consideration for taxation is protection of life and property and that the income rightly to be levied upon to defray the burdens of the United States Government is that income which is created by activities and property protected by this Government or obtained by persons enjoying that protection. 16 The important factor therefore which determines the source of income of personal services is not the residence of the payor, or the place where the contract for service is entered into, or the place of payment, but the place where the services were actually rendered.17 In Alexander Howden & Co., Ltd. v. Collector of Internal Revenue,18 the Court addressed the issue on the applicable source rule relating to reinsurance premiums paid by a local insurance company to a foreign insurance company in respect of risks located in the Philippines. It was held therein that the undertaking of the foreign insurance company to indemnify the local insurance company is the activity that produced the income. Since the activity took place in the Philippines, the income derived therefrom is taxable in our jurisdiction. Citing Mertens, The Law of Federal Income Taxation, the Court emphasized that the technical meaning of source of income is the property, activity or service that produced the same. Thus: The source of an income is the property, activity or service that produced the income. The reinsurance premiums remitted to appellants by virtue of the reinsurance contracts, accordingly, had for their source the undertaking to indemnify Commonwealth Insurance Co. against liability. Said undertaking is the activity that produced the reinsurance premiums, and the same took

place in the Philippines. x x x the reinsured, the liabilities insured and the risk originally underwritten by Commonwealth Insurance Co., upon which the reinsurance premiums and indemnity were based, were all situated in the Philippines. x x x19 In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. British Overseas Airways Corporation (BOAC),20 the issue was whether BOAC, a foreign airline company which does not maintain any flight to and from the Philippines is liable for Philippine income taxation in respect of sales of air tickets in the Philippines, through a general sales agent relating to the carriage of passengers and cargo between two points both outside the Philippines. Ruling in the affirmative, the Court applied the case of Alexander Howden & Co., Ltd. v. Collector of Internal Revenue, and reiterated the rule that the source of income is that "activity" which produced the income. It was held that the "sale of tickets" in the Philippines is the "activity" that produced the income and therefore BOAC should pay income tax in the Philippines because it undertook an income producing activity in the country. Both the petitioner and respondent cited the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. British Overseas Airways Corporation in support of their arguments, but the correct interpretation of the said case favors the theory of respondent that it is the situs of the activity that determines whether such income is taxable in the Philippines. The conflict between the majority and the dissenting opinion in the said case has nothing to do with the underlying principle of the law on sourcing of income. In fact, both applied the case of Alexander Howden & Co., Ltd. v. Collector of Internal Revenue. The divergence in opinion centered on whether the sale of tickets in the

Philippines is to be construed as the "activity" that produced the income, as viewed by the majority, or merely the physical source of the income, as ratiocinated by Justice Florentino P. Feliciano in his dissent. The majority, through Justice Ameurfina Melencio-Herrera, as ponente, interpreted the sale of tickets as a business activity that gave rise to the income of BOAC. Petitioner cannot therefore invoke said case to support its view that source of income is the physical source of the money earned. If such was the interpretation of the majority, the Court would have simply stated that source of income is not the business activity of BOAC but the place where the person or entity disbursing the income is located or where BOAC physically received the same. But such was not the import of the ruling of the Court. It even explained in detail the business activity undertaken by BOAC in the Philippines to pinpoint the taxable activity and to justify its conclusion that BOAC is subject to Philippine income taxation. Thus BOAC, during the periods covered by the subject assessments, maintained a general sales agent in the Philippines. That general sales agent, from 1959 to 1971, "was engaged in (1) selling and issuing tickets; (2) breaking down the whole trip into series of trips each trip in the series corresponding to a different airline company; (3) receiving the fare from the whole trip; and (4) consequently allocating to the various airline companies on the basis of their participation in the services rendered through the mode of interline settlement as prescribed by Article VI of the Resolution No. 850 of the IATA Agreement." Those activities were in exercise of the functions which are normally incident to, and are in progressive pursuit of, the purpose and object of its organization as an international air carrier. In fact, the regular sale of tickets, its main activity, is the very lifeblood of the airline business, the generation of sales being the paramount objective.

There should be no doubt then that BOAC was "engaged in" business in the Philippines through a local agent during the period covered by the assessments. x x x21 xxxx The source of an income is the property, activity or service that produced the income. For the source of income to be considered as coming from the Philippines, it is sufficient that the income is derived from activity within the Philippines. In BOAC's case, the sale of tickets in the Philippines is the activity that produces the income. The tickets exchanged hands here and payments for fares were also made here in Philippine currency. The situs of the source of payments is the Philippines. The flow of wealth proceeded from, and occurred within, Philippine territory, enjoying the protection accorded by the Philippine government. In consideration of such protection, the flow of wealth should share the burden of supporting the government. A transportation ticket is not a mere piece of paper. When issued by a common carrier, it constitutes the contract between the ticket-holder and the carrier. It gives rise to the obligation of the purchaser of the ticket to pay the fare and the corresponding obligation of the carrier to transport the passenger upon the terms and conditions set forth thereon. The ordinary ticket issued to members of the traveling public in general embraces within its terms all the elements to constitute it a valid contract, binding upon the parties entering into the relationship.22 The Court reiterates the rule that "source of income" relates to the property, activity or service that produced the income. With respect to rendition of labor or personal service, as in the instant case, it is the place where the labor or service was performed that determines the source of the

income. There is therefore no merit in petitioners interpretation which equates source of income in labor or personal service with the residence of the payor or the place of payment of the income. Having disposed of the doctrine applicable in this case, we will now determine whether respondent was able to establish the factual circumstances showing that her income is exempt from Philippine income taxation. The decisive factual consideration here is not the capacity in which respondent received the income, but the sufficiency of evidence to prove that the services she rendered were performed in Germany. Though not raised as an issue, the Court is clothed with authority to address the same because the resolution thereof will settle the vital question posed in this controversy.23 The settled rule is that tax refunds are in the nature of tax exemptions and are to be construed strictissimi juris against the taxpayer.24 To those therefore, who claim a refund rest the burden of proving that the transaction subjected to tax is actually exempt from taxation. In the instant case, the appointment letter of respondent as agent of JUBANITEX stipulated that the activity or the service which would entitle her to 10% commission income, are "sales actually concluded and collected through [her] efforts."25 What she presented as evidence to prove that she performed income producing activities abroad, were copies of documents she allegedly faxed to JUBANITEX and bearing instructions as to the sizes of, or designs and fabrics to be used in the finished products as well as samples of sales orders purportedly relayed to her by clients. However, these documents do not show whether the instructions or orders

faxed ripened into concluded or collected sales in Germany. At the very least, these pieces of evidence show that while respondent was in Germany, she sent instructions/orders to JUBANITEX. As to whether these instructions/orders gave rise to consummated sales and whether these sales were truly concluded in Germany, respondent presented no such evidence. Neither did she establish reasonable connection between the orders/instructions faxed and the reported monthly sales purported to have transpired in Germany. The paucity of respondents evidence was even noted by Atty. Minerva Pacheco, petitioners counsel at the hearing before the Court of Tax Appeals. She pointed out that respondent presented no contracts or orders signed by the customers in Germany to prove the sale transactions therein.26 Likewise, in her Comment to the Formal Offer of respondents evidence, she objected to the admission of the faxed documents bearing instruction/orders marked as Exhibits "R,"27 "V," "W", and "X,"28 for being self serving.29 The concern raised by petitioners counsel as to the absence of substantial evidence that would constitute proof that the sale transactions for which respondent was paid commission actually transpired outside the Philippines, is relevant because respondent stayed in the Philippines for 89 days in 1995. Except for the months of July and September 1995, respondent was in the Philippines in the months of March, May, June, and August 1995,30 the same months when she earned commission income for services allegedly performed abroad. Furthermore, respondent presented no evidence to prove that JUBANITEX does not sell embroidered products in the Philippines and that her appointment as commission agent is exclusively for Germany and other European markets.

In sum, we find that the faxed documents presented by respondent did not constitute substantial evidence, or that relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support the conclusion31 that it was in Germany where she performed the income producing service which gave rise to the reported monthly sales in the months of March and May to September of 1995. She thus failed to discharge the burden of proving that her income was from sources outside the Philippines and exempt from the application of our income tax law. Hence, the claim for tax refund should be denied. The Court notes that in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Baier-Nickel,32 a previous case for refund of income withheld from respondents remunerations for services rendered abroad, the Court in a Minute Resolution dated February 17, 2003,33 sustained the ruling of the Court of Appeals that respondent is entitled to refund the sum withheld from her sales commission income for the year 1994. This ruling has no bearing in the instant controversy because the subject matter thereof is the income of respondent for the year 1994 while, the instant case deals with her income in 1995. Otherwise, stated, res judicata has no application here. Its elements are: (1) there must be a final judgment or order; (2) the court that rendered the judgment must have jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) it must be a judgment on the merits; (4) there must be between the two cases identity of parties, of subject matter, and of causes of action. 34 The instant case, however, did not satisfy the fourth requisite because there is no identity as to the subject matter of the previous and present case of respondent which deals with income earned and activities performed for different taxable years.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the January 18, 2002 Decision and May 8, 2002 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 59794, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The June 28, 2000 Decision of the Court of Tax Appeals in C.T.A. Case No. 5633, which denied respondents claim for refund of income tax paid for the year 1995 is REINSTATED. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. L-29646 November 10, 1978 MAYOR ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS, petitioner, vs. HIU CHIONG TSAI PAO HO and JUDGE FRANCISCO ARCA, respondents. Angel C. Cruz, Gregorio A. Ejercito, Felix C. Chaves & Jose Laureta for petitioner. Sotero H. Laurel for respondents. FERNANDEZ, J.: This is a petition for certiorari to review tile decision dated September 17, 1968 of respondent Judge Francisco Arca of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch I, in Civil Case No. 72797, the dispositive portion of winch reads.
Wherefore, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the petitioner and against the respondents, declaring Ordinance No. 6 37 of the City of Manila null and void. The preliminary injunction is made permanent. No pronouncement as to cost. SO ORDERED. Manila, Philippines, September 17, 1968. (SGD.) FRANCISCO ARCA Judge 1

The controverted Ordinance No. 6537 was passed by the Municipal Board of Manila on February 22, 1968 and signed by the herein petitioner Mayor Antonio J. Villegas of Manila on March 27, 1968. 2 City Ordinance No. 6537 is entitled: AN ORDINANCE MAKING IT UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON NOT A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES TO BE EMPLOYED IN ANY PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT OR TO BE ENGAGED IN ANY KIND OF TRADE, BUSINESS OR OCCUPATION WITHIN THE CITY OF MANILA WITHOUT FIRST SECURING AN EMPLOYMENT PERMIT FROM THE MAYOR OF MANILA; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. 3 Section 1 of said Ordinance No. 6537 4 prohibits aliens from being employed or to engage or participate in any position or occupation or business enumerated therein, whether permanent, temporary or casual, without first securing an employment permit from the Mayor of Manila and paying the permit fee of P50.00 except persons employed in the diplomatic or consular missions of foreign countries, or in the technical assistance programs of both the Philippine Government and any foreign government, and those working in their respective households, and members of religious orders or congregations, sect or denomination, who are not paid monetarily or in kind. Violations of this ordinance is punishable by an imprisonment of not less than three (3) months to six (6) months or fine of not less than P100.00 but not more than P200.00 or both such fine and imprisonment, upon conviction. 5 On May 4, 1968, private respondent Hiu Chiong Tsai Pao Ho who was employed in Manila, filed a petition with the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch I, denominated as Civil Case No. 72797,

praying for the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction and restraining order to stop the enforcement of Ordinance No. 6537 as well as for a judgment declaring said Ordinance No. 6537 null and void. 6 In this petition, Hiu Chiong Tsai Pao Ho assigned the following as his grounds for wanting the ordinance declared null and void: 1) As a revenue measure imposed on aliens employed in the City of Manila, Ordinance No. 6537 is discriminatory and violative of the rule of the uniformity in taxation; 2) As a police power measure, it makes no distinction between useful and non-useful occupations, imposing a fixed P50.00 employment permit, which is out of proportion to the cost of registration and that it fails to prescribe any standard to guide and/or limit the action of the Mayor, thus, violating the fundamental principle on illegal delegation of legislative powers: 3) It is arbitrary, oppressive and unreasonable, being applied only to aliens who are thus, deprived of their rights to life, liberty and property and therefore, violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution. 7 On May 24, 1968, respondent Judge issued the writ of preliminary injunction and on September 17, 1968 rendered judgment declaring Ordinance No. 6537 null and void and making permanent the writ of preliminary injunction. 8 Contesting the aforecited decision of respondent Judge, then Mayor Antonio J. Villegas filed the present petition on March 27, 1969. Petitioner assigned the following as errors allegedly committed by respondent Judge in the latter's decision of September 17,1968: 9

I THE RESPONDENT JUDGE COMMITTED A SERIOUS AND PATENT ERROR OF LAW IN RULING THAT ORDINANCE NO. 6537 VIOLATED THE CARDINAL RULE OF UNIFORMITY OF TAXATION. II RESPONDENT JUDGE LIKEWISE COMMITTED A GRAVE AND PATENT ERROR OF LAW IN RULING THAT ORDINANCE NO. 6537 VIOLATED THE PRINCIPLE AGAINST UNDUE DESIGNATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER. III RESPONDENT JUDGE FURTHER COMMITTED A SERIOUS AND PATENT ERROR OF LAW IN RULING THAT ORDINANCE NO. 6537 VIOLATED THE DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES OF THE CONSTITUTION. Petitioner Mayor Villegas argues that Ordinance No. 6537 cannot be declared null and void on the ground that it violated the rule on uniformity of taxation because the rule on uniformity of taxation applies only to purely tax or revenue measures and that Ordinance No. 6537 is not a tax or revenue measure but is an exercise of the police power of the state, it being principally a regulatory measure in nature. The contention that Ordinance No. 6537 is not a purely tax or revenue measure because its principal purpose is regulatory in nature has no merit. While it is true that the first part which requires that the alien shall secure an employment permit from the Mayor involves the exercise of discretion and judgment in the processing and approval or disapproval of applications for employment permits and therefore is regulatory in character the second part which requires the

payment of P50.00 as employee's fee is not regulatory but a revenue measure. There is no logic or justification in exacting P50.00 from aliens who have been cleared for employment. It is obvious that the purpose of the ordinance is to raise money under the guise of regulation. The P50.00 fee is unreasonable not only because it is excessive but because it fails to consider valid substantial differences in situation among individual aliens who are required to pay it. Although the equal protection clause of the Constitution does not forbid classification, it is imperative that the classification should be based on real and substantial differences having a reasonable relation to the subject of the particular legislation. The same amount of P50.00 is being collected from every employed alien whether he is casual or permanent, part time or full time or whether he is a lowly employee or a highly paid executive Ordinance No. 6537 does not lay down any criterion or standard to guide the Mayor in the exercise of his discretion. It has been held that where an ordinance of a municipality fails to state any policy or to set up any standard to guide or limit the mayor's action, expresses no purpose to be attained by requiring a permit, enumerates no conditions for its grant or refusal, and entirely lacks standard, thus conferring upon the Mayor arbitrary and unrestricted power to grant or deny the issuance of building permits, such ordinance is invalid, being an undefined and unlimited delegation of power to allow or prevent an activity per se lawful. 10 In Chinese Flour Importers Association vs. Price Stabilization Board, 11 where a law granted a government agency power to determine the allocation of wheat flour among importers, the Supreme Court ruled against the interpretation of uncontrolled power as it vested in the administrative officer an arbitrary discretion to be exercised without a policy, rule, or standard from which it can be measured or controlled.

It was also held in Primicias vs. Fugoso 12 that the authority and discretion to grant and refuse permits of all classes conferred upon the Mayor of Manila by the Revised Charter of Manila is not uncontrolled discretion but legal discretion to be exercised within the limits of the law. Ordinance No. 6537 is void because it does not contain or suggest any standard or criterion to guide the mayor in the exercise of the power which has been granted to him by the ordinance. The ordinance in question violates the due process of law and equal protection rule of the Constitution. Requiring a person before he can be employed to get a permit from the City Mayor of Manila who may withhold or refuse it at will is tantamount to denying him the basic right of the people in the Philippines to engage in a means of livelihood. While it is true that the Philippines as a State is not obliged to admit aliens within its territory, once an alien is admitted, he cannot be deprived of life without due process of law. This guarantee includes the means of livelihood. The shelter of protection under the due process and equal protection clause is given to all persons, both aliens and citizens. 13 The trial court did not commit the errors assigned. WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, without pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 143076 June 10, 2003 PHILIPPINE RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES ASSOCIATION, INC. (PHILRECA); AGUSAN DEL NORTE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. (ANECO); ILOILO I ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. (ILECO I); and ISABELA I ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. (ISELCO I), petitioners, vs. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, and THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, respondents. DECISION PUNO, J.: This is a petition for Prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order seeking to annul as unconstitutional sections 193 and 234 of R.A. No. 7160 otherwise known as the Local Government Code. On May 23, 2000, a class suit was filed by petitioners in their own behalf and in behalf of other electric cooperatives organized and existing under P.D. No. 269 who are members of petitioner Philippine Rural Electric Cooperatives Association, Inc. (PHILRECA). Petitioner PHILRECA is an association of 119 electric cooperatives throughout the country. Petitioners Agusan del Norte Electric Cooperative, Inc. (ANECO), Iloilo I Electric Cooperative, Inc. (ILECO I) and Isabela I Electric Cooperative, Inc. (ISELCO I) are non-stock, non-profit electric cooperatives organized and existing under P.D. No. 269, as amended, and registered with the National Electrification

Administration (NEA). Under P.D. No. 269, as amended, or the National Electrification Administration Decree, it is the declared policy of the State to provide "the total electrification of the Philippines on an area coverage basis" the same "being vital to the people and the sound development of the nation."1 Pursuant to this policy, P.D. No. 269 aims to "promote, encourage and assist all public service entities engaged in supplying electric service, particularly electric cooperatives" by "giving every tenable support and assistance" to the electric cooperatives coming within the purview of the law.2 Accordingly, Section 39 of P.D. No. 269 provides for the following tax incentives to electric cooperatives: SECTION 39. Assistance to Cooperatives; Exemption from Taxes, Imposts, Duties, Fees; Assistance from the National Power Corporation. Pursuant to the national policy declared in Section 2, the Congress hereby finds and declares that the following assistance to cooperative is necessary and appropriate: (a) Provided that it operates in conformity with the purposes and provisions of this Decree, cooperatives (1) shall be permanently exempt from paying income taxes, and (2) for a period ending on December 31 of the thirtieth full calendar year after the date of a cooperative's organization or conversion hereunder, or until it shall become completely free of indebtedness incurred by borrowing, whichever event first occurs, shall be exempt from the payment (a) of all National Government, local government and municipal taxes and fees, including franchise, filing, recordation, license or permit fees or taxes and any fees, charges, or costs

involved in any court or administrative proceeding in which it may be a party, and (b) of all duties or imposts on foreign goods acquired for its operations, the period of such exemption for a new cooperative formed by consolidation, as provided for in Section 29, to begin from as of the date of the beginning of such period for the constituent consolidating cooperative which was most recently organized or converted under this Decree: Provided, That the Board of Administrators shall, after consultation with the Bureau of Internal Revenue, promulgate rules and regulations for the proper implementation of the tax exemptions provided for in this Decree. .3 From 1971 to 1978, in order to finance the electrification projects envisioned by P.D. No. 269, as amended, the Philippine Government, acting through the National Economic Council (now National Economic Development Authority) and the NEA, entered into six (6) loan agreements with the government of the United States of America through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) with electric cooperatives, including petitioners ANECO, ILECO I and ISELCO I, as beneficiaries. The six (6) loan agreements involved a total amount of approximately US$86,000,000.00. These loan agreements are existing until today. The loan agreements contain similarly worded provisions on the tax application of the loan and any property or commodity acquired through the proceeds of the loan. Thus, Section 6.5 of A.I.D. Loan No. 492-H-027 dated November 15, 1971 provides: Section 6.5. Taxes and Duties. The Borrower covenants and agrees that this Loan Agreement

and the Loan provided for herein shall be free from, and the Principal and interest shall be paid to A.I.D. without deduction for and free from, any taxation or fees imposed under any laws or decrees in effect within the Republic of the Philippines or any such taxes or fees so imposed or payable shall be reimbursed by the Borrower with funds other than those provided under the Loan. To the extent that (a) any contractor, including any consulting firm, any personnel of such contractor financed hereunder, and any property or transactions relating to such contracts and (b) any commodity procurement transactions financed hereunder, are not exempt from identifiable taxes, tariffs, duties and other levies imposed under laws in effect in the country of the Borrower, the Borrower and/or Beneficiary shall pay or reimburse the same with funds other than those provided under the Loan.4 Petitioners contend that pursuant to the provisions of P.D. No. 269, as amended, and the abovementioned provision in the loan agreements, they are exempt from payment of local taxes, including payment of real property tax. With the passage of the Local Government Code, however, they allege that their tax exemptions have been invalidly withdrawn. In particular, petitioners assail Sections 193 and 234 of the Local Government Code on the ground that the said provisions discriminate against them, in violation of the equal protection clause. Further, they submit that the said provisions are unconstitutional because they impair the obligation of contracts between the Philippine Government and the United States Government. On July 25, 2000 we issued a Temporary Restraining Order.5 We note that the instant action was filed directly to this Court, in disregard of the rule on

hierarchy of courts. However, we opt to take primary jurisdiction over the present petition and decide the same on its merits in view of the significant constitutional issues raised by the parties dealing with the tax treatment of cooperatives under existing laws and in the interest of speedy justice and prompt disposition of the matter. I There is No Violation of the Equal Protection Clause The pertinent parts of Sections 193 and 234 of the Local Government Code provide: Section 193. Withdrawal of Tax Exemption Privileges.Unless otherwise provided in this Code, tax exemptions or incentives granted to, or presently enjoyed by all persons, whether natural or juridical, including government-owned and controlled corporations, except local water districts, cooperatives duly registered under R.A. No. 6938, non-stock and non-profit hospitals and educational institutions, are hereby withdrawn upon the effectivity of this Code. . Section 234. Exemptions from real property tax.The following are exempted from payment of the real property tax: . (d) All real property owned by duly registered cooperatives as provided for under R.A. No. 6938; and .

Except as provided herein, any exemption from payment of real property tax previously granted to, or presently enjoyed by, all persons whether natural or juridical, including all governmentowned and controlled corporations are hereby withdrawn upon effectivity of this Code.6 Petitioners argue that the above provisions of the Local Government Code are unconstitutional for violating the equal protection clause. Allegedly, said provisions unduly discriminate against petitioners who are duly registered cooperatives under P.D. No. 269, as amended, and not under R.A. No. 6938 or the Cooperative Code of the Philippines. They stress that cooperatives registered under R.A. No. 6938 are singled out for tax exemption privileges under the Local Government Code. They maintain that electric cooperatives registered with the NEA under P.D. No. 269, as amended, and electric cooperatives registered with the Cooperative Development Authority (CDA) under R.A. No. 6938 are similarly situated for the following reasons: a) petitioners are registered with the NEA which is a government agency like the CDA; b) petitioners, like CDA-registered cooperatives, operate for service to their member-consumers; and c) prior to the enactment of the Local Government Code, petitioners, like CDA-registered cooperatives, were already tax-exempt.7 Thus, petitioners contend that to grant tax exemptions from local government taxes, including real property tax under Sections 193 and 234 of the Local Government Code only to registered cooperatives under R.A. No. 6938 is a violation of the equal protection clause. We are not persuaded. The equal protection clause under the Constitution means that "no person or class of persons shall be deprived of the same protection of laws which is enjoyed by other

persons or other classes in the same place and in like circumstances."8 Thus, the guaranty of the equal protection of the laws is not violated by a law based on reasonable classification. Classification, to be reasonable, must (1) rest on substantial distinctions; (2) be germane to the purposes of the law; (3) not be limited to existing conditions only; and (4) apply equally to all members of the same class.9 We hold that there is reasonable classification under the Local Government Code to justify the different tax treatment between electric cooperatives covered by P.D. No. 269, as amended, and electric cooperatives under R.A. No. 6938. First, substantial distinctions exist between cooperatives under P.D. No. 269, as amended, and cooperatives under R.A. No. 6938. These distinctions are manifest in at least two material respects which go into the nature of cooperatives envisioned by R.A. No. 6938 and which characteristics are not present in the type of cooperative associations created under P.D. No. 269, as amended. a. Capital Contributions by Members A cooperative under R.A. No. 6938 is defined as: [A] duly registered association of persons with a common bond of interest, who have voluntarily joined together to achieve a lawful common or social economic end, making equitable contributions to the capital required and accepting a fair share of the risks and benefits of the undertaking in accordance with universally accepted cooperative principles.10

The above definition provides for the following elements of a cooperative: a) association of persons; b) common bond of interest; c) voluntary association; d) lawful common social or economic end; e) capital contributions; f) fair share of risks and benefits; g) adherence to cooperative values; and g) registration with the appropriate government authority.11 The importance of capital contributions by members of a cooperative under R.A. No. 6938 was emphasized during the Senate deliberations as one of the key factors which distinguished electric cooperatives under P.D. No. 269, as amended, from electric cooperatives under the Cooperative Code. Thus: Senator Osmea. Will this Code, Mr. President, cover electric cooperatives as they exist in the country today and are administered by the National Electrification Administration? Senator Aquino. That cannot be answered with a simple yes or no, Mr. President. The answer will depend on what provisions we will eventually come up with. Electric cooperatives as they exist today would not fall under the term "cooperative" as used in this bill because the concept of a cooperative is that which adheres and practices certain cooperative principles. . . Senator Aquino. To begin with, one of the most important requirements, Mr. President, is the principle where members bind themselves to help themselves. It is because of their collectivity that they can have some economic benefits. In this particular case [cooperatives under P.D. No. 269], the government is the one that funds these so-called electric cooperatives.

. Senator Aquino. That is why in Article III we have the following definition: A cooperative is an association of persons with a common bond of interest who have voluntarily joined together to achieve a common social or economic end, making equitable contributions to the capital required. In this particular case [cooperatives under P.D. No. 269], Mr. President, the members do not make substantial contribution to the capital required. It is the government that puts in the capital, in most cases. . Senator Osmea. Under line 6, Mr. President, making equitable contributions to the capital required would exclude electric cooperatives [under P.D. No. 269]. Because the membership does not make equitable contributions. Senator Aquino. Yes, Mr. President. This is precisely what I mean, that electric cooperatives [under P.D. No. 269] do not qualify in the spirit of cooperatives. That is the reason why they should be eventually assessed whether they intend to comply with the cooperatives or not. Because, if after giving them a second time, they do not comply, then, they should not be classified as cooperatives. Senator Osmea. Mr. President, the measure of their qualifying as a cooperative would be the requirement that a member of the electric cooperative must contribute a pro rata

share of the capital of the cooperative in cash to be a cooperative.12 Nowhere in P.D. No. 269, as amended, does it require cooperatives to make equitable contributions to capital. Petitioners themselves admit that to qualify as a member of an electric cooperative under P.D. No. 269, only the payment of a P5.00 membership fee is required which is even refundable the moment the member is no longer interested in getting electric service from the cooperative or will transfer to another place outside the area covered by the cooperative.13 However, under the Cooperative Code, the articles of cooperation of a cooperative applying for registration must be accompanied with the bonds of the accountable officers and a sworn statement of the treasurer elected by the subscribers showing that at least twenty-five per cent (25%) of the authorized share capital has been subscribed and at least twenty-five per cent (25%) of the total subscription has been paid and in no case shall the paidup share capital be less than Two thousand pesos (P2,000.00).14 b. Extent of Government Control over Cooperatives Another principle adhered to by the Cooperative Code is the principle of subsidiarity. Pursuant to this principle, the government may only engage in development activities where cooperatives do not posses the capability nor the resources to do so and only upon the request of such cooperatives.15 Thus, Article 2 of the Cooperative Code provides: Art. 2. Declaration of Policy. It is the declared policy of the State to foster the creation and growth of cooperatives as a practical vehicle for prompting self-reliance and harnessing people power towards the attainment of economic development and social justice. The State shall

encourage the private sector to undertake the actual formation and organization to cooperatives and shall create an atmosphere that is conducive to the growth and development of these cooperatives. Towards this end, the Government and all its branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities and agencies shall ensure the provision of technical guidance, financial assistance and other services to enable said cooperatives to develop into viable and responsive economic enterprises and thereby bring about a strong cooperative movement that is free from any conditions that might infringe upon the autonomy or organizational integrity of cooperatives. Further, the State recognizes the principle of subsidiarity under which the cooperative sector will initiate and regulate within its own ranks the promotion and organization, training and research, audit and support services relating to cooperatives with government assistance where necessary.16 Accordingly, under the charter of the CDA, or the primary government agency tasked to promote and regulate the institutional development of cooperatives, it is the declared policy of the State that: [g]overnment assistance to cooperatives shall be free from any restriction and conditionality that may in any manner infringe upon the objectives and character of cooperatives as provided in this Act. The State shall, except as provided in this Act, maintain the policy of noninterference in the management and operation of cooperatives.17 In contrast, P.D. No. 269, as amended by P.D. No. 1645, is replete with provisions which grant

the NEA, upon the happening of certain events, the power to control and take over the management and operations of cooperatives registered under it. Thus: a) the NEA Administrator has the power to designate, subject to the confirmation of the Board of Administrators, an Acting General Manager and/or Project Supervisor for a cooperative where vacancies in the said positions occur and/or when the interest of the cooperative or the program so requires, and to prescribe the functions of the said Acting General Manager and/or Project Supervisor, which powers shall not be nullified, altered or diminished by any policy or resolution of the Board of Directors of the cooperative concerned;18 b) the NEA is given the power of supervision and control over electric cooperatives and pursuant to such powers, NEA may issue orders, rules and regulations motu propio or upon petition of third parties to conduct referenda and other similar actions in all matters affecting electric cooperatives;19 c) No cooperative shall borrow money from any source without the approval of the Board of Administrators of the NEA;20 and d) The management of a cooperative shall be vested in its Board, subject to the supervision and control of NEA which shall have the right to be represented and to participate in all Board meetings and deliberations and to approve all policies and resolutions.21 The extent of government control over electric cooperatives covered by P.D. No. 269, as

amended, is largely a function of the role of the NEA as a primary source of funds of these electric cooperatives. It is crystal clear that NEA incurred loans from various sources to finance the development and operations of the electric cooperatives. Consequently, amendments to P.D. No. 269 were primarily geared to expand the powers of the NEA over the electric cooperatives to ensure that loans granted to them would be repaid to the government. In contrast, cooperatives under R.A. No. 6938 are envisioned to be self-sufficient and independent organizations with minimal government intervention or regulation. To be sure, the transitory provisions of R.A. No. 6938 are indicative of the recognition by Congress of the fundamental distinctions between electric cooperatives organized under P.D No. 269, as amended, and cooperatives under the new Cooperative Code. Article 128 of the Cooperative Code provides that all cooperatives registered under previous laws shall be deemed registered with the CDA upon submission of certain requirements within one year. However, cooperatives created under P.D. No. 269, as amended, are given three years within which to qualify and register with the CDA, after which, provisions of P.D. No. 1645 which expand the powers of the NEA over electric cooperatives, would no longer apply.22 Second, the classification of tax-exempt entities in the Local Government Code is germane to the purpose of the law. The Constitutional mandate that every local government unit shall enjoy local autonomy, does not mean that the exercise of power by local governments is beyond regulation by Congress. Thus, while each government unit is granted the power to create its own sources of revenue, Congress, in light of its broad power to tax, has the discretion to determine the extent of the taxing powers of local government units consistent with the policy of local

autonomy.23 Section 193 of the Local Government Code is indicative of the legislative intent to vest broad taxing powers upon local government units and to limit exemptions from local taxation to entities specifically provided therein. Section 193 provides: Section 193. Withdrawal of Tax Exemption Privileges.Unless otherwise provided in this Code, tax exemptions or incentives granted to, or presently enjoyed by all persons, whether natural or juridical, including government-owned and controlled corporations, except local water districts, cooperatives duly registered under R.A. No. 6938, non-stock and non-profit hospitals and educational institutions, are hereby withdrawn upon the effectivity of this Code.24 The above provision effectively withdraws exemptions from local taxation enjoyed by various entities and organizations upon effectivity of the Local Government Code except for a) local water districts; b) cooperatives duly registered under R.A. No. 6938; and c) non-stock and non-profit hospitals and educational institutions. Further, with respect to real property taxes, the Local Government Code again specifically enumerates entities which are exempt therefrom and withdraws exemptions enjoyed by all other entities upon the effectivity of the code. Thus, Section 234 provides: SEC. 234. Exemptions from Real Property Tax. The following are exempted from payment of the real property tax: (a) Real property owned by the Republic of the Philippines or any of its political subdivisions except when the beneficial use thereof had been granted for consideration or

otherwise, to a taxable person; (b) Charitable institutions, churches, parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, nonprofit or religious cemeteries and all lands, buildings and improvements actually, directly, and exclusively used for religious, charitable or educational purposes; (c) All machineries and equipment that are actually, directly and exclusively used by local water districts and government-owned or controlled corporations engaged in the supply and distribution of water and/or generation and transmission of electric power; (d) All real property owned by duly registered cooperatives as provided for under R.A. No. 6938; and (e) Machinery and equipment used for pollution control and environmental protection. Except as provided herein, any exemption from payment of real property tax previously granted to, or presently enjoyed by, all persons, whether natural or juridical, including all governmentowned or controlled corporations are hereby withdrawn upon the effectivity of this Code.25 In Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority v. Marcos,26 this Court held that the limited and restrictive nature of the tax exemption privileges under the Local Government Code is consistent with the State policy to ensure autonomy of local governments and the objective of the Local Government Code to grant genuine and meaningful autonomy to enable local government units to attain their fullest development as self-reliant communities and make them effective partners in the attainment of national goals. The obvious intention of the law is to

broaden the tax base of local government units to assure them of substantial sources of revenue. While we understand petitioners predicament brought about by the withdrawal of their local tax exemption privileges under the Local Government Code, it is not the province of this Court to go into the wisdom of legislative enactments. Courts can only interpret laws. The principle of separation of powers prevents them from re-inventing the laws. Finally, Sections 193 and 234 of the Local Government Code permit reasonable classification as these exemptions are not limited to existing conditions and apply equally to all members of the same class. Exemptions from local taxation, including real property tax, are granted to all cooperatives covered by R.A. No. 6938 and such exemptions exist for as long as the Local Government Code and the provisions therein on local taxation remain good law. II There is No Violation of the Non-Impairment Clause It is ingrained in jurisprudence that the constitutional prohibition on the impairment of the obligation of contracts does not prohibit every change in existing laws. To fall within the prohibition, the change must not only impair the obligation of the existing contract, but the impairment must be substantial.27 What constitutes substantial impairment was explained by this Court in Clemons v. Nolting:28 A law which changes the terms of a legal contract between parties, either in the time or mode of performance, or imposes new conditions, or dispenses with those expressed, or authorizes for its satisfaction something different from that provided in its terms, is law which impairs the

obligation of a contract and is therefore null and void. Moreover, to constitute impairment, the law must affect a change in the rights of the parties with reference to each other and not with respect to non-parties.29 Petitioners insist that Sections 193 and 234 of the Local Government Code impair the obligations imposed under the six (6) loan agreements executed by the NEA as borrower and USAID as lender. All six agreements contain similarly worded provisions on the tax treatment of the proceeds of the loan and properties and commodities acquired through the loan. Thus: Section 6.5. Taxes and Duties. The Borrower covenants and agrees that this Loan Agreement and the Loan provided for herein shall be free from, and the Principal and interest shall be paid to A.I.D. without deduction for and free from, any taxation or fees imposed under any laws or decrees in effect within the Republic of the Philippines or any such taxes or fees so imposed or payable shall be reimbursed by the Borrower with funds other than those provided under the Loan. To the extent that (a) any contractor, including any consulting firm, any personnel of such contractor financed hereunder, and any property or transactions relating to such contracts and (b) any commodity procurement transactions financed hereunder, are not exempt from identifiable taxes, tariffs, duties and other levies imposed under laws in effect in the country of the Borrower, the Borrower and/or Beneficiary shall pay or reimburse the same with funds other than those provided under the Loan.30 Petitioners contend that the withdrawal by the Local Government Code of the tax exemptions of cooperatives under P.D. No. 269, as amended, is an impairment of the tax exemptions provided

under the loan agreements. Petitioners argue that as beneficiaries of the loan proceeds, pursuant to the above provision, "[a]ll the assets of petitioners, such as lands, buildings, distribution lines acquired through the proceeds of the Loan Agreements are tax exempt."31 We hold otherwise. A plain reading of the provision quoted above readily shows that it does not grant any tax exemption in favor of the borrower or the beneficiary either on the proceeds of the loan itself or the properties acquired through the said loan. It simply states that the loan proceeds and the principal and interest of the loan, upon repayment by the borrower, shall be without deduction of any tax or fee that may be payable under Philippine law as such tax or fee will be absorbed by the borrower with funds other than the loan proceeds. Further, the provision states that with respect to any payment made by the borrower to (1) any contractor or any personnel of such contractor or any property transaction and (2) any commodity transaction using the proceeds of the loan, the tax to be paid, if any, on such transactions shall be absorbed by the borrower and/or beneficiary through funds other than the loan proceeds. Beyond doubt, the import of the tax provision in the loan agreements cited by petitioners is twofold: (1) the borrower is entitled to receive from and is obliged to pay the lender the principal amount of the loan and the interest thereon in full, without any deduction of the tax component thereof imposed under applicable Philippine law and any tax imposed shall be paid by the borrower with funds other than the loan proceeds and (2) with respect to payments made to any contractor, its personnel or any property or commodity transaction entered into pursuant

to the loan agreement and with the use of the proceeds thereof, taxes payable under the said transactions shall be paid by the borrower and/or beneficiary with the use of funds other than the loan proceeds. The quoted provision does not purport to grant any tax exemption in favor of any party to the contract, including the beneficiaries thereof. The provisions simply shift the tax burden, if any, on the transactions under the loan agreements to the borrower and/or beneficiary of the loan. Thus, the withdrawal by the Local Government Code under Sections 193 and 234 of the tax exemptions previously enjoyed by petitioners does not impair the obligation of the borrower, the lender or the beneficiary under the loan agreements as in fact, no tax exemption is granted therein. III Conclusion Petitioners lament the difficulties they face in complying with the implementing rules and regulations issued by the CDA for the conversion of electric cooperatives under P.D. No. 269, as amended, to cooperatives under R.A. No. 6938. They allege that because of the cumbersome legal and technical requirements imposed by the Omnibus Rules and Regulations on the Registration of Electric Cooperatives under R.A. No. 6938, petitioners cannot register and convert as stock cooperatives under the Cooperative Code.32 The Court understands the plight of the petitioners. Their remedy, however, is not judicial. Striking down Sections 193 and 234 of the Local Government Code as unconstitutional or declaring them inapplicable to petitioners is not the proper course of action for them to obtain

their previous tax exemptions. The language of the law and the intention of its framers are clear and unequivocal and courts have no other duty except to uphold the law. The task to re-examine the rules and guidelines on the conversion of electric cooperatives to cooperatives under R.A. No. 6938 and provide every assistance available to them should be addressed by the proper authorities of government. This is necessary to encourage the growth and viability of cooperatives as instruments of social justice and economic development. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED and the temporary restraining order heretofore issued is LIFTED. SO ORDERED.

[ G.R. No. 87636, November 19, 1990 ]

NEPTALI A. GONZALES, ERNESTO M. MACEDA, ALBERTO G. ROMULO, HEHERSON T. ALVAREZ, EDGARDO J. ANGARA, AGAPITO A. AQUINO, TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR., ERNESTO F. HERRERA, JOSE D. LINA, JR., JOHN OSMEA, VICENTE T. PATERNO, RENE A. SAGUISAG, LETICIA RAMOS-SHAHANI, MAMINTAL ABDUL J. TAMANO, WIGBERTO E. TAADA, JOVITO R. SALONGA, ORLANDO S. MERCADO, JUAN PONCE ENRILE, JOSEPH ESTRADA, SOTERO LAUREL, AQUILINO PIMENTEL, JR., SANTANINA RASUL, VICTOR ZIGA, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. CATALINO MACARAIG, JR., HON. VICENTE JAYME, HON. CARLOS DOMINGUEZ, HON. FULGENCIO FACTORAN, HON. FIORELLO ESTUAR, HON. LOURDES QUISUMBING, HON. RAUL MANGLAPUS, HON. ALFREDO BENGSON, HON. JOSE CONCEPCION, HON. LUIS SANTOS, HON. MITA PARDO DE TAVERA, HON. RAINERIO REYES, HON. GUILLERMO CARAGUE, HON. ROSALINA CAJUCOM AND HON. EUFEMIO C. DOMINGO, RESPONDENTS.

DECISION
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.: This constitutional controversy between the legislative and executive departments of government stemmed from Senate Resolution No. 381, adopted on 2 February 1989. "Authorizing and Directing the Committee on Finance to Bring in the Name of the Senate of the Philippines the Proper Suit with the Supreme Court of the Philippines contesting the Constitutionality of the Veto by the President of Special and General Provisions, particularly Section 55, of the General Appropriation Bill of 1989 (H.B No. 19186) and For Other Purposes." Petitioners are thus before us as members and ex-officio members of the Committee on Finance of the Senate and as "substantial taxpayers whose vital interests may be affected by this case." Respondents are members of the Cabinet tasked with the implementation of the General Appropriations Act of 1989 and 1990, some of them incumbents, while others have already been replaced, and include the National Treasurer and the Commission on Audit Chairman, all of whom are being sued in their official capacities. The Background Facts On 16 December 1988, Congress passed House Bill No. 19186, or the General Appropriations Bill for the Fiscal Year 1989. As passed, it eliminated or decreased certain items included in the

proposed budget submitted by the President. Pursuant to the constitutional provision on the passage of bills, Congress presented the said Bill to the President for consideration and approval. On 29 December 1988, the President signed the Bill into law, and declared the same to have become Rep. Act No. 6688. In the process, seven (7) Special Provisions and Section 55, a "General Provision," were vetoed. On 2 February 1989, the Senate, in the same Resolution No. 381 mentioned at the outset, further expressed: "WHEREAS, Be it Resolved, as it is hereby Resolved. That the Senate express its sense that the veto by the President of Section 55 of the GENERAL PROVISIONS of the General Appropriation Bill of 1989 (H.B. No. 19186) is unconstitutional and, therefore, void and without any force and effect; hence, the aforesaid Section 55 remains; "xxx xxx x x x"

Thus it is that, on 11 April 1989, this Petition for Prohibition/Mandamus was filed, with a prayer for the issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction and Restraining Order, assailing mainly the constitutionality or legality of the Presidential veto of Section 55, and seeking to enjoin respondents from implementing Rep. Act No. 6688. No Restraining Order was issued by the Court.

The Comment, submitted by the Solicitor General on 25 August 1989 (after several extensions granted), was considered as the Answer to the Petition and, on 7 September 1989, the Court Resolved to give due course to the Petition and to require the parties to submit their respective Memoranda. Petitioners filed their Memorandum on 12 December 1989. But, on 19 January 1990, they filed a Motion for Leave to File and to Admit Supplemental Petition, which was granted, basically raising the same issue as in the original Petition, this time questioning the President's veto of certain provisions, particularly Section 16, of House Bill 26934, or the General Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 1990, which the President declared to have become Rep. Act No. 6831. The Solicitor General's Comment on the Supplemental Petition, on behalf of respondent public officials, was submitted on 24 April 1990. On 15 May 1990, the Court required the parties to file simultaneously their consolidated memoranda, to include the Supplemental Petition, within an inextendible period of thirty (30) days from notice. However, because the original Resolution of 15 May 1990 merely required the filing of a memorandum on the Supplemental Petition, a revised Resolution requiring consolidated memoranda, within thirty (30) days from notice, was released on 28 June 1990. The Consolidated Memoranda were respectively filed on 26 June 1990 by petitioners, and on 1 August 1990 by respondents. On 14 August 1990, both Memoranda were Noted and the case was deemed submitted for deliberation. On 11 September 1990, the Court heard the case on oral argument and required the submittal of

supplemental Memoranda, the last of which was filed on 26 September 1990. The Vetoed Provisions and Reasons Therefor Section 55 of the Appropriations Act of 1989 (Section 55 [FY 89] hereinafter), which was vetoed by the President, reads: "SEC. 55. Prohibition Against the Restoration or Increase of Recommended Appropriations Disapproved and/or Reduced by Congress: No item of appropriation recommended by the President in the Budget submitted to Congress pursuant to Article VII, Section 22 of the Constitution which has been disapproved or reduced in this Act shall be restored or increased by the use of appropriations authorized for other purposes by augmentation. An item of appropriation for any purpose recommended by the President in the Budget shall be deemed to have been disapproved by Congress if no corresponding appropriation for the specific purpose is provided in this Act." We quote below the reason for the Presidential veto: "The provision violates Section 25(5) of Article VI of the Constitution. If allowed, this Section would nullify not only the constitutional and statutory authority of the President, but also that of the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and Heads of Constitutional Commissions, to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations. A careful review of the

legislative action on the budget as submitted shows that in almost all cases, the budgets of agencies as recommended by the President, as well as those of the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the Constitutional Commissions, have been reduced. An unwanted consequence of this provision is the inability of the President, the President of the Senate, Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of Constitutional Commissions to augment any item of appropriation of their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations even in cases of calamity or in the event of urgent need to accelerate the implementation of essential public services and infrastructure projects. "Furthermore, this provision is inconsistent with Section 12 and other similar provisions of this General Appropriations Act." A substantially similar provision as the vetoed Section 55 appears in the Appropriations Act of 1990, this time crafted as follows: "B. GENERAL PROVISIONS "Sec. 16. Use of Savings. - The President of the Philippines, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Heads of Constitutional Commissions under Article IX of the Constitution and the Ombudsman are hereby authorized to augment any item in this Act for their respective offices from savings in other items of their appropriations: PROVIDED, THAT NO

ITEM OF APPROPRIATION RECOMMENDED BY THE PRESIDENT IN THE BUDGET SUBMITTED TO CONGRESS PURSUANT TO ARTICLE VII, SECTION 22 OF THE CONSTITUTION WHICH HAS BEEN DISAPPROVED OR REDUCED BY CONGRESS SHALL BE RESTORED OR INCREASED BY THE USE OF APPROPRIATIONS AUTHORIZED FOR OTHER PURPOSES IN THIS ACT BY AUGMENTATION. AN ITEM OF APPROPRIATION FOR ANY PURPOSE RECOMMENDED BY THE PRESIDENT IN THE BUDGET SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN DISAPPROVED BY CONGRESS IF NO CORRESPONDING APPROPRIATION FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE IS PROVIDED IN THIS ACT." It should be noted that in the 1989 Appropriations Act, the "Use of Savings" appears in Section 12, separate and apart from Section 55; whereas in the 1990 Appropriations Act, the "Use of Savings" and the vetoed provision have been commingled in Section 16 only, with the vetoed provision made to appear as a condition or restriction. Essentially the same reason was given for the veto of Section 16 (FY 90), thus: "I am vetoing this provision for the reason that it violates Section 25(5) of Article VI of the Constitution in relation to Sections 44 and 45 of P.D. No. 1177 as amended by R.A. No. 6670 which authorizes the President to use savings to augment any item of appropriations in the Executive Branch of the Government. "Parenthetically, there is a case pending in the Supreme Court relative to the validity of

the President's veto on Section 55 of the General Provisions of Republic Act No. 6688 upon which the amendment on this Section was based. Inclusion, therefore, of the proviso in the last sentence of this section might prejudice the Executive Branch's position in the case. "Moreover, if allowed, this Section would nullify not only the constitutional and statutory authority of the President, but also that of the officials enumerated under Section 25(5) of Article VI of the Constitution, to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective appropriations. "An unwanted consequence of this provision would be the inability of the President, the President of the Senate, Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and heads of Constitutional Commissions to augment any item of appropriation of their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations even in cases of national emergency or in the event of urgent need to accelerate the implementation of essential public services and infrastructure projects." The fundamental issue raised is whether or not the veto by the President of Section 55 of the 1989 Appropriations Bill (Section 55 FY 89), and subsequently of its counterpart Section 16 of the 1990 Appropriations Bill (Section 16 FY 90), is unconstitutional and without effect. The Contending Views

In essence, petitioners' cause is anchored on the following grounds: (1) the Presidents line-veto power as regards appropriation bills is limited to item/s and does not cover provision/s; therefore, she exceeded her authority when she vetoed Section 55 (FY 89) and Section 16 (FY 90) which are provisions; (2) when the President objects to a provision of an appropriation bill, she cannot exercise the item-veto power but should veto the entire bill; (3) the item-veto power does not carry with it the power to strike out conditions or restrictions for that would be legislation, in violation of the doctrine of separation of powers; and (4) the power of augmentation in Article VI, Section 25[5] of the 1987 Constitution, has to be provided for by law and, therefore, Congress is also vested with the prerogative to impose restrictions on the exercise of that power. The Solicitor General, as counsel for public respondents, counters that the issue at bar is a political question beyond the power of this Court to determine; that petitioners had a political remedy, which was to override the veto; that Section 55 is a "rider" because it is extraneous to the Appropriations Act and, therefore, merits the President's veto; that the power of the President to augment items in the appropriations for the executive branches had already been provided for in the Budget Law, specifically Sections 44 and 45 of Pres. Decree No. 1177, as amended by Rep. Act No. 6670 (4 August 1988); and that the President is empowered by the Constitution to veto provisions or other "distinct and severable parts" of an Appropriations Bill. Judicial Determination With the Senate maintaining that the President's veto is unconstitutional, and that charge being controverted, there is an actual case or justiciable controversy between the Upper House of

Congress and the executive department that may be taken cognizance of by this Court. "Indeed, where the legislature or the executive branch is acting within the limits of its authority, the judiciary cannot and ought not to interfere with the former. But where the legislature or the executive acts beyond the scope of its constitutional powers, it becomes the duty of the judiciary, to declare what the other branches of the government had assumed to do as void. This is the essence of judicial power conferred by the Constitution in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law [Art. VIII, Section 1 of the 1935 Constitution; Art. X, Section 1 of the 1973 Constitution and which was adopted as part of the Freedom Constitution, and Art. VIII, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution] and which power this Court has exercised in many instances" (Demetria vs. Alba, G. R. No. 71977, 27 February 1987, 148 SCRA 209). We take note as well of what petitioners stress as the "imperative need for a definitive ruling by this Court as to the exact parameters of the exercise of the item-veto power of the President as regards appropriation bills x x x in order to obviate the recurrence of a similar problem whenever a general appropriations bill is passed by Congress." Indeed, the contextual reiteration of Section 55 (FY 89) in Section 16 (FY 90) and again, its veto by the President, underscore the need for judicial arbitrament. The Court does not thereby assert its superiority over or exhibit lack of respect due the other co-ordinate departments but discharges a solemn and sacred duty to determine essentially the scope of intersecting powers in regard which the Executive and the Senate are in dispute.

Petitioners have also brought this suit as taxpayers. As ruled in Sanidad v. COMELEC (No. L44640, 12 October 1976, 73 SCRA 333), this Court enjoys the open discretion to entertain taxpayers suits or not. In Tolentino v. COMELEC (No. L-34150, 16 October 1961, 41 SCRA 702), it was also held that a member of the Senate has the requisite personality to bring a suit where a constitutional issue is raised. The political question doctrine neither interposed an obstacle to judicial determination of the rival claims. The jurisdiction to delimit constitutional boundaries has been given to this Court. It cannot abdicate that obligation mandated by the 1987 Constitution, although said provision by no means does away with the applicability of the principle in appropriate cases. "SECTION 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law. "Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government." Nor is this the first time that the constitutionality of a Presidential veto is raised to the Court. The two oft-cited cases are Bengson v. Secretary of Justice (62 Phil. 912 [1936]), penned by Justice George A. Malcolm, which upheld the veto questioned before it, but which decision was reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the same entitled case in 292, U.S. 410, infra,

essentially on the ground that an Appropriations Bill was not involved. The second case is Bolinao Electronics v. Valencia (G. R. No. L-20740, 30 June 1964, 11 SCRA 486), infra, which rejected the President's veto of a condition or restriction in an Appropriations Bill. The Extent of the President's Item-veto Power The focal issue for resolution is whether or not the President exceeded the item-veto power accorded by the Constitution. Or differently put, has the President the power to veto "provisions" of an Appropriations Bill? Petitioners contend that Section 55 (FY '89) and Section 16 (FY '90) are provisions and not items and are, therefore, outside the scope of the item-veto power of the President. The veto power of the President is expressed in Article VI, Section 27 of the 1987 Constitution reading, in full, as follows: "Sec. 27. (1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the President. If he approves the same, he shall sign it; otherwise, he shall veto it and return the same with his objections to the House where it originated, which shall enter the objections at large in its Journal and proceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, two-thirds of all the Members of such House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of all the Members of that House, it shall become a law. In all such cases, the votes of each House shall be

determined by yeas or nays, and the names of the Members voting for or against shall be entered in its Journal. The President shall communicate his veto of any bill to the House where it originated within thirty days after the date of receipt thereof; otherwise, it shall become a law as if he had signed it. "(2) The President shall have the power to veto any particular item or items in an appropriation, revenue, or tariff bill, but the veto shall not affect the item or items to which he does not object." Paragraph (1) refers to the general veto power of the President and if exercised would result in the veto of the entire bill, as a general rule. Paragraph (2) is what is referred to as the item-veto power or the line-veto power. It allows the exercise of the veto over a particular item or items in an appropriation, revenue, or tariff bill. As specified, the President may not veto less than all of an item of an Appropriations Bill. In other words, the power given the executive to disapprove any item or items in an Appropriations Bill does not grant the authority to veto a part of an item and to approve the remaining portion of the same item. Originally, item veto exclusively referred to veto of items of appropriation bills and first came into being in the former Organic Act, the Act of Congress of 29 August 1916. This was followed by the 1935 Constitution, which contained a similar provision in its Section 11(2), Article VI, except that the veto power was made more expansive by the inclusion of this sentence:

x x x When a provision of an appropriation bill affects one or more items of the same, the President can not veto the provision without at the same time vetoing the particular item or items to which it relates x x x. The 1935 Constitution further broadened the President's veto power to include the veto of item of items of revenue and tariff bills. With the advent of the 1973 Constitution, the section took a more simple and compact form, thus: Section 20 (2). The Prime Minister shall have the power to veto any particular item or items in an appropriation, revenue, or tariff bill, but the veto not affect the item or items to which he does not object. It is to be noted that the counterpart provision in the 1987 Constitution (Article VI, Section 27[2], supra), is a verbatim reproduction except for the public official concerned. In other words, also eliminated has been any reference to the veto of a provision. The vital question is: should this exclusion be interpreted to mean as a disallowance of the power to veto a provision, as petitioners urge? The terms item and provision in budgetary legislation and practice are concededly different. An item in a bill refers to the particulars, the details, the distinct and severable parts x x x of the bill (Bengzon, supra, at 916). It is an indivisible sum of money dedicated to a stated purpose (Commonwealth v. Dodson, 11 S.E.. 2d 120, 124, 125, etc., 176 Va. 281). The United States

Supreme Court, in the case of Bengzon v. Secretary of Justice (299 U.S. 410, 414, 57 S.Ct 252, 81 L. Ed., 312) declared "that an item of an appropriation bill obviously means an item which in itself is a specific appropriation of money, not some general provision of law, which happens to be put into an appropriation bill." It is our considered opinion that, notwithstanding the elimination in Article VI, Section 27(2) of the 1987 Constitution of any reference to the veto of a provision, the extent of the President's veto power as previously defined by the 1935 Constitution has not changed. This is because the eliminated proviso merely pronounces the basic principle that a distinct and severable part of a bill may be the subject of a separate veto (Bengzon v. Secretary of Justice, 62 Phil., 912, 916 (1926); 2 BERNAS, Joaquin, S.J., The Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, 1st ed., 154-155, [1988]). The restrictive interpretation urged by petitioners that the President may not veto a provision without vetoing the entire bill not only disregards the basic principle that a distinct and severable part of a bill may be the subject of a separate veto but also overlooks the Constitutional mandate that any provision in the general appropriations bill shall relate specifically to some particular appropriation therein and that any such provision shall be limited in its operation to the appropriation to which it relates (1987 Constitution, Article VI, Section 25 [2]). In other words, in the true sense of the term, a provision in an Appropriations Bill is limited in its operation to some particular appropriation to which it relates, and does not relate to the entire bill. Petitioners' further submission that, since the exercise of the veto power by the President

partakes of the nature of legislative powers it should be strictly construed, is negatived by the following dictum in Bengzon, supra, reading: "The Constitution is a limitation upon the power of the legislative department of the government, but in this respect it is a grant of power to the executive department. The Legislature has the affirmative power to enact laws; the Chief Executive has the negative power by the constitutional exercise of which he may defeat the will of the Legislature. It follows that the Chief Executive must find his authority in the Constitution. But in exercising that authority he may not be confined to rules of strict construction or hampered by the unwise interference of the judiciary. The courts will indulge every intendment in favor of the constitutionality of a veto the same as they will presume the constitutionality of an act as originally passed by the Legislature" (Commonwealth v. Barnett [1901], 199 Pa., 161; 55 L.R.A., 882; People v. Board of Councilmen [1892], 20 N.Y.S., 52; Fulmore v. Lane [1911], 104 Tex., 499; Texas Co v. State [1927], 53 A.L.R., 258 [at 917]). Inappropriateness of the so-called "Provisions" But even assuming arguendo that provisions are beyond the executive power to veto, we are of the opinion that Section 55 (FY '89) and Section 16 (FY '90) are not provisions in the budgetary sense of the term. Article VI, Section 25(2) of the 1987 Constitution provides: "Sec. 25(2) No provision or enactment shall be embraced in the general appropriations

bill unless it relates specifically to some particular appropriation therein. Any such provision or enactment shall be limited in its operation to the appropriation to which it relates." Explicit is the requirement that a provision in the Appropriations Bill should relate specifically to some "particular appropriation" therein. The challenged "provisions" fall short of this requirement. Firstly, the vetoed "provisions" do not relate to any particular or distinctive appropriation. They apply generally to all items disapproved or reduced by Congress in the Appropriations Bill. Secondly, the disapproved or reduced items are nowhere to be found on the face of the Bill. To discover them, resort will have to be made to the original recommendations made by the President and to the source indicated by petitioners themselves, i.e., the "Legislative Budget Research and Monitoring Office" (Annex B-1 and B-2, Petition). Thirdly, the vetoed Sections are more of an expression of Congressional policy in respect of augmentation from savings rather than a budgetary appropriation. Consequently, Section 55 (FY '89) and Section 16 (FY 90) although labelled as "provisions," are actually inappropriate provisions that should be treated as items for the purpose of the President's veto power (Henry v. Edwards [1977] 346 S Rep. 2d, 157-158). "Just as the President may not use his item-veto to usurp constitutional powers conferred on the legislature, neither can the legislature deprive the Governor of the constitutional powers conferred on him as chief executive officer of the state by including in a general appropriation bill matters more properly enacted in separate legislation. The Governor's

constitutional power to veto bills of general legislation. . . cannot be abridged by the careful placement of such measures in a general appropriation bill, thereby forcing the Governor to choose between approving unacceptable substantive legislation or vetoing items of expenditure essential to the operation of government. The legislature cannot by location of a bill give it immunity from executive veto. Nor can it circumvent the Governor's veto power over substantive legislation by artfully drafting general law measures so that they appear to be true conditions or limitations on an item of appropriation. Otherwise, the legislature would be permitted to impair the constitutional responsibilities and functions of a co-equal branch of government in contravention of the separation of powers doctrine . . . We are no more willing to allow the legislature to use its appropriation power to infringe on the Governor's constitutional right to veto matters of substantive legislation than we are to allow the Governor to encroach on the constitutional powers of the legislature. In order to avoid this result, we hold that, when the legislature inserts inappropriate provisions in a general appropriation bill, such provisions must be treated as items for purposes of the Governor's item veto power over general appropriation bills. xxx xxx xxx

"x x x Legislative control cannot be exercised in such a manner as to encumber the general appropriation bill with veto-proof 'logrolling measure, special interest provisions which could not succeed if separately enacted, or riders, substantive pieces

of legislation incorporated in a bill to insure passage without veto. x x x " (Underscoring supplied) Inappropriateness of the so-called "Conditions/Restrictions" Petitioners maintain, however, that Congress is free to impose conditions in an Appropriations Bill and where conditions are attached, the veto power does not carry with it the power to strike them out, citing Commonwealth v. Dodson (11 SE, 2d 130, supra) and Bolinao Electronics Corporation v. Valencia (No. L-20740, June 30, 1964, 11 SCRA 486). In other words, their theory is that Section 55 (FY '89) and Section 16 (FY '90) are such conditions/restrictions and thus beyond the veto power. There can be no denying that inherent in the power of appropriation is the power to specify how money shall be spent; and that in addition to distinct "items" of appropriation, the Legislature may include in Appropriation Bills qualifications, conditions, limitations or restrictions on expenditure of funds. Settled also is the rule that the Executive is not allowed to veto a condition or proviso of an appropriation, while allowing the appropriation itself to stand (Fairfield v. Foster, supra, at 320). That was also the ruling in Bolinao supra, which held that the veto of a condition in an Appropriations Bill which did not include a veto of the items to which the condition related was deemed invalid and without effect whatsoever. However, for the rule to apply, restrictions should be such in the real sense of the term, not some matters which are more properly dealt with in a separate legislation (Henry v. Edwards, La, 346,

So 2d 153). Restrictions or conditions in an Appropriations Bill must exhibit a connection with money items in a budgetary sense in the schedule of expenditures. Again, the test is appropriateness. "It is not enough that a provision be related to the institution or agency to which funds are appropriated. Conditions and limitations properly included in an appropriation bill must exhibit such a connexity with money items of appropriation that they logically belong in a schedule of expenditures. . . the ultimate test is one of appropriateness" (Henry v. Edwards, supra, at 158). Tested by these criteria. Section 55 (FY '89) and Section 16 (FY '90) must also be held to be inappropriate "conditions." While they, particularly, Section 16 (FY '90), have been "artfully drafted" to appear as true conditions or limitations, they are actually general law measures more appropriate for substantive and, therefore, separate legislation. Further, neither of them shows the necessary connection with a schedule of expenditures. The reason, as explained earlier, is that items reduced or disapproved by Congress would not appear on the face of the enrolled bill or Appropriations Act itself. They can only be detected when compared with the original budgetary submittals of the President. In fact, Sections 55 (FY '89) and 16 (FY 90) themselves provide that an item "shall be deemed to have been disapproved by Congress if no corresponding appropriation for the specific purpose is provided in this Act." Considering that the vetoed provisions are not, in the budgetary sense of the term, conditions or restrictions, the case of Bolinao Electronics Corporation v. Valencia (supra), invoked by

petitioners, becomes inapplicable. In that case, a public works bill contained an item appropriating a certain sum for assistance to television stations, subject to the condition that the amount would not be available to places where there were commercial television stations. Then President Macapagal approved the appropriation but vetoed the condition. When challenged before this Court, it was held that the veto was ineffectual and that the approval of the item carried with it the approval of the condition attached to it. In contrast with the case at bar, there is no condition, in the budgetary sense of the term, attached to an appropriation or item in the appropriation bill which was struck out. For obviously, Sections 55 (FY '89) and 16 (FY '90) partake more of a curtailment on the power to augment from savings; in other words, "a general provision of law, which happens to be put in an appropriation bill" (Bengzon v. Secretary of Justice, supra). The Power of Augmentation and The Validity of the Veto The President promptly vetoed Section 55 (FY '89) and Section 16 (FY 90) because they nullify the authority of the Chief Executive and heads of different branches of government to augment any item in the General Appropriations Law for their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations, as guaranteed by Article VI, Section 25(5) of the Constitution. Said provision reads: "Sec. 25. (5) No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations; however, the President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of Constitutional Commissions

may, by law, be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations" (Underscoring ours). Noteworthy is the fact that the power to augment from savings lies dormant until authorized by law. This Court upheld the validity of the power of augmentation from savings in Demetria v. Alba, which ruled: "x x x to afford the heads of the different branches of the government and those of the constitutional commissions considerable flexibility in the use of public funds and resources, the constitution allowed the enactment of a law authorizing the transfer of funds for the purpose of augmenting an item from savings in another item in the appropriation of the government branch or constitutional body concerned. The leeway granted was thus limited. The purpose and conditions for which funds may be transferred were specified, i.e., transfer may be allowed for the purpose of augmenting an item and such transfer may be made only if there are savings from another item in the appropriation of the government branch or constitutional body" (G. R. No. 71977, 27 February 1987, 148 SCRA 214). The 1973 Constitution contained an identical authority to augment from savings in its Article VIII, Section 16(5), except for mention of the Prime Minister among the officials vested with

that power.[1] In 1977, the statutory authority of the President to augment any appropriation of the executive department in the General Appropriations Act from savings was specifically provided for in Section 44 of Presidential Decree No. 1177, as amended (RA 6670, 4 August 1988), otherwise known as the "Budget Reform Decree of 1977." It reads: "Sec. 44. x x x "The President shall, likewise, have the authority to augment any appropriation of the Executive Department in the General Appropriations Act, from savings in the appropriations of another department, bureau, office or agency within the Executive Branch, pursuant to the provisions of Art. VIII, Sec. 16(5) of the Constitution (now Sec. 25(5), Art. VI)" (Emphasis ours). (N.B.: The first paragraph declared void in Demetria v. Alba, supra, has been deleted). Similarly, the use by the President of savings to cover deficits is specifically authorized in the same Decree. Thus: "Sec. 45. Authority to Use Savings in Appropriations to Cover Deficits. Except as otherwise provided in the General Appropriations Act, any savings in the regular appropriations authorized in the General Appropriations Act for programs and projects of any department, office or agency, may, with the approval of the President be used to cover a deficit in any other item of the regular appropriations:" x x x

A more recent grant is found in Section 12 of the General Appropriations Act of 1989, the text of which is repeated in the first paragraph of Section 16 (FY 90), Section 12 reads: "Sec. 12. Use of Savings. - The President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the heads of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman are hereby authorized to augment any item in this Act for their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations." There should be no question, therefore, that statutory authority has, in fact, been granted. And once given, the heads of the different branches of the Government and those of the Constitutional Commissions are afforded considerable flexibility in the use of public funds and resources (Demetria v. Alba, supra). The doctrine of separation of powers is in no way endangered because the transfer is made within a department (or branch of government) and not from one department (branch) to another (CRUZ, lsagani A., Philippine Political Law [1989] p. 155). When Sections 55 (FY 89) and 16 (FY 90), therefore, prohibit the restoration or increase by augmentation of appropriations disapproved or reduced by Congress, they impair the constitutional and statutory authority of the President and other key officials to augment any item or any appropriation from savings in the interest of expediency and efficiency. The exercise of such authority in respect of disapproved or reduced items by no means vests in the Executive the power to rewrite the entire budget, as petitioners contend, the leeway granted

being delimited to transfers within the department or branch concerned, the sourcing to come only from savings. More importantly, it strikes us, too, that for such a special power as that of augmentation from savings, the same is merely incorporated in the General Appropriations Bill. An Appropriations Bill is "one the primary and specific aim of which is to make appropriation of money from the public treasury" (Bengzon v. Secretary of Justice, 292 U.S., 410, 57 S.Ct. 252). It is a legislative authorization of receipts and expenditures. The power of augmentation from savings, on the other hand, can by no means be considered a specific appropriation of money. It is a nonappropriation item inserted in an appropriation measure. The same thing must be said of Section 55 (FY '89), taken in conjunction with Section 12, and Section 16 (FY '90), which prohibit the restoration or increase by augmentation of appropriations disapproved and or reduced by Congress. They are non-appropriation items, an appropriation being a setting apart by law of a certain sum from the public revenue for a specified purpose (Bengzon v. Secretary of Justice, 62 Phil. 912, 916 [1936]). It bears repeating that they are more of a substantive expression of a legislative objective to restrict the power of augmentation granted to the President and other key officials. They are actually matters of general law and more properly the subject of a separate legislation that will embody, define and delimit the scope of the special power of augmentation from savings instead of being inappropriately incorporated annually in the Appropriation Act. To sanction this practice would be to give the Legislature the freedom to grant or withhold the power from the Executive and other officials, and thus put in yearly jeopardy the exercise of that power.

If, indeed, by the later enactments of Section 55 (FY 89) and Section 16 (FY '90), Congress, as petitioners argue, intended to amend or repeal Pres. Decree No. 1177, with all the more reason should it have so provided in a separate enactment, it being basic that implied repeals are not favored. For the same reason, we cannot subscribe to petitioners' allegation that Pres. Decree No. 1177 has been revoked by the 1987 Constitution. The 1987 Constitution itself provides for the continuance of laws, decrees, executive orders, proclamations, letters of instructions, and other executive issuances not inconsistent with the Constitution until amended, repealed or revoked (1987 Constitution, Article XVIII, Section 3). If, indeed, the legislature believed that the exercise of the veto powers by the executive were unconstitutional, the remedy laid down by the Constitution is crystal clear. A Presidential veto may be overridden by the votes of two?thirds of members of Congress (1987 Constitution, Article VI, Section 27[1], supra). But Congress made no attempt to override the Presidential veto. Petitioners' argument that the veto is ineffectual so that there is "nothing to override" (citing Bolinao) has lost force and effect with the executive veto having been herein upheld. As we see it, there need be no future conflict if the legislative and executive branches of government adhere to the spirit of the Constitution, each exercising its respective powers with due deference to the constitutional responsibilities and functions of the other. Thereby, the delicate equilibrium of governmental powers remains on even keel. WHEREFORE. the constitutionality of the assailed Presidential veto is UPHELD and this Petition is hereby DISMISSED. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. L-9637 April 30, 1957 AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY, plaintiff-appellant, vs. CITY OF MANILA, defendant-appellee. City Fiscal Eugenio Angeles and Juan Nabong for appellant. Assistant City Fiscal Arsenio Naawa for appellee. FELIX, J.: Plaintiff-appellant is a foreign, non-stock, non-profit, religious, missionary corporation duly registered and doing business in the Philippines through its Philippine agency established in Manila in November, 1898, with its principal office at 636 Isaac Peral in said City. The defendant appellee is a municipal corporation with powers that are to be exercised in conformity with the provisions of Republic Act No. 409, known as the Revised Charter of the City of Manila. In the course of its ministry, plaintiff's Philippine agency has been distributing and selling bibles and/or gospel portions thereof (except during the Japanese occupation) throughout the Philippines and translating the same into several Philippine dialects. On May 29 1953, the acting City Treasurer of the City of Manila informed plaintiff that it was conducting the business of general merchandise since November, 1945, without providing itself with the necessary Mayor's permit and municipal license, in violation of Ordinance No. 3000, as amended, and Ordinances Nos. 2529, 3028 and 3364, and required plaintiff to secure, within three days, the corresponding

permit and license fees, together with compromise covering the period from the 4th quarter of 1945 to the 2nd quarter of 1953, in the total sum of P5,821.45 (Annex A). Plaintiff protested against this requirement, but the City Treasurer demanded that plaintiff deposit and pay under protest the sum of P5,891.45, if suit was to be taken in court regarding the same (Annex B). To avoid the closing of its business as well as further fines and penalties in the premises on October 24, 1953, plaintiff paid to the defendant under protest the said permit and license fees in the aforementioned amount, giving at the same time notice to the City Treasurer that suit would be taken in court to question the legality of the ordinances under which, the said fees were being collected (Annex C), which was done on the same date by filing the complaint that gave rise to this action. In its complaint plaintiff prays that judgment be rendered declaring the said Municipal Ordinance No. 3000, as amended, and Ordinances Nos. 2529, 3028 and 3364 illegal and unconstitutional, and that the defendant be ordered to refund to the plaintiff the sum of P5,891.45 paid under protest, together with legal interest thereon, and the costs, plaintiff further praying for such other relief and remedy as the court may deem just equitable. Defendant answered the complaint, maintaining in turn that said ordinances were enacted by the Municipal Board of the City of Manila by virtue of the power granted to it by section 2444, subsection (m-2) of the Revised Administrative Code, superseded on June 18, 1949, by section 18, subsection (1) of Republic Act No. 409, known as the Revised Charter of the City of Manila, and praying that the complaint be dismissed, with costs against plaintiff. This answer was replied by the plaintiff reiterating the unconstitutionality of the often-repeated ordinances.

Before trial the parties submitted the following stipulation of facts: COME NOW the parties in the above-entitled case, thru their undersigned attorneys and respectfully submit the following stipulation of facts: 1. That the plaintiff sold for the use of the purchasers at its principal office at 636 Isaac Peral, Manila, Bibles, New Testaments, bible portions and bible concordance in English and other foreign languages imported by it from the United States as well as Bibles, New Testaments and bible portions in the local dialects imported and/or purchased locally; that from the fourth quarter of 1945 to the first quarter of 1953 inclusive the sales made by the plaintiff were as follows: Quarter Amount of Sales

4th quarter P1,244.21 1945 1st quarter 2,206.85 1946 2nd quarter 1,950.38 1946

3rd quarter 2,235.99 1946 4th quarter 3,256.04 1946 1st quarter 13,241.07 1947 2nd quarter 15,774.55 1947 3rd quarter 14,654.13 1947 4th quarter 12,590.94 1947 1st quarter 11,143.90 1948 2nd quarter 14,715.26 1948

3rd quarter 38,333.83 1948 4th quarter 16,179.90 1948 1st quarter 23,975.10 1949 2nd quarter 17,802.08 1949 3rd quarter 16,640.79 1949 4th quarter 15,961.38 1949 1st quarter 18,562.46 1950 2nd quarter 21,816.32 1950

3rd quarter 25,004.55 1950 4th quarter 45,287.92 1950 1st quarter 37,841.21 1951 2nd quarter 29,103.98 1951 3rd quarter 20,181.10 1951 4th quarter 22,968.91 1951 1st quarter 23,002.65 1952 2nd quarter 17,626.96 1952

3rd quarter 17,921.01 1952 4th quarter 24,180.72 1952 1st quarter 29,516.21 1953 2. That the parties hereby reserve the right to present evidence of other facts not herein stipulated. WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that this case be set for hearing so that the parties may present further evidence on their behalf. (Record on Appeal, pp. 15-16). When the case was set for hearing, plaintiff proved, among other things, that it has been in existence in the Philippines since 1899, and that its parent society is in New York, United States of America; that its, contiguous real properties located at Isaac Peral are exempt from real estate taxes; and that it was never required to pay any municipal license fee or tax before the war, nor does the American Bible Society in the United States pay any license fee or sales tax for the sale of bible therein. Plaintiff further tried to establish that it never made any profit from the sale of its bibles, which are disposed of for as low as one third of the cost, and that in order to maintain its operating cost it obtains substantial remittances from its New York office and voluntary contributions and gifts from certain churches, both in the United States and in the Philippines,

which are interested in its missionary work. Regarding plaintiff's contention of lack of profit in the sale of bibles, defendant retorts that the admissions of plaintiff-appellant's lone witness who testified on cross-examination that bibles bearing the price of 70 cents each from plaintiffappellant's New York office are sold here by plaintiff-appellant at P1.30 each; those bearing the price of $4.50 each are sold here at P10 each; those bearing the price of $7 each are sold here at P15 each; and those bearing the price of $11 each are sold here at P22 each, clearly show that plaintiff's contention that it never makes any profit from the sale of its bible, is evidently untenable. After hearing the Court rendered judgment, the last part of which is as follows: As may be seen from the repealed section (m-2) of the Revised Administrative Code and the repealing portions (o) of section 18 of Republic Act No. 409, although they seemingly differ in the way the legislative intent is expressed, yet their meaning is practically the same for the purpose of taxing the merchandise mentioned in said legal provisions, and that the taxes to be levied by said ordinances is in the nature of percentage graduated taxes (Sec. 3 of Ordinance No. 3000, as amended, and Sec. 1, Group 2, of Ordinance No. 2529, as amended by Ordinance No. 3364). IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, this Court is of the opinion and so holds that this case should be dismissed, as it is hereby dismissed, for lack of merits, with costs against the plaintiff. Not satisfied with this verdict plaintiff took up the matter to the Court of Appeals which certified

the case to Us for the reason that the errors assigned to the lower Court involved only questions of law. Appellant contends that the lower Court erred: 1. In holding that Ordinances Nos. 2529 and 3000, as respectively amended, are not unconstitutional; 2. In holding that subsection m-2 of Section 2444 of the Revised Administrative Code under which Ordinances Nos. 2592 and 3000 were promulgated, was not repealed by Section 18 of Republic Act No. 409; 3. In not holding that an ordinance providing for taxes based on gross sales or receipts, in order to be valid under the new Charter of the City of Manila, must first be approved by the President of the Philippines; and 4. In holding that, as the sales made by the plaintiff-appellant have assumed commercial proportions, it cannot escape from the operation of said municipal ordinances under the cloak of religious privilege. The issues. As may be seen from the proceeding statement of the case, the issues involved in the present controversy may be reduced to the following: (1) whether or not the ordinances of the City of Manila, Nos. 3000, as amended, and 2529, 3028 and 3364, are constitutional and valid; and (2) whether the provisions of said ordinances are applicable or not to the case at bar. Section 1, subsection (7) of Article III of the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines,

provides that: (7) No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, and the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religion test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights. Predicated on this constitutional mandate, plaintiff-appellant contends that Ordinances Nos. 2529 and 3000, as respectively amended, are unconstitutional and illegal in so far as its society is concerned, because they provide for religious censorship and restrain the free exercise and enjoyment of its religious profession, to wit: the distribution and sale of bibles and other religious literature to the people of the Philippines. Before entering into a discussion of the constitutional aspect of the case, We shall first consider the provisions of the questioned ordinances in relation to their application to the sale of bibles, etc. by appellant. The records, show that by letter of May 29, 1953 (Annex A), the City Treasurer required plaintiff to secure a Mayor's permit in connection with the society's alleged business of distributing and selling bibles, etc. and to pay permit dues in the sum of P35 for the period covered in this litigation, plus the sum of P35 for compromise on account of plaintiff's failure to secure the permit required by Ordinance No. 3000 of the City of Manila, as amended. This Ordinance is of general application and not particularly directed against institutions like the plaintiff, and it does not contain any provisions whatever prescribing religious censorship nor restraining the free exercise and enjoyment of any religious profession. Section 1 of Ordinance

No. 3000 reads as follows: SEC. 1. PERMITS NECESSARY. It shall be unlawful for any person or entity to conduct or engage in any of the businesses, trades, or occupations enumerated in Section 3 of this Ordinance or other businesses, trades, or occupations for which a permit is required for the proper supervision and enforcement of existing laws and ordinances governing the sanitation, security, and welfare of the public and the health of the employees engaged in the business specified in said section 3 hereof, WITHOUT FIRST HAVING OBTAINED A PERMIT THEREFOR FROM THE MAYOR AND THE NECESSARY LICENSE FROM THE CITY TREASURER. The business, trade or occupation of the plaintiff involved in this case is not particularly mentioned in Section 3 of the Ordinance, and the record does not show that a permit is required therefor under existing laws and ordinances for the proper supervision and enforcement of their provisions governing the sanitation, security and welfare of the public and the health of the employees engaged in the business of the plaintiff. However, sections 3 of Ordinance 3000 contains item No. 79, which reads as follows: 79. All other businesses, trades or occupations not mentioned in this Ordinance, except those upon which the City is not empowered to license or to tax P5.00 Therefore, the necessity of the permit is made to depend upon the power of the City to license or tax said business, trade or occupation.

As to the license fees that the Treasurer of the City of Manila required the society to pay from the 4th quarter of 1945 to the 1st quarter of 1953 in the sum of P5,821.45, including the sum of P50 as compromise, Ordinance No. 2529, as amended by Ordinances Nos. 2779, 2821 and 3028 prescribes the following: SEC. 1. FEES. Subject to the provisions of section 578 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Manila, as amended, there shall be paid to the City Treasurer for engaging in any of the businesses or occupations below enumerated, quarterly, license fees based on gross sales or receipts realized during the preceding quarter in accordance with the rates herein prescribed: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, That a person engaged in any businesses or occupation for the first time shall pay the initial license fee based on the probable gross sales or receipts for the first quarter beginning from the date of the opening of the business as indicated herein for the corresponding business or occupation. xxx xxx xxx GROUP 2. Retail dealers in new (not yet used) merchandise, which dealers are not yet subject to the payment of any municipal tax, such as (1) retail dealers in general merchandise; (2) retail dealers exclusively engaged in the sale of . . . books, including stationery. xxx xxx xxx As may be seen, the license fees required to be paid quarterly in Section 1 of said Ordinance No. 2529, as amended, are not imposed directly upon any religious institution but upon those

engaged in any of the business or occupations therein enumerated, such as retail "dealers in general merchandise" which, it is alleged, cover the business or occupation of selling bibles, books, etc. Chapter 60 of the Revised Administrative Code which includes section 2444, subsection (m-2) of said legal body, as amended by Act No. 3659, approved on December 8, 1929, empowers the Municipal Board of the City of Manila: (M-2) To tax and fix the license fee on (a) dealers in new automobiles or accessories or both, and (b) retail dealers in new (not yet used) merchandise, which dealers are not yet subject to the payment of any municipal tax. For the purpose of taxation, these retail dealers shall be classified as (1) retail dealers in general merchandise, and (2) retail dealers exclusively engaged in the sale of (a) textiles . . . (e) books, including stationery, paper and office supplies, . . .: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, That the combined total tax of any debtor or manufacturer, or both, enumerated under these subsections (m-1) and (m-2), whether dealing in one or all of the articles mentioned herein, SHALL NOT BE IN EXCESS OF FIVE HUNDRED PESOS PER ANNUM. and appellee's counsel maintains that City Ordinances Nos. 2529 and 3000, as amended, were enacted in virtue of the power that said Act No. 3669 conferred upon the City of Manila. Appellant, however, contends that said ordinances are longer in force and effect as the law under which they were promulgated has been expressly repealed by Section 102 of Republic Act No. 409 passed on June 18, 1949, known as the Revised Manila Charter.

Passing upon this point the lower Court categorically stated that Republic Act No. 409 expressly repealed the provisions of Chapter 60 of the Revised Administrative Code but in the opinion of the trial Judge, although Section 2444 (m-2) of the former Manila Charter and section 18 (o) of the new seemingly differ in the way the legislative intent was expressed, yet their meaning is practically the same for the purpose of taxing the merchandise mentioned in both legal provisions and, consequently, Ordinances Nos. 2529 and 3000, as amended, are to be considered as still in full force and effect uninterruptedly up to the present. Often the legislature, instead of simply amending the pre-existing statute, will repeal the old statute in its entirety and by the same enactment re-enact all or certain portions of the preexisting law. Of course, the problem created by this sort of legislative action involves mainly the effect of the repeal upon rights and liabilities which accrued under the original statute. Are those rights and liabilities destroyed or preserved? The authorities are divided as to the effect of simultaneous repeals and re-enactments. Some adhere to the view that the rights and liabilities accrued under the repealed act are destroyed, since the statutes from which they sprang are actually terminated, even though for only a very short period of time. Others, and they seem to be in the majority, refuse to accept this view of the situation, and consequently maintain that all rights an liabilities which have accrued under the original statute are preserved and may be enforced, since the re-enactment neutralizes the repeal, therefore, continuing the law in force without interruption. (Crawford-Statutory Construction, Sec. 322). Appellant's counsel states that section 18 (o) of Republic Act No, 409 introduces a new and

wider concept of taxation and is different from the provisions of Section 2444(m-2) that the former cannot be considered as a substantial re-enactment of the provisions of the latter. We have quoted above the provisions of section 2444(m-2) of the Revised Administrative Code and We shall now copy hereunder the provisions of Section 18, subdivision (o) of Republic Act No. 409, which reads as follows: (o) To tax and fix the license fee on dealers in general merchandise, including importers and indentors, except those dealers who may be expressly subject to the payment of some other municipal tax under the provisions of this section. Dealers in general merchandise shall be classified as (a) wholesale dealers and (b) retail dealers. For purposes of the tax on retail dealers, general merchandise shall be classified into four main classes: namely (1) luxury articles, (2) semi-luxury articles, (3) essential commodities, and (4) miscellaneous articles. A separate license shall be prescribed for each class but where commodities of different classes are sold in the same establishment, it shall not be compulsory for the owner to secure more than one license if he pays the higher or highest rate of tax prescribed by ordinance. Wholesale dealers shall pay the license tax as such, as may be provided by ordinance. For purposes of this section, the term "General merchandise" shall include poultry and livestock, agricultural products, fish and other allied products. The only essential difference that We find between these two provisions that may have any bearing on the case at bar, is that, while subsection (m-2) prescribes that the combined total tax

of any dealer or manufacturer, or both, enumerated under subsections (m-1) and (m-2), whether dealing in one or all of the articles mentioned therein, shall not be in excess of P500 per annum, the corresponding section 18, subsection (o) of Republic Act No. 409, does not contain any limitation as to the amount of tax or license fee that the retail dealer has to pay per annum. Hence, and in accordance with the weight of the authorities above referred to that maintain that "all rights and liabilities which have accrued under the original statute are preserved and may be enforced, since the reenactment neutralizes the repeal, therefore continuing the law in force without interruption", We hold that the questioned ordinances of the City of Manila are still in force and effect. Plaintiff, however, argues that the questioned ordinances, to be valid, must first be approved by the President of the Philippines as per section 18, subsection (ii) of Republic Act No. 409, which reads as follows: (ii) To tax, license and regulate any business, trade or occupation being conducted within the City of Manila, not otherwise enumerated in the preceding subsections, including percentage taxes based on gross sales or receipts, subject to the approval of the PRESIDENT, except amusement taxes. but this requirement of the President's approval was not contained in section 2444 of the former Charter of the City of Manila under which Ordinance No. 2529 was promulgated. Anyway, as stated by appellee's counsel, the business of "retail dealers in general merchandise" is expressly enumerated in subsection (o), section 18 of Republic Act No. 409; hence, an ordinance

prescribing a municipal tax on said business does not have to be approved by the President to be effective, as it is not among those referred to in said subsection (ii). Moreover, the questioned ordinances are still in force, having been promulgated by the Municipal Board of the City of Manila under the authority granted to it by law. The question that now remains to be determined is whether said ordinances are inapplicable, invalid or unconstitutional if applied to the alleged business of distribution and sale of bibles to the people of the Philippines by a religious corporation like the American Bible Society, plaintiff herein. With regard to Ordinance No. 2529, as amended by Ordinances Nos. 2779, 2821 and 3028, appellant contends that it is unconstitutional and illegal because it restrains the free exercise and enjoyment of the religious profession and worship of appellant. Article III, section 1, clause (7) of the Constitution of the Philippines aforequoted, guarantees the freedom of religious profession and worship. "Religion has been spoken of as a profession of faith to an active power that binds and elevates man to its Creator" (Aglipay vs. Ruiz, 64 Phil., 201).It has reference to one's views of his relations to His Creator and to the obligations they impose of reverence to His being and character, and obedience to His Will (Davis vs. Beason, 133 U.S., 342). The constitutional guaranty of the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship carries with it the right to disseminate religious information. Any restraints of such right can only be justified like other restraints of freedom of expression on the grounds that there is a clear and present danger of any substantive evil which the State has the

right to prevent". (Taada and Fernando on the Constitution of the Philippines, Vol. 1, 4th ed., p. 297). In the case at bar the license fee herein involved is imposed upon appellant for its distribution and sale of bibles and other religious literature: In the case of Murdock vs. Pennsylvania, it was held that an ordinance requiring that a license be obtained before a person could canvass or solicit orders for goods, paintings, pictures, wares or merchandise cannot be made to apply to members of Jehovah's Witnesses who went about from door to door distributing literature and soliciting people to "purchase" certain religious books and pamphlets, all published by the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society. The "price" of the books was twenty-five cents each, the "price" of the pamphlets five cents each. It was shown that in making the solicitations there was a request for additional "contribution" of twenty-five cents each for the books and five cents each for the pamphlets. Lesser sum were accepted, however, and books were even donated in case interested persons were without funds. On the above facts the Supreme Court held that it could not be said that petitioners were engaged in commercial rather than a religious venture. Their activities could not be described as embraced in the occupation of selling books and pamphlets. Then the Court continued: "We do not mean to say that religious groups and the press are free from all financial burdens of government. See Grosjean vs. American Press Co., 297 U.S., 233, 250, 80 L. ed. 660, 668, 56 S. Ct. 444. We have here something quite different, for example, from a tax on

the income of one who engages in religious activities or a tax on property used or employed in connection with activities. It is one thing to impose a tax on the income or property of a preacher. It is quite another to exact a tax from him for the privilege of delivering a sermon. The tax imposed by the City of Jeannette is a flat license tax, payment of which is a condition of the exercise of these constitutional privileges. The power to tax the exercise of a privilege is the power to control or suppress its enjoyment. . . . Those who can tax the exercise of this religious practice can make its exercise so costly as to deprive it of the resources necessary for its maintenance. Those who can tax the privilege of engaging in this form of missionary evangelism can close all its doors to all those who do not have a full purse. Spreading religious beliefs in this ancient and honorable manner would thus be denied the needy. . . . It is contended however that the fact that the license tax can suppress or control this activity is unimportant if it does not do so. But that is to disregard the nature of this tax. It is a license tax a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights . . . The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedom is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down. . . . It is not a nominal fee imposed as a regulatory measure to defray the expenses of policing the activities in question. It is in no way apportioned. It is flat license tax levied and collected as a condition to the pursuit of activities whose enjoyment is guaranteed by the constitutional liberties of press and religion and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise. That is almost uniformly recognized as the inherent vice and evil of this flat license tax."

Nor could dissemination of religious information be conditioned upon the approval of an official or manager even if the town were owned by a corporation as held in the case of Marsh vs. State of Alabama (326 U.S. 501), or by the United States itself as held in the case of Tucker vs. Texas (326 U.S. 517). In the former case the Supreme Court expressed the opinion that the right to enjoy freedom of the press and religion occupies a preferred position as against the constitutional right of property owners. "When we balance the constitutional rights of owners of property against those of the people to enjoy freedom of press and religion, as we must here, we remain mindful of the fact that the latter occupy a preferred position. . . . In our view the circumstance that the property rights to the premises where the deprivation of property here involved, took place, were held by others than the public, is not sufficient to justify the State's permitting a corporation to govern a community of citizens so as to restrict their fundamental liberties and the enforcement of such restraint by the application of a State statute." (Taada and Fernando on the Constitution of the Philippines, Vol. 1, 4th ed., p. 304-306). Section 27 of Commonwealth Act No. 466, otherwise known as the National Internal Revenue Code, provides: SEC. 27. EXEMPTIONS FROM TAX ON CORPORATIONS. The following organizations shall not be taxed under this Title in respect to income received by them as such (e) Corporations or associations organized and operated exclusively for religious,

charitable, . . . or educational purposes, . . .: Provided, however, That the income of whatever kind and character from any of its properties, real or personal, or from any activity conducted for profit, regardless of the disposition made of such income, shall be liable to the tax imposed under this Code; Appellant's counsel claims that the Collector of Internal Revenue has exempted the plaintiff from this tax and says that such exemption clearly indicates that the act of distributing and selling bibles, etc. is purely religious and does not fall under the above legal provisions. It may be true that in the case at bar the price asked for the bibles and other religious pamphlets was in some instances a little bit higher than the actual cost of the same but this cannot mean that appellant was engaged in the business or occupation of selling said "merchandise" for profit. For this reason We believe that the provisions of City of Manila Ordinance No. 2529, as amended, cannot be applied to appellant, for in doing so it would impair its free exercise and enjoyment of its religious profession and worship as well as its rights of dissemination of religious beliefs. With respect to Ordinance No. 3000, as amended, which requires the obtention the Mayor's permit before any person can engage in any of the businesses, trades or occupations enumerated therein, We do not find that it imposes any charge upon the enjoyment of a right granted by the Constitution, nor tax the exercise of religious practices. In the case of Coleman vs. City of Griffin, 189 S.E. 427, this point was elucidated as follows: An ordinance by the City of Griffin, declaring that the practice of distributing either by

hand or otherwise, circulars, handbooks, advertising, or literature of any kind, whether said articles are being delivered free, or whether same are being sold within the city limits of the City of Griffin, without first obtaining written permission from the city manager of the City of Griffin, shall be deemed a nuisance and punishable as an offense against the City of Griffin, does not deprive defendant of his constitutional right of the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, even though it prohibits him from introducing and carrying out a scheme or purpose which he sees fit to claim as a part of his religious system. It seems clear, therefore, that Ordinance No. 3000 cannot be considered unconstitutional, even if applied to plaintiff Society. But as Ordinance No. 2529 of the City of Manila, as amended, is not applicable to plaintiff-appellant and defendant-appellee is powerless to license or tax the business of plaintiff Society involved herein for, as stated before, it would impair plaintiff's right to the free exercise and enjoyment of its religious profession and worship, as well as its rights of dissemination of religious beliefs, We find that Ordinance No. 3000, as amended is also inapplicable to said business, trade or occupation of the plaintiff. Wherefore, and on the strength of the foregoing considerations, We hereby reverse the decision appealed from, sentencing defendant return to plaintiff the sum of P5,891.45 unduly collected from it. Without pronouncement as to costs. It is so ordered.

G.R. No. 3473 March 22, 1907 J. CASANOVAS, plaintiff-appellant, vs. JNO. S. HORD, defendant-appellee. F.G. Waite for appellant. Attorney-General Araneta for appellee. WILLARD, J.: The plaintiff brought this action against the defendant, the Collector of Internal Revenue, to recover the sum of P9,600, paid by him under protest as taxes on certain mining claims owned by him in the Province of Ambos Camarines. Judgment was rendered in the court below in favor of the defendant, and from that judgment the plaintiff appealed. There is no dispute about the facts. In January, 1897, the Spanish Government, in accordance with the provisions of the royal decree of the 14th of May, 1867, granted to the plaintiff certain mines in the said Province of Ambos Camarines, of which mines the plaintiff is now the owner. That there were valid perfected mining concessions granted prior to the 11th of April, 1899, is conceded. They were so considered by the Collector of Internal Revenue and were by him said to fall within the provisions of section 134 of Act No. 1189, known as the Internal Revenue Act. That section is as follows:

SEC. 134. On all valid perfected mining concessions granted prior to April eleventh, eighteen hundred and ninety-nine, there shall be levied and collected on the after January first, nineteen hundred and five, the following taxes: 2. (a) On each claim containing an area of sixty thousand square meters, an annual tax of one hundred pesos; (b) and at the same rate proportionately on each claim containing an area in excess of, or less than, sixty thousand square meters. 3. On the gross output of each an ad valorem tax equal to three per centum of the actual market value of such output. The defendant accordingly imposed upon these properties the tax mentioned in section 134, which tax, as has before been stated, plaintiff paid under protest. The only question in the case is whether this section 134 is void or valid. I. It is claimed by the plaintiff that it is void because it comes within the provision of section 5 of the act of Congress of July 1, 19021 (32 U.S. Stat. L., 691), which provides "that no law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be enacted." The royal decree of the 14th of May, 1867, provided, among other things, as follows: ART. 76. On each pertenencia minera (mining claim) of the area prescribed in the first paragraph of article 13 (sixty thousand square meters) there shall be paid annually a fixed tax of forty escudos (about P20.00). The pertenencia referred to in the second paragraph of the same article, though of greater area than the others (one hundred and fifty thousand

square meters), shall pay only twenty escudos (about P10.00). ART. 78. Pertenencia of iron mines and mines of combustible minerals shall be exempt from the annual tax for a period of thirty years from the date of publication of this decree. ART. 80. A further tax of three per centum on the gross earnings shall be paid without deduction of costs of any kind whatsoever. All substances enumerated in section one shall be exempt from said tax of three per centum for a period of thirty years. ART. 81. No other taxes than those herein mentioned shall be imposed upon mining and metallurgical industries. The royal decree and regulation for its enforcement provided that the deeds granted by the Government should be in a particular form, which form was inserted in the regulations. It must be presumed that the deeds granted to the plaintiff were made as provided by law, and, in fact, one of such concessions was exhibited during the argument in this court, and was found to be in exact conformity with the form prescribed by law. The deed is as follows: Don Camilo Garcia de Polavieja, Marquez de Polavieja, Teniente General de los Ejercitos Nacionales, Caballero Gran Cruz de la Real y Militar Orden de San Hermenegildo, de la Real y distinguida de Isabel la Catolica, de la del Merito Militar Roja, de la de la Corona de Italia, Comendador de Carlos Tercero, Bennemerito de la Patria en grado eminente, condecorado con varias cruses de distincion por meritos de guerra, Capitan General y Gobernador General de Filipinas. Whereas I have granted to Don Joaquin Casanovas y Llovet and to Don Martin Buck the

concession of a gold mine entitled "Nueva California Segunda" in the jurisdiction of Paracale, Province of Ambos Camarines: Now, therefore, in the name of His Majesty the King (whom God preserve), and pursuant to the provisions of article 37 of the royal decree of May 14, 1867, regulating mining in these Islands, I issue, this fifth day of November, eighteen hundred and ninety-six, this title deed to four pertenencias, comprising an area of two hundred and forty thousand square meters, as shown in the attached sketch map drafted by the engineer Don Enrique Abella y Casariego, and dated at Manila December sixteenth of the said year, subject to the following general terms and conditions: 1. That the mine shall be worked in conformity with the rules in mining, the grantee and his laborers to be governed by the police rules established by existing regulations. 2. That the grantee shall be liable for all damages to third parties that may be caused by his operations. 3. That the grantee shall likewise indemnify his neighbors for any damage they may suffer by reason of water accumulated on his works, if, upon being requested, he fail to drain the same within the time indicated. 4. That he shall contribute for the drainage of the adjacent mines and for the general galleries for drainage or haulage in proportion to the benefit he derives therefrom, whenever, by authority of the Governor-General, such works shall be opened for a group of pertenencias or for the entire mining locality in which the mine is situated. 5. That he shall commence work on the mine immediately upon receipt of this concession

unless prevented by force majeure. 6. That he shall keep the mine in active operation by employing at the rate of at least four laborers for each pertenencia for at least six months of each year. 7. That he shall strengthen the walls of the mine within the time indicated whenever, by reason of mismanagement of the work, it threatens to cave in, unless he be prevented by force majeure. 8. That he shall not render further profitable development of the mine difficult or impossible by avaricious operation. 9. That he shall not suspend the operation of the mine with the intention of abandoning the same without first informing the Governor of his intention, in which case he must leave the mine in a good state of timbering. 10. That he shall pay taxes on the mine and its output as prescribed in the royal decree. 11. Finally, that he shall comply with all the requirements contained in the royal decree and in the regulations for concessions of the same nature as the present. Without special conditions. Now, therefore, by virtue of this title deed, I grant to Don Joaquin Casanovas y Llovet and to Don Martin Buck the ownership of the said mine for an unlimited period of time so long as they shall comply with the foregoing terms and conditions, to the end that they may develop the same and make free use and disposition of the output thereof, with the right to

alienate the said mine subject to the provisions of existing laws, and to enjoy all the rights and benefits conceded to such grantees by the royal decree and by the mining regulations. And for the prompt fulfillment and observance of the said conditions, both on the part of the said grantees and by all authorities, courts, corporations, and private persons whom it may concern, I have ordered this title deed to be issued given under my hand and the proper seal and countersigned by the undersigned Director-General of Civil Administration. It seems very clear to us that this deed constituted a contract between the Spanish Government and the plaintiff, the obligation of which contract was impaired by the enactment of section 134 of the Internal Revenue Law above cited, thereby infringing the provisions above quoted from section 5 of the act of Congress of July 1, 1902. This conclusion seems necessarily to result from the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in similar cases. In the case of McGee vs. Mathis (4 Wallace, 143), it appeared that the State of Arkansas, by an act of the legislature of 1851, provided for the sale of certain swamp lands granted to it by the United States; for the issue of transferable scrip receivable for any lands not already taken up at the time of selection by the holder; for contracts for the making of levees and drains, and for the payment of contractors in scrip and otherwise. In the fourteenth section of this act it was provided that To encourage by all just means the progress and completion of the reclaiming of such lands by offering inducements to purchasers and contractors to take up said lands, all said swamp and overflowed lands shall be exempt from taxation for the term of ten years or until they shall be reclaimed.

In 1855 this section was repealed and provision was made by law for the taxation of swamp and overflowed lands, sold or to be sold, precisely as other lands. McGee, before this appeal, had become the owner by transfer from contractors of a large amount of scrip issued under the Act of 1851, and with this scrip, after the repeal, took up and paid for many sections and parts of sections of the granted lands. Taxes were levied by the State on the lands so taken up by McGee. The Supreme Court held that these taxes could not be collected. The Court said at page 156: It seems quite clear that the Act of 1851 authorizing the issue of land scrip constituted a contract between the State and the holders of the land scrip issued under the act. In the case of the Home of the Friendless vs. Rouse (8 Wallace, 430), it appeared that on the 3d day of February, 1853, the legislature of Missouri passed on act to incorporate the Home of the Friendless in the city of St. Louis. Section 1 of the act provided that All property of said corporation shall be exempt from taxation. The court held that the State had no power afterwards to pass laws providing for the levying of taxes upon this institution. The Court said among other things at page 438: The validity of this contract is questioned at the bar on the ground that the legislature had no authority to grant away the power of taxation. The answer to this position is, that the question is no longer open for argument here, for it is settled by the repeated adjudications of this court, that a State may be contract based on a consideration exempt the property of an individual or corporation from taxation, either for a specified period or permanently. And it is equally well settled that the exemption is presumed to be on sufficient

consideration, and binds the State if the charter containing it is accepted. In the case of The Asylum vs. The City of New Orleans (105 U.S., 362), it appears that St. Ariva's Asylum was incorporated by an act of the legislature of Louisiana, approved April 29, 1853. The law incorporating it provided that it should enjoy the same exemption from taxation which was enjoyed by the Orphan Boys' Asylum of New Orleans. The law relating to the last named institution provided (page 364): That, from and after the passage of this act, all the property, real and personal, belonging to the Orphan Boys' Asylum of New Orleans be, and the same is hereby exempted from all taxation, either by the State, parish, or city in which it is situated, any law to the contrary notwithstanding. It was held that the State had no power by subsequent legislation to impose taxes upon the property of this institution. That the doctrine announced in these cases is still maintained in that court is apparent from the case of Powers vs. The Detroit, Grand Haven and Milwaukee Railway which was decided on the 16th of April, 1906, and reported in 201 U. S., 543. Section 9 of the act of the legislature of Michigan, incorporating the railway company, provided: Said company shall, on or before the 1st day of July, pay to the State treasurer, an annual tax of one per cent on the capital stock of said company, pain in, which tax shall be in lieu of all other taxation. The court said at page 556:

It has often been decided by this court, so often that a citation on authorities in unnecessary, that the legislature of a State may, in the absence of special restrictions in its constitution, make a valid contract with a corporation in respect to taxation, and that such contract can be enforced against the State at the instance of the corporation. The case at bar falls within the cases hereinbefore cited. It is to be distinguished from the case of the Metropolitan Street Railway Company vs. The New York State Board of Tax Commissioners (199 U.S., 1). In that case it was provided by various acts of the legislature, that the companies therein referred to, should pay annually to the city of New York, a fixed amount or percentage, varying from 2 to 8 per cent of their gross earnings additional taxes was sustained by the court. It was sustained on the ground that the prior legislation did not expressly say that the taxes thus provided for should be in lieu of all other taxes. The court said at page 37: Applying these well-established rules to the several contracts, it will be perceived that there was no express relinquishment of the right of taxation. The plaintiff in error must rely upon some implication, and not upon any direct stipulation. In each contract there was a grant of privileges, but the grant was specifically or privileges in respect to the construction, operation and maintenance of the street railroad. These were all that in terms were granted. As consideration for this grant, the grantees were to pay something, and such payment is nowhere said to be in lieu of, or as an equivalent or substitute of taxes. All that can be extracted from the language used, was a grant of privileges and a payment therefor. Other words must be written into the contract before there can be found any relinquishment of the power of taxation.

But in the case at bar, there is found not only the provisions for the payment of certain taxes annually, but there is also found the provision contained in article 81, above quoted, which expressly declares that no other taxes shall be imposed upon these mines. The present case is to be distinguished also from that class of cases of which Grands Lodge vs. The City of New Orleans (166 U.S., 143) is a type, and which includes Salt Company vs. East Saginaw (13 Wall., 373) and Welch vs. Cook (97 U.S., 541). In these cases the exemption was a mere bounty and did not form a part of any contract. The fact that this concession was made by the Government of Spain, and not by the Government of the United States, is not important. (Trustees of Dartmouth College vs. Woodward, 4 Wheaton, 518.) Our conclusion is that the concessions granted by the Government of Spain to the plaintiff, constitute contracts between the parties; that section 134 of the Internal Revenue Law impairs the obligation of these contracts, and is therefore void as to them. II. We think that this section is also void because in conflict with section 60 of the act of Congress of July 1, 1902. This section is as follows: That nothing in this Act shall be construed to effect the rights of any person, partnership, or corporation, having a valid, perfected mining concession granted prior to April eleventh, eighteen hundred and ninety-nine, but all such concessions shall be conducted under the provisions of the law in force at the time they were granted, subject at all times to cancellation by reason of illegality in the procedure by which they were obtained, or for

failure to comply with the conditions prescribed as requisite to their retention in the laws under which they were granted: Provided, That the owner or owners of every such concession shall cause the corners made by its boundaries to be distinctly marked with permanent monuments within six months after this act has been promulgated in the Philippine Islands, and that any concessions, the boundaries of which are not so marked within this period shall be free and open to explorations and purchase under the provisions of this act.2 This section seems to indicate that concessions, like those in question, can be canceled only by reason of illegality in the procedure by which they were obtained, or for failure to comply with the conditions prescribed as requisite for their retention in the laws under which they were granted. There is nothing in the section which indicates that they can be canceled for failure to comply with the conditions prescribed by subsequent legislation. In fact, the real intention of the act seems to be that such concession should be subject to the former legislation and not to any subsequent legislation. There is no claim in this case that there was any illegality in the procedure by which these concessions were obtained, nor is there any claim that the plaintiff has not complied with the conditions prescribed in the said royal decree of 1867. III. In view of the result at which we have arrived, it is not necessary to consider the further claim made by the plaintiff that the taxes imposed by article 134 above quoted, are in violation of the part of section 5 of the act of July 1, 1902, which declares "that the rule of taxation in said Islands shall be uniform."

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and judgment is ordered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant for P9,600, with interest thereon, at 6 per cent, from the 21st day of February, 1906, and the costs of the Court of First Instance. No costs will be allowed to either party in this court. After the expiration of twenty days let judgment be entered in accordance herewith and ten days thereafter let the case be remanded to the court from whence it came for proper action. So ordered.

G.R. No. 179579 February 1, 2012 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS and the DISTRICT COLLECTOR OF THE PORT OF SUBIC, Petitioners, vs. HYPERMIX FEEDS CORPORATION, Respondent. DECISION SERENO, J.: Before us is a Petition for Review under Rule 45,1 assailing the Decision2 and the Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA), which nullified the Customs Memorandum Order (CMO) No. 2720034 on the tariff classification of wheat issued by petitioner Commissioner of Customs. The antecedent facts are as follows: On 7 November 2003, petitioner Commissioner of Customs issued CMO 27-2003. Under the Memorandum, for tariff purposes, wheat was classified according to the following: (1) importer or consignee; (2) country of origin; and (3) port of discharge.5 The regulation provided an exclusive list of corporations, ports of discharge, commodity descriptions and countries of origin. Depending on these factors, wheat would be classified either as food grade or feed grade. The corresponding tariff for food grade wheat was 3%, for feed grade, 7%. CMO 27-2003 further provided for the proper procedure for protest or Valuation and Classification Review Committee (VCRC) cases. Under this procedure, the release of the

articles that were the subject of protest required the importer to post a cash bond to cover the tariff differential.6 A month after the issuance of CMO 27-2003, on 19 December 2003, respondent filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief7 with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Las Pias City. It anticipated the implementation of the regulation on its imported and perishable Chinese milling wheat in transit from China.8 Respondent contended that CMO 27-2003 was issued without following the mandate of the Revised Administrative Code on public participation, prior notice, and publication or registration with the University of the Philippines Law Center. Respondent also alleged that the regulation summarily adjudged it to be a feed grade supplier without the benefit of prior assessment and examination; thus, despite having imported food grade wheat, it would be subjected to the 7% tariff upon the arrival of the shipment, forcing them to pay 133% more than was proper. Furthermore, respondent claimed that the equal protection clause of the Constitution was violated when the regulation treated non-flour millers differently from flour millers for no reason at all. Lastly, respondent asserted that the retroactive application of the regulation was confiscatory in nature. On 19 January 2004, the RTC issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) effective for twenty (20) days from notice.9

Petitioners thereafter filed a Motion to Dismiss.10 They alleged that: (1) the RTC did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case, because respondent was asking for a judicial determination of the classification of wheat; (2) an action for declaratory relief was improper; (3) CMO 27-2003 was an internal administrative rule and not legislative in nature; and (4) the claims of respondent were speculative and premature, because the Bureau of Customs (BOC) had yet to examine respondents products. They likewise opposed the application for a writ of preliminary injunction on the ground that they had not inflicted any injury through the issuance of the regulation; and that the action would be contrary to the rule that administrative issuances are assumed valid until declared otherwise. On 28 February 2005, the parties agreed that the matters raised in the application for preliminary injunction and the Motion to Dismiss would just be resolved together in the main case. Thus, on 10 March 2005, the RTC rendered its Decision11 without having to resolve the application for preliminary injunction and the Motion to Dismiss. The trial court ruled in favor of respondent, to wit: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Petition is GRANTED and the subject Customs Memorandum Order 27-2003 is declared INVALID and OF NO FORCE AND EFFECT. Respondents Commissioner of Customs, the District Collector of Subic or anyone acting in their behalf are to immediately cease and desist from enforcing the said Customs Memorandum Order 27-2003. SO ORDERED.12

The RTC held that it had jurisdiction over the subject matter, given that the issue raised by respondent concerned the quasi-legislative powers of petitioners. It likewise stated that a petition for declaratory relief was the proper remedy, and that respondent was the proper party to file it. The court considered that respondent was a regular importer, and that the latter would be subjected to the application of the regulation in future transactions. With regard to the validity of the regulation, the trial court found that petitioners had not followed the basic requirements of hearing and publication in the issuance of CMO 27-2003. It likewise held that petitioners had "substituted the quasi-judicial determination of the commodity by a quasi-legislative predetermination."13 The lower court pointed out that a classification based on importers and ports of discharge were violative of the due process rights of respondent. Dissatisfied with the Decision of the lower court, petitioners appealed to the CA, raising the same allegations in defense of CMO 27-2003.14 The appellate court, however, dismissed the appeal. It held that, since the regulation affected substantial rights of petitioners and other importers, petitioners should have observed the requirements of notice, hearing and publication. Hence, this Petition. Petitioners raise the following issues for the consideration of this Court: I. THE COURT OF APPEALS DECIDED A QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE WHICH IS NOT IN ACCORD WITH THE LAW AND PREVAILING JURISPRUDENCE. II. THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN DECLARING THAT THE

TRIAL COURT HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE. The Petition has no merit. We shall first discuss the propriety of an action for declaratory relief. Rule 63, Section 1 provides: Who may file petition. Any person interested under a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, or whose rights are affected by a statute, executive order or regulation, ordinance, or any other governmental regulation may, before breach or violation thereof, bring an action in the appropriate Regional Trial Court to determine any question of construction or validity arising, and for a declaration of his rights or duties, thereunder. The requirements of an action for declaratory relief are as follows: (1) there must be a justiciable controversy; (2) the controversy must be between persons whose interests are adverse; (3) the party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the controversy; and (4) the issue involved must be ripe for judicial determination.15 We find that the Petition filed by respondent before the lower court meets these requirements. First, the subject of the controversy is the constitutionality of CMO 27-2003 issued by petitioner Commissioner of Customs. In Smart Communications v. NTC,16 we held: The determination of whether a specific rule or set of rules issued by an administrative agency contravenes the law or the constitution is within the jurisdiction of the regular courts. Indeed, the Constitution vests the power of judicial review or the power to declare a law, treaty,

international or executive agreement, presidential decree, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation in the courts, including the regional trial courts. This is within the scope of judicial power, which includes the authority of the courts to determine in an appropriate action the validity of the acts of the political departments. Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. (Emphasis supplied) Meanwhile, in Misamis Oriental Association of Coco Traders, Inc. v. Department of Finance Secretary,17 we said: xxx [A] legislative rule is in the nature of subordinate legislation, designed to implement a primary legislation by providing the details thereof. xxx In addition such rule must be published. On the other hand, interpretative rules are designed to provide guidelines to the law which the administrative agency is in charge of enforcing. Accordingly, in considering a legislative rule a court is free to make three inquiries: (i) whether the rule is within the delegated authority of the administrative agency; (ii) whether it is reasonable; and (iii) whether it was issued pursuant to proper procedure. But the court is not free to substitute its judgment as to the desirability or wisdom of the rule for the legislative body, by its delegation of administrative judgment, has committed those questions to administrative judgments and not to judicial judgments. In the case of an interpretative rule, the inquiry is not

into the validity but into the correctness or propriety of the rule. As a matter of power a court, when confronted with an interpretative rule, is free to (i) give the force of law to the rule; (ii) go to the opposite extreme and substitute its judgment; or (iii) give some intermediate degree of authoritative weight to the interpretative rule. (Emphasis supplied) Second, the controversy is between two parties that have adverse interests. Petitioners are summarily imposing a tariff rate that respondent is refusing to pay. Third, it is clear that respondent has a legal and substantive interest in the implementation of CMO 27-2003. Respondent has adequately shown that, as a regular importer of wheat, on 14 August 2003, it has actually made shipments of wheat from China to Subic. The shipment was set to arrive in December 2003. Upon its arrival, it would be subjected to the conditions of CMO 27-2003. The regulation calls for the imposition of different tariff rates, depending on the factors enumerated therein. Thus, respondent alleged that it would be made to pay the 7% tariff applied to feed grade wheat, instead of the 3% tariff on food grade wheat. In addition, respondent would have to go through the procedure under CMO 27-2003, which would undoubtedly toll its time and resources. The lower court correctly pointed out as follows: xxx As noted above, the fact that petitioner is precisely into the business of importing wheat, each and every importation will be subjected to constant disputes which will result into (sic) delays in the delivery, setting aside of funds as cash bond required in the CMO as well as the resulting expenses thereof. It is easy to see that business uncertainty will be a constant occurrence for petitioner. That the sums involved are not minimal is shown by the discussions

during the hearings conducted as well as in the pleadings filed. It may be that the petitioner can later on get a refund but such has been foreclosed because the Collector of Customs and the Commissioner of Customs are bound by their own CMO. Petitioner cannot get its refund with the said agency. We believe and so find that Petitioner has presented such a stake in the outcome of this controversy as to vest it with standing to file this petition.18 (Emphasis supplied) Finally, the issue raised by respondent is ripe for judicial determination, because litigation is inevitable19 for the simple and uncontroverted reason that respondent is not included in the enumeration of flour millers classified as food grade wheat importers. Thus, as the trial court stated, it would have to file a protest case each time it imports food grade wheat and be subjected to the 7% tariff. It is therefore clear that a petition for declaratory relief is the right remedy given the circumstances of the case. Considering that the questioned regulation would affect the substantive rights of respondent as explained above, it therefore follows that petitioners should have applied the pertinent provisions of Book VII, Chapter 2 of the Revised Administrative Code, to wit: Section 3. Filing. (1) Every agency shall file with the University of the Philippines Law Center three (3) certified copies of every rule adopted by it. Rules in force on the date of effectivity of this Code which are not filed within three (3) months from that date shall not thereafter be the bases of any sanction against any party of persons. xxx xxx xxx

Section 9. Public Participation. - (1) If not otherwise required by law, an agency shall, as far as practicable, publish or circulate notices of proposed rules and afford interested parties the opportunity to submit their views prior to the adoption of any rule. (2) In the fixing of rates, no rule or final order shall be valid unless the proposed rates shall have been published in a newspaper of general circulation at least two (2) weeks before the first hearing thereon. (3) In case of opposition, the rules on contested cases shall be observed. When an administrative rule is merely interpretative in nature, its applicability needs nothing further than its bare issuance, for it gives no real consequence more than what the law itself has already prescribed. When, on the other hand, the administrative rule goes beyond merely providing for the means that can facilitate or render least cumbersome the implementation of the law but substantially increases the burden of those governed, it behooves the agency to accord at least to those directly affected a chance to be heard, and thereafter to be duly informed, before that new issuance is given the force and effect of law.20 Likewise, in Taada v. Tuvera,21 we held: The clear object of the above-quoted provision is to give the general public adequate notice of the various laws which are to regulate their actions and conduct as citizens. Without such notice and publication, there would be no basis for the application of the maxim "ignorantia legis non excusat." It would be the height of injustice to punish or otherwise burden a citizen for the transgression of a law of which he had no notice whatsoever, not even a constructive one.

Perhaps at no time since the establishment of the Philippine Republic has the publication of laws taken so vital significance that at this time when the people have bestowed upon the President a power heretofore enjoyed solely by the legislature. While the people are kept abreast by the mass media of the debates and deliberations in the Batasan Pambansa and for the diligent ones, ready access to the legislative records no such publicity accompanies the law-making process of the President. Thus, without publication, the people have no means of knowing what presidential decrees have actually been promulgated, much less a definite way of informing themselves of the specific contents and texts of such decrees. (Emphasis supplied) Because petitioners failed to follow the requirements enumerated by the Revised Administrative Code, the assailed regulation must be struck down. Going now to the content of CMO 27-3003, we likewise hold that it is unconstitutional for being violative of the equal protection clause of the Constitution. The equal protection clause means that no person or class of persons shall be deprived of the same protection of laws enjoyed by other persons or other classes in the same place in like circumstances. Thus, the guarantee of the equal protection of laws is not violated if there is a reasonable classification. For a classification to be reasonable, it must be shown that (1) it rests on substantial distinctions; (2) it is germane to the purpose of the law; (3) it is not limited to existing conditions only; and (4) it applies equally to all members of the same class.22 Unfortunately, CMO 27-2003 does not meet these requirements. We do not see how the quality of wheat is affected by who imports it, where it is discharged, or which country it came from.

Thus, on the one hand, even if other millers excluded from CMO 27-2003 have imported food grade wheat, the product would still be declared as feed grade wheat, a classification subjecting them to 7% tariff. On the other hand, even if the importers listed under CMO 27-2003 have imported feed grade wheat, they would only be made to pay 3% tariff, thus depriving the state of the taxes due. The regulation, therefore, does not become disadvantageous to respondent only, but even to the state. It is also not clear how the regulation intends to "monitor more closely wheat importations and thus prevent their misclassification." A careful study of CMO 27-2003 shows that it not only fails to achieve this end, but results in the opposite. The application of the regulation forecloses the possibility that other corporations that are excluded from the list import food grade wheat; at the same time, it creates an assumption that those who meet the criteria do not import feed grade wheat. In the first case, importers are unnecessarily burdened to prove the classification of their wheat imports; while in the second, the state carries that burden. Petitioner Commissioner of Customs also went beyond his powers when the regulation limited the customs officers duties mandated by Section 1403 of the Tariff and Customs Law, as amended. The law provides: Section 1403. Duties of Customs Officer Tasked to Examine, Classify, and Appraise Imported Articles. The customs officer tasked to examine, classify, and appraise imported articles shall determine whether the packages designated for examination and their contents are in accordance with the declaration in the entry, invoice and other pertinent documents and shall make return in

such a manner as to indicate whether the articles have been truly and correctly declared in the entry as regard their quantity, measurement, weight, and tariff classification and not imported contrary to law. He shall submit samples to the laboratory for analysis when feasible to do so and when such analysis is necessary for the proper classification, appraisal, and/or admission into the Philippines of imported articles. Likewise, the customs officer shall determine the unit of quantity in which they are usually bought and sold, and appraise the imported articles in accordance with Section 201 of this Code. Failure on the part of the customs officer to comply with his duties shall subject him to the penalties prescribed under Section 3604 of this Code.1wphi1 The provision mandates that the customs officer must first assess and determine the classification of the imported article before tariff may be imposed. Unfortunately, CMO 23-2007 has already classified the article even before the customs officer had the chance to examine it. In effect, petitioner Commissioner of Customs diminished the powers granted by the Tariff and Customs Code with regard to wheat importation when it no longer required the customs officers prior examination and assessment of the proper classification of the wheat. It is well-settled that rules and regulations, which are the product of a delegated power to create new and additional legal provisions that have the effect of law, should be within the scope of the statutory authority granted by the legislature to the administrative agency. It is required that the regulation be germane to the objects and purposes of the law; and that it be not in contradiction to, but in conformity with, the standards prescribed by law.23

In summary, petitioners violated respondents right to due process in the issuance of CMO 272003 when they failed to observe the requirements under the Revised Administrative Code. Petitioners likewise violated respondents right to equal protection of laws when they provided for an unreasonable classification in the application of the regulation. Finally, petitioner Commissioner of Customs went beyond his powers of delegated authority when the regulation limited the powers of the customs officer to examine and assess imported articles. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Petition is DENIED. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. L-26521 December 28, 1968 EUSEBIO VILLANUEVA, ET AL., plaintiff-appellee, vs. CITY OF ILOILO, defendants-appellants. Pelaez, Jalandoni and Jamir for plaintiff-appellees. Assistant City Fiscal Vicente P. Gengos for defendant-appellant. CASTRO, J.: Appeal by the defendant City of Iloilo from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo declaring illegal Ordinance 11, series of 1960, entitled, "An Ordinance Imposing Municipal License Tax On Persons Engaged In The Business Of Operating Tenement Houses," and ordering the City to refund to the plaintiffs-appellees the sums of collected from them under the said ordinance. On September 30, 1946 the municipal board of Iloilo City enacted Ordinance 86, imposing license tax fees as follows: (1) tenement house (casa de vecindad), P25.00 annually; (2) tenement house, partly or wholly engaged in or dedicated to business in the streets of J.M. Basa, Iznart and Aldeguer, P24.00 per apartment; (3) tenement house, partly or wholly engaged in business in any other streets, P12.00 per apartment. The validity and constitutionality of this ordinance were challenged by the spouses Eusebio Villanueva and Remedies Sian Villanueva, owners of four tenement houses containing 34 apartments. This Court, in City of Iloilo vs. Remedios Sian Villanueva and Eusebio Villanueva, L-12695, March 23, 1959, declared the

ordinance ultra vires, "it not appearing that the power to tax owners of tenement houses is one among those clearly and expressly granted to the City of Iloilo by its Charter." On January 15, 1960 the municipal board of Iloilo City, believing, obviously, that with the passage of Republic Act 2264, otherwise known as the Local Autonomy Act, it had acquired the authority or power to enact an ordinance similar to that previously declared by this Court as ultra vires, enacted Ordinance 11, series of 1960, hereunder quoted in full: AN ORDINANCE IMPOSING MUNICIPAL LICENSE TAX ON PERSONS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF OPERATING TENEMENT HOUSES Be it ordained by the Municipal Board of the City of Iloilo, pursuant to the provisions of Republic Act No. 2264, otherwise known as the Autonomy Law of Local Government, that: Section 1. A municipal license tax is hereby imposed on tenement houses in accordance with the schedule of payment herein provided. Section 2. Tenement house as contemplated in this ordinance shall mean any building or dwelling for renting space divided into separate apartments or accessorias. Section 3. The municipal license tax provided in Section 1 hereof shall be as follows: I. Tenement houses: (a) Apartment house made of strong P20.00 per materials door p.a.

(b) Apartment house made of mixed P10.00 per materials door p.a. II Rooming house of strong materials Rooming house of mixed materials P10.00 per door p.a. P5.00 per door p.a.

III. Tenement house partly or wholly engaged in or dedicated to business in the following streets: J.M. Basa, Iznart, Aldeguer, Guanco and Ledesma from Plazoleto Gay to P30.00 per Valeria. St. door p.a. IV. Tenement house partly or wholly engaged in or dedicated to business in any other street V. Tenement houses at the streets surrounding the super market as soon as said place is declared P12.00 per door p.a. P24.00 per door p.a.

commercial Section 4. All ordinances or parts thereof inconsistent herewith are hereby amended. Section 5. Any person found violating this ordinance shall be punished with a fine note exceeding Two Hundred Pesos (P200.00) or an imprisonment of not more than six (6) months or both at the discretion of the Court. Section 6 This ordinance shall take effect upon approval. ENACTED, January 15, 1960. In Iloilo City, the appellees Eusebio Villanueva and Remedios S. Villanueva are owners of five tenement houses, aggregately containing 43 apartments, while the other appellees and the same Remedios S. Villanueva are owners of ten apartments. Each of the appellees' apartments has a door leading to a street and is rented by either a Filipino or Chinese merchant. The first floor is utilized as a store, while the second floor is used as a dwelling of the owner of the store. Eusebio Villanueva owns, likewise, apartment buildings for rent in Bacolod, Dumaguete City, Baguio City and Quezon City, which cities, according to him, do not impose tenement or apartment taxes. By virtue of the ordinance in question, the appellant City collected from spouses Eusebio Villanueva and Remedios S. Villanueva, for the years 1960-1964, the sum of P5,824.30, and from the appellees Pio Sian Melliza, Teresita S. Topacio, and Remedios S. Villanueva, for the years 1960-1964, the sum of P1,317.00. Eusebio Villanueva has likewise been paying real estate

taxes on his property. On July 11, 1962 and April 24, 1964, the plaintiffs-appellees filed a complaint, and an amended complaint, respectively, against the City of Iloilo, in the aforementioned court, praying that Ordinance 11, series of 1960, be declared "invalid for being beyond the powers of the Municipal Council of the City of Iloilo to enact, and unconstitutional for being violative of the rule as to uniformity of taxation and for depriving said plaintiffs of the equal protection clause of the Constitution," and that the City be ordered to refund the amounts collected from them under the said ordinance. On March 30, 1966,1 the lower court rendered judgment declaring the ordinance illegal on the grounds that (a) "Republic Act 2264 does not empower cities to impose apartment taxes," (b) the same is "oppressive and unreasonable," for the reason that it penalizes owners of tenement houses who fail to pay the tax, (c) it constitutes not only double taxation, but treble at that and (d) it violates the rule of uniformity of taxation. The issues posed in this appeal are: 1. Is Ordinance 11, series of 1960, of the City of Iloilo, illegal because it imposes double taxation? 2. Is the City of Iloilo empowered by the Local Autonomy Act to impose tenement taxes? 3. Is Ordinance 11, series of 1960, oppressive and unreasonable because it carries a penal clause?

4. Does Ordinance 11, series of 1960, violate the rule of uniformity of taxation? 1. The pertinent provisions of the Local Autonomy Act are hereunder quoted: SEC. 2. Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, all chartered cities, municipalities and municipal districts shall have authority to impose municipal license taxes or fees upon persons engaged in any occupation or business, or exercising privileges in chartered cities, municipalities or municipal districts by requiring them to secure licences at rates fixed by the municipal board or city council of the city, the municipal council of the municipality, or the municipal district council of the municipal district; to collect fees and charges for services rendered by the city, municipality or municipal district; to regulate and impose reasonable fees for services rendered in connection with any business, profession or occupation being conducted within the city, municipality or municipal district and otherwise to levy for public purposes, just and uniform taxes, licenses or fees; Provided, That municipalities and municipal districts shall, in no case, impose any percentage tax on sales or other taxes in any form based thereon nor impose taxes on articles subject to specific tax, except gasoline, under the provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code; Provided, however, That no city, municipality or municipal district may levy or impose any of the following: (a) Residence tax; (b) Documentary stamp tax; (c) Taxes on the business of persons engaged in the printing and publication of any

newspaper, magazine, review or bulletin appearing at regular intervals and having fixed prices for for subscription and sale, and which is not published primarily for the purpose of publishing advertisements; (d) Taxes on persons operating waterworks, irrigation and other public utilities except electric light, heat and power; (e) Taxes on forest products and forest concessions; (f) Taxes on estates, inheritance, gifts, legacies, and other acquisitions mortis causa; (g) Taxes on income of any kind whatsoever; (h) Taxes or fees for the registration of motor vehicles and for the issuance of all kinds of licenses or permits for the driving thereof; (i) Customs duties registration, wharfage dues on wharves owned by the national government, tonnage, and all other kinds of customs fees, charges and duties; (j) Taxes of any kind on banks, insurance companies, and persons paying franchise tax; and (k) Taxes on premiums paid by owners of property who obtain insurance directly with foreign insurance companies. A tax ordinance shall go into effect on the fifteenth day after its passage, unless the ordinance shall provide otherwise: Provided, however, That the Secretary of Finance shall have authority to suspend the effectivity of any ordinance within one hundred and twenty days after its passage, if, in his opinion, the tax or fee therein levied or imposed is unjust,

excessive, oppressive, or confiscatory, and when the said Secretary exercises this authority the effectivity of such ordinance shall be suspended. In such event, the municipal board or city council in the case of cities and the municipal council or municipal district council in the case of municipalities or municipal districts may appeal the decision of the Secretary of Finance to the court during the pendency of which case the tax levied shall be considered as paid under protest. It is now settled that the aforequoted provisions of Republic Act 2264 confer on local governments broad taxing authority which extends to almost "everything, excepting those which are mentioned therein," provided that the tax so levied is "for public purposes, just and uniform," and does not transgress any constitutional provision or is not repugnant to a controlling statute.2 Thus, when a tax, levied under the authority of a city or municipal ordinance, is not within the exceptions and limitations aforementioned, the same comes within the ambit of the general rule, pursuant to the rules of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, and exceptio firmat regulum in casibus non excepti. Does the tax imposed by the ordinance in question fall within any of the exceptions provided for in section 2 of the Local Autonomy Act? For this purpose, it is necessary to determine the true nature of the tax. The appellees strongly maintain that it is a "property tax" or "real estate tax,"3 and not a "tax on persons engaged in any occupation or business or exercising privileges," or a license tax, or a privilege tax, or an excise tax.4 Indeed, the title of the ordinance designates it as a "municipal license tax on persons engaged in the business of operating tenement houses,"

while section 1 thereof states that a "municipal license tax is hereby imposed on tenement houses." It is the phraseology of section 1 on which the appellees base their contention that the tax involved is a real estate tax which, according to them, makes the ordinance ultra vires as it imposes a levy "in excess of the one per centum real estate tax allowable under Sec. 38 of the Iloilo City Charter, Com. Act 158."5. It is our view, contrary to the appellees' contention, that the tax in question is not a real estate tax. Obviously, the appellees confuse the tax with the real estate tax within the meaning of the Assessment Law,6 which, although not applicable to the City of Iloilo, has counterpart provisions in the Iloilo City Charter.7 A real estate tax is a direct tax on the ownership of lands and buildings or other improvements thereon, not specially exempted,8 and is payable regardless of whether the property is used or not, although the value may vary in accordance with such factor.9 The tax is usually single or indivisible, although the land and building or improvements erected thereon are assessed separately, except when the land and building or improvements belong to separate owners.10 It is a fixed proportion11 of the assessed value of the property taxed, and requires, therefore, the intervention of assessors.12 It is collected or payable at appointed times,13 and it constitutes a superior lien on and is enforceable against the property14 subject to such taxation, and not by imprisonment of the owner. The tax imposed by the ordinance in question does not possess the aforestated attributes. It is not a tax on the land on which the tenement houses are erected, although both land and tenement

houses may belong to the same owner. The tax is not a fixed proportion of the assessed value of the tenement houses, and does not require the intervention of assessors or appraisers. It is not payable at a designated time or date, and is not enforceable against the tenement houses either by sale or distraint. Clearly, therefore, the tax in question is not a real estate tax. "The spirit, rather than the letter, or an ordinance determines the construction thereof, and the court looks less to its words and more to the context, subject-matter, consequence and effect. Accordingly, what is within the spirit is within the ordinance although it is not within the letter thereof, while that which is in the letter, although not within the spirit, is not within the ordinance."15 It is within neither the letter nor the spirit of the ordinance that an additional real estate tax is being imposed, otherwise the subject-matter would have been not merely tenement houses. On the contrary, it is plain from the context of the ordinance that the intention is to impose a license tax on the operation of tenement houses, which is a form of business or calling. The ordinance, in both its title and body, particularly sections 1 and 3 thereof, designates the tax imposed as a "municipal license tax" which, by itself, means an "imposition or exaction on the right to use or dispose of property, to pursue a business, occupation, or calling, or to exercise a privilege."16. "The character of a tax is not to be fixed by any isolated words that may beemployed in the statute creating it, but such words must be taken in the connection in which they are used and the true character is to be deduced from the nature and essence of the subject."17 The subject-matter of the ordinance is tenement houses whose nature and essence are expressly

set forth in section 2 which defines a tenement house as "any building or dwelling for renting space divided into separate apartments or accessorias." The Supreme Court, in City of Iloilo vs. Remedios Sian Villanueva, et al., L-12695, March 23, 1959, adopted the definition of a tenement house18 as "any house or building, or portion thereof, which is rented, leased, or hired out to be occupied, or is occupied, as the home or residence of three families or more living independently of each other and doing their cooking in the premises or by more than two families upon any floor, so living and cooking, but having a common right in the halls, stairways, yards, water-closets, or privies, or some of them." Tenement houses, being necessarily offered for rent or lease by their very nature and essence, therefore constitute a distinct form of business or calling, similar to the hotel or motel business, or the operation of lodging houses or boarding houses. This is precisely one of the reasons why this Court, in the said case of City of Iloilo vs. Remedios Sian Villanueva, et al., supra, declared Ordinance 86 ultra vires, because, although the municipal board of Iloilo City is empowered, under sec. 21, par. j of its Charter, "to tax, fix the license fee for, and regulate hotels, restaurants, refreshment parlors, cafes, lodging houses, boarding houses, livery garages, public warehouses, pawnshops, theaters, cinematographs," tenement houses, which constitute a different business enterprise,19 are not mentioned in the aforestated section of the City Charter of Iloilo. Thus, in the aforesaid case, this Court explicitly said:. "And it not appearing that the power to tax owners of tenement houses is one among those clearly and expressly granted to the City of Iloilo by its Charter, the exercise of such power

cannot be assumed and hence the ordinance in question is ultra vires insofar as it taxes a tenement house such as those belonging to defendants." . The lower court has interchangeably denominated the tax in question as a tenement tax or an apartment tax. Called by either name, it is not among the exceptions listed in section 2 of the Local Autonomy Act. On the other hand, the imposition by the ordinance of a license tax on persons engaged in the business of operating tenement houses finds authority in section 2 of the Local Autonomy Act which provides that chartered cities have the authority to impose municipal license taxes or fees upon persons engaged in any occupation or business, or exercising privileges within their respective territories, and "otherwise to levy for public purposes, just and uniform taxes, licenses, or fees." . 2. The trial court condemned the ordinance as constituting "not only double taxation but treble at that," because "buildings pay real estate taxes and also income taxes as provided for in Sec. 182 (A) (3) (s) of the National Internal Revenue Code, besides the tenement tax under the said ordinance." Obviously, what the trial court refers to as "income taxes" are the fixed taxes on business and occupation provided for in section 182, Title V, of the National Internal Revenue Code, by virtue of which persons engaged in "leasing or renting property, whether on their account as principals or as owners of rental property or properties," are considered "real estate dealers" and are taxed according to the amount of their annual income.20. While it is true that the plaintiffs-appellees are taxable under the aforesaid provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code as real estate dealers, and still taxable under the ordinance in

question, the argument against double taxation may not be invoked. The same tax may be imposed by the national government as well as by the local government. There is nothing inherently obnoxious in the exaction of license fees or taxes with respect to the same occupation, calling or activity by both the State and a political subdivision thereof.21. The contention that the plaintiffs-appellees are doubly taxed because they are paying the real estate taxes and the tenement tax imposed by the ordinance in question, is also devoid of merit. It is a well-settled rule that a license tax may be levied upon a business or occupation although the land or property used in connection therewith is subject to property tax. The State may collect an ad valorem tax on property used in a calling, and at the same time impose a license tax on that calling, the imposition of the latter kind of tax being in no sensea double tax.22. "In order to constitute double taxation in the objectionable or prohibited sense the same property must be taxed twice when it should be taxed but once; both taxes must be imposed on the same property or subject-matter, for the same purpose, by the same State, Government, or taxing authority, within the same jurisdiction or taxing district, during the same taxing period, and they must be the same kind or character of tax."23 It has been shown that a real estate tax and the tenement tax imposed by the ordinance, although imposed by the sametaxing authority, are not of the same kind or character. At all events, there is no constitutional prohibition against double taxation in the Philippines. 24 It is something not favored, but is permissible, provided some other constitutional requirement is not thereby violated, such as the requirement that taxes must be uniform."25.

3. The appellant City takes exception to the conclusion of the lower court that the ordinance is not only oppressive because it "carries a penal clause of a fine of P200.00 or imprisonment of 6 months or both, if the owner or owners of the tenement buildings divided into apartments do not pay the tenement or apartment tax fixed in said ordinance," but also unconstitutional as it subjects the owners of tenement houses to criminal prosecution for non-payment of an obligation which is purely sum of money." The lower court apparently had in mind, when it made the above ruling, the provision of the Constitution that "no person shall be imprisoned for a debt or non-payment of a poll tax."26 It is elementary, however, that "a tax is not a debt in the sense of an obligation incurred by contract, express or implied, and therefore is not within the meaning of constitutional or statutory provisions abolishing or prohibiting imprisonment for debt, and a statute or ordinance which punishes the non-payment thereof by fine or imprisonment is not, in conflict with that prohibition."27 Nor is the tax in question a poll tax, for the latter is a tax of a fixed amount upon all persons, or upon all persons of a certain class, resident within a specified territory, without regard to their property or the occupations in which they may be engaged.28 Therefore, the tax in question is not oppressive in the manner the lower court puts it. On the other hand, the charter of Iloilo City29 empowers its municipal board to "fix penalties for violations of ordinances, which shall not exceed a fine of two hundred pesos or six months' imprisonment, or both such fine and imprisonment for each offense." In Punsalan, et al. vs. Mun. Board of Manila, supra, this Court overruled the pronouncement of the lower court declaring illegal and void an ordinance imposing an occupation tax on persons exercising various professions in the City of Manilabecause it imposed a penalty of fine and imprisonment

for its violation.30. 4. The trial court brands the ordinance as violative of the rule of uniformity of taxation. "... because while the owners of the other buildings only pay real estate tax and income taxes the ordinance imposes aside from these two taxes an apartment or tenement tax. It should be noted that in the assessment of real estate tax all parts of the building or buildings are included so that the corresponding real estate tax could be properly imposed. If aside from the real estate tax the owner or owners of the tenement buildings should pay apartment taxes as required in the ordinance then it will violate the rule of uniformity of taxation.". Complementing the above ruling of the lower court, the appellees argue that there is "lack of uniformity" and "relative inequality," because "only the taxpayers of the City of Iloilo are singled out to pay taxes on their tenement houses, while citizens of other cities, where their councils do not enact a similar tax ordinance, are permitted to escape such imposition." . It is our view that both assertions are undeserving of extended attention. This Court has already ruled that tenement houses constitute a distinct class of property. It has likewise ruled that "taxes are uniform and equal when imposed upon all property of the same class or character within the taxing authority."31 The fact, therefore, that the owners of other classes of buildings in the City of Iloilo do not pay the taxes imposed by the ordinance in question is no argument at all against uniformity and equality of the tax imposition. Neither is the rule of equality and uniformity violated by the fact that tenement taxesare not imposed in other cities, for the same rule does not

require that taxes for the same purpose should be imposed in different territorial subdivisions at the same time.32 So long as the burden of the tax falls equally and impartially on all owners or operators of tenement houses similarly classified or situated, equality and uniformity of taxation is accomplished.33 The plaintiffs-appellees, as owners of tenement houses in the City of Iloilo, have not shown that the tax burden is not equally or uniformly distributed among them, to overthrow the presumption that tax statutes are intended to operate uniformly and equally.34. 5. The last important issue posed by the appellees is that since the ordinance in the case at bar is a mere reproduction of Ordinance 86 of the City of Iloilo which was declared by this Court in L12695, supra, as ultra vires, the decision in that case should be accorded the effect of res judicata in the present case or should constitute estoppel by judgment. To dispose of this contention, it suffices to say that there is no identity of subject-matter in that case andthis case because the subject-matter in L-12695 was an ordinance which dealt not only with tenement houses but also warehouses, and the said ordinance was enacted pursuant to the provisions of the City charter, while the ordinance in the case at bar was enacted pursuant to the provisions of the Local Autonomy Act. There is likewise no identity of cause of action in the two cases because the main issue in L-12695 was whether the City of Iloilo had the power under its charter to impose the tax levied by Ordinance 11, series of 1960, under the Local Autonomy Act which took effect on June 19, 1959, and therefore was not available for consideration in the decision in L-12695 which was promulgated on March 23, 1959. Moreover, under the provisions of section 2 of the Local Autonomy Act, local governments may now tax any taxable subject-matter or object not included in the enumeration of matters removed from the taxing power of local

governments.Prior to the enactment of the Local Autonomy Act the taxes that could be legally levied by local governments were only those specifically authorized by law, and their power to tax was construed in strictissimi juris. 35. ACCORDINGLY, the judgment a quo is reversed, and, the ordinance in questionbeing valid, the complaint is hereby dismissed. No pronouncement as to costs..

G.R. No. 104151 March 10, 1995 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and COURT OF TAX APPEALS, respondents. G.R No. 105563 March 10, 1995 ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE and COURT OF TAX APPEALS, respondents. REGALADO, J.:

Before us for joint adjudication are two petitions for review on certiorari separately filed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in G.R. No. 104151, and by Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation in G.R. No. 105563, which respectively seek the aside of the judgments of respondent Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 25945 promulgated on February 12, 1992 1 and in CA-G.R. SP No. 26087 promulgated on May 22, 1992. 2

Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation (herein also referred to as ACMDC) is a domestic corporation which owns and operates a mining concession at Toledo City, Cebu, the products of which are exported to Japan and other foreign countries. On April 9, 1980, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (also Commissioner, for brevity), acting on the basis of the report of the examiners of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), caused the service of an assessment notice and demand for payment of the amount of P12,391,070.51 representing deficiency ad valorem percentage and fixed taxes, including increments, for the taxable year 1975 against ACMDC. 3 Likewise, on the basis. of the BIR examiner's report in another investigation separately conducted, the Commissioner had another assessment notice, with a demand for payment of the amount of P13,531,466.80 representing the 1976 deficiency ad valorem and business taxes with P5,000.00 compromise penalty, served on ACMDC on September 23, 1980. 4 ACMDC protested both assessments but the. same were denied, hence it filed two separate petitions for review in the Court of Tax Appeals (also, tax court) where they were docketed as C.T.A. Cases Nos. 3467 and 3825.

These two cases, being substantially identical in most respects except for the taxable periods and the amounts involved, were eventually consolidated. On May 31, 1991, the Court of Tax Appeals rendered a consolidated decision holding, inter alia, that ACMDC was not liable for deficiency ad valorem taxes on copper and silver for 1975 and 1976 in the respective amounts of P11,276,540.79 and P12,882,760.80 thereby effectively sustaining the theory of ACMDC that in computing the ad valorem tax on copper mineral, the refining and smelting charges should be deducted, in addition to freight and insurance charges, from the London Metal Exchange (LME) price of manufactured copper. However, the tax court held ACMDC liable for the amount of P1,572,637.48, exclusive of interest, consisting of 25% surcharge for late payment of the ad valorem tax and late filing of notice of removal of silver, gold and pyrite extracted during certain periods, and for alleged deficiency manufacturer's sales tax and contractor's tax. The particulars of the reduced amount of said tax obligation is enumerated in detail in the dispositive portion of the questioned

judgment of the tax court, thus:

WHEREFORE, petitioner should and is hereby ORDERED to pay the total amount of the following: a) P297,900.39 as 25% surcharge on silver extracted during the period November 1, 1974 to December 31, 1975. b) P161,027.53 as 25% surcharge on silver extracted for the taxable year 1976. c) P315,027.30 as 25% surcharge on gold extracted during the period November 1, 1974 to December 31, 1975. d) P260,180.55 as 25% surcharge on gold during the taxable year 1976. e) P53,585.30 as 25% surcharge on pyrite extracted during the period November 1, 1974 to December 31, 1975. f) P53,283.69 as 25% surcharge on pyrite extracted during the taxable year 1976. g) P316,117.53 as deficiency manufacturer's sales tax and surcharge during the taxable year 1975; plus 14% interest from January 21, 1976 until fully paid as provided under Section 183 of P.D. No. 69.

h) P23,631.44 as deficiency contractor's tax and surcharge on the lease of personal property during the taxable year 1975; plus 14% interest from January 21, 1976 until fully paid as provided under Section 183 of P.D. 69. i) P91,883.75 as deficiency contractor's tax and surcharge on the lease of personal property during the taxable year 1976, plus 14% interest from April 21, 1976 until fully paid as provided under. Section 183 of P.D. No. 69. With costs against petitioner. 5

As a consequence, both parties elevated their respective contentions to respondent Court of Appeals in two separate petitions for review. The petition filed by the Commissioner, which was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 25945, questioned the portion of the judgment of the tax court deleting the ad valorem tax on copper and silver, while the appeal filed by ACMDC and docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 26087 assailed that part of the decision ordering it to pay P1,572,637.48 representing alleged deficiency assessment. On February 12, 1992, judgment was rendered by respondent Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 25945, dismissing the petition and affirming

the tax court's decision on the manner of computing the ad valorem tax. 6 Hence, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue filed a petition before- us in G.R. No. 104151, raising the sole issue of whether or not, in computing the ad valorem tax on copper, charges for smelting and refining should also be deducted, in addition to freight and insurance costs, from the price of copper concentrates. On May 22, 1992, judgment was likewise rendered by the same respondent court in CA-G.R. SP No. 26087, modifying the judgment of the tax court and further reducing the tax liability of ACMDC by deleting therefrom the following items:
(1) the award under paragraph (a) of P297,900.39 as 25% surcharge on silver extracted during the period November 1, 1974 to December 31, 1975; (2) the award under paragraph (c) thereof of P315,027.30 as 25% surcharge on gold extracted during the period November 1, 1974 to December 31, 1975; and (3) the award under paragraph (e) thereof of P53,585.30 as 24% (sic, 25%) surcharge on pyrite extracted during the period November 1, 1974 to December 31, 1975. 7

Still not satisfied with the said judgment which had reduced its tax liability to P906,124.49, as a final recourse ACMDC came to this Court on a petition for review on certiorari in G.R. No. 105563, claiming that it is not liable at all for any deficiency. tax assessments for 1975 and 1976. In our resolution of September 1, 1993, G.R. No. 104151 was ordered consolidated with G.R. No. 105563. 8 I. G.R No. 104151 The Commissioner of Internal Revenue claims that the Court of Appeals and the tax court erred in allowing the deduction of refining and smelting charges from the price of copper concentrates. It is the contention of the Commissioner that the actual market value of the mineral products should be the gross sales realized from copper concentrates, deducting therefrom mining, milling, refining, transporting, handling, marketing or any other expenses. He submits that the phrase "or any other expenses" includes smelting and refining charges and that the law allows deductions for actual cost of ocean freight and insurance only in instances where the minerals or mineral products are sold or consigned abroad by the lessees or owner of the mine under C.I.F. terms, hence it is error to allow smelting and refining charges as deductions.

We are not persuaded by his postulation and find the arguments adduced in support thereof untenable. The pertinent provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code (tax code, for facility) at the time material to this controversy, read as follows:
Sec. 243. Ad valorem taxes on output of mineral lands not covered by lease. There is hereby imposed on the actual market value of the annual gross output of the minerals mineral products extracted or produced from all mineral lands not covered by lease, an ad valorem tax in the amount of two per centum of the value of the output except gold which shall pay one and one-half per centum. Before the minerals or mineral products are removed from the mines, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue or his representatives shall first be notified of such removal on a form prescribed for the purpose. (As amended by Rep. Act No. 6110.) Sec. 246. Definitions of the terms "gross output," "minerals" and "mineral products." Disposition of royalties and ad valorem taxes. The term "gross output" shall be interpreted as the actual market value of minerals or mineral products, or of bullion from each mine or mineral lands operated as a separate entity without any deduction from mining, milling, refining, transporting, handling, marketing, or any other

expenses: Provided, however, That if the minerals or mineral products are sold or consigned. abroad by the lessee or owner of the mine under C.I.F. terms, the actual cost of ocean freight and insurance shall be deducted. The output of any group of contiguous mining claim shall not be subdivided. The word "minerals" shall mean all inorganic substances found in nature whether in solid, liquid, gaseous, or any intermediate state. The term "mineral products" shall mean things produced by the lessee, concessionaire or owner of mineral lands, at least eighty per cent of which things must be minerals extracted by such lessee, concessionaire, or owner of mineral lands. Ten per centum of the royalties and ad valorem taxes herein provided shall accrue to the municipality and ten per centum to the province where the-mines are situated, and eighty per centum to the National Treasury. (As amended by Rep. Acts Nos. 834, 1299, and by Rep. Act No. 1510, approved June 16, 1956)."

To rephrase, under the aforequoted provisions, the ad valorem tax of 2% is imposed on the actual market value of the annual gross output of the minerals or mineral products extracted or produced from all mineral lands not covered by lease. In computing the tax, the term "gross output" shall be the actual market value of minerals or mineral products,

or of bullion from each mine or mineral lands operated as a separate entity, without any deduction for mining, milling, refining, transporting, handling, marketing or any other expenses. If the minerals or mineral products are sold or consigned abroad by the lessee or owner of the mine under C.I.F. terms, the actual cost of ocean freight and insurance shall be deducted. In other words, the assessment shall be based, not upon the cost of production or extraction of said minerals or mineral products, but on the price which the same before or without undergoing a process of manufacture would command in the ordinary course of business. 9 In the instant case, the allowance by the tax court of smelting and refining charges as deductions is not contrary to the above-mentioned provisions of the tax code which ostensibly prohibit any form of deduction except freight and insurance charges. A review of the records will show that it was the London Metal Exchange price on wire bar which was used as tax base by ACMDC for purposes of the 2% ad valorem tax on copper concentrates since there was no available market price quotation in the commodity exchange or markets of the world for copper concentrates nor was there any market quotation locally obtainable. 10

Hence, the charges for smelting and refining were assessed not on the basis of the price of the copper extracted at the mine site which is prohibited by law, but on the basis of the actual market value of the manufactured copper which in this case is the price quoted for copper wire bar by the London Metal Exchange. The issue of whether the ad valorem tax should be based upon the value of the finished product, or the value upon extraction of the raw materials or minerals used in the manufacture of said finished products, has been passed upon by us in several cases wherein we held that the ad valorem tax is to be computed on the basis of the market value of the mineral in its condition at the time of such removal and before it undergoes a chemical change through manufacturing process, as distinguished from a purely physical process which does not necessarily involve the change or transformation of the raw material into a composite distinct product.
11

Thus, in the case of Cebu Portland Cement Co. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 12 this Court ruled:
. . . ad valorem tax is a tax not on the minerals, but upon the privilege of severing or extracting the same from the earth, the government's right to

exact the said impost springing from the Regalian theory of State ownership of its natural resources. . . . While cement is composed of 80% minerals, it is not merely an admixture or blending of raw materials, as lime, silica, shale and others. It is the result of a definite the crushing of minerals, grinding, mixing, calcining, cooling, adding of retarder or raw gypsum. In short, before cement reaches its saleable form, the minerals had already undergone a chemical change through manufacturing process, This could not have been the state of mineral products' that the law contemplates for purposes of imposing the ad valorem tax. . . . this tax is imposed on the privilege of extracting or severing the minerals from the mines. To our minds, therefore the inclusion of the term mineral products is intended to comprehend cases where the mined or quarried elements may not be usable in its original state without application of simple treatments . . . which process does not necessarily involve the change or transformation of the raw materials into a composite, distinct product. . . . While the selling price of cement may reflect the actual market value of cement, said selling price cannot be taken as the market value also of the minerals composing the cement. And it was not the cement that was mined, only the minerals composing the finished product.

This view was subsequently affirmed in the resolution of the Court

denying the motion for reconsideration of its aforesaid decision, 13 reiterated that the pertinent part of which reiterated that
. . . the ad valorem tax in question should be based on the actual market value of the quarried minerals used in producing cement, . . . the law intended to impose the ad valorem tax upon the market value of the component mineral products in their original state before processing into cement. . . . the law does not impose a tax on cement qua cement, but on mineral products at least 80% of which must be minerals extracted by the lessee, concessionaire or owner of mineral lands. The Court did not, and could not, rule that cement is a manufactured product subject to sales tax, for the reason that such liability had never been litigated by the parties. What it did declare is that, while cement is a mineral product, it is no longer in the state or condition contemplated by the law; hence the market value of the cement could not be the basis for computing the ad valorem tax, since the ad valorem tax is a severance tax i.e., a charge upon the privilege of severing or extracting minerals from the earth, (Dec. p. 4) and is due and payable upon removal of the mineral product from its bed or mine (Tax Code s. 245).

Therefore, the imposable ad valorem tax should be based on the selling price of the quarried minerals, which is its actual market value, and not

on the price of the manufactured product. If the market value chosen for the reckoning is the value of the manufactured. or finished product, as in the case at bar, then all expenses of processing or manufacturing should be deducted in order to approximate as closely as is humanly possible the actual market value of the raw mineral at the mine site. It was copper ore that was extracted by ACMDC from its mine site which, through a simple physical process of removing impurities therefrom, was converted into copper concentrate In turn, this copper concentrate underwent the process of smelting and refining, and the finished product is called copper cathode or copper wire bar. The copper wire bar is the manufactured copper. It is not the mineral extracted from the mine site nor can it be considered a mineral product since it has undergone a manufacturing process, to wit:
I. The physical process involved in the production of copper concentrate are the following (p. 19, BIR records; Exh. H, p. 43, Folder I of Exhibits.) A Mining Process (1) Blasting The ore body is broken up by blasting. (2) Loading The ore averaging about 1/2 percent

copper is loaded into ore trucks by electric shovels. (3) Hauling The trucks of ore are hauled to the mill. B Milling Process (1) Crushing The ore is crushed to pieces the size of peanuts. (2) Grinding The crushed ore is ground to powder form. (3) Concentrating The mineral bearing particles in the powdered ore are concentrated. The ores or rocks, transported by conveyors, are crushed repeatedly by steel balls into size of peanuts, when they are ground and pulverized. The powder is fed into concentrators where it is mixed with water and other reagents. This is known in the industry as a flotation phase. The copper-bearing materials float while the non-copper materials in the rock sink. The material that floats is scooped and dried and piled. This is known as copper concentrate. The material at the bottom is waste, and is known in the industry as tailings. In Toledo City, tailings are disposed of through metal pipes from the flotation mills to the open sea. Copper concentrate of petitioner contains 28-31% copper. The concentrate is loaded in ocean vessels and shipped to Mitsubishi Metal Corporation

mills in Japan, where the smelting, refining and fabricating processes are done. (Memorandum of petitioner, p. 71, CTA records.) II. The chemical or manufacturing process in the production of wire bar is as follows: (Exh. 'H', p. 43, Folder I of exhibits.) A. Smelting (1) Drying The copper concentrates (averaging about 30 percent copper) are dried. 1. Flash Furnace The dried concentrate is smelted autogenously and a matte containing 65 percent is produced. 2. Converter The matte is converted to blister copper with a purity of about 99 per cent. B. Refining (1) Casting Wheel Blister copper is treated in an anode furnace where. copper requiring further treatment is sent to the casting wheel to produce cathode copper. (2) Electrolytic Refining Anode copper is further refined by electrolytic refining to produce cathode copper. C. Fabricating

(1) Rolling Fire refined or electroly-tic copper-and/or brass (a mixture Of copper and zinc) is made into tubes, sheets, rods and wire. (2) Extruding Sheet tubes, rods and wire are further fabricated into the copper articles in everyday use. The records show that cathodes, with purity of 99.985% are cast or fabricated into various shapes, depending on their industrial destination. Cathodes are metal sheets of copper 1 meter x 1 meter x 16-16 millimeter thick and 160 kilograms in weight, although this thickness is not uniform for all the sheets. Cathodes sheets are not suitable for direct fabrication, hence, are further fabricated into the desired shape, like wire bar, billets and cakes. (p. 1, deposition, London,) Wire bars are rectangular pieces, 100 millimeter x 100 millimeter x 1.37 meters long and weigh some 125 kilos. They are suited for copper wires and copper rods. Billets are fabricated into tubes and heavy electric sections. Cakes are in the form of thick sheets and strips. (pp. 13, 18-21, deposition, Japan, Exhs. "C" & "G", Japan, pp. 1-2, deposition, London, see pp. 70-72, CTA records.) 14

Significantly, the finding that copper wire bar is a product of a manufacturing process finds support in the definition of a "manufacturer" in Section 194 (x) of the aforesaid tax code which

provides:
"Manufacturer" includes every person who by physical or chemical process alters the exterior texture or form or inner substance of any raw material or manufactured or partially manufactured product in such a manner as to prepare it for a special use or uses to which it could not have been put in its original condition, or who by any such process alters the quality of any such raw material or manufactured or partially manufactured product so as to reduce it to marketable shape or prepare it for any of the uses of industry, or who by any such process combines any such raw material or manufactured or partially manufactured products with other materials: or products of the same or different kinds and in such manner that the finished product of such process or manufacture can be put to a special use or uses to which such raw material or manufactured or partially manufactured products, or combines the same to produce such finished products for the purpose of their sale or distribution to others and not for his own use or consumption.

Moreover, it is also worth noting at this point that the decision of the tax court was based on its previous ruling in the case of Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal

Revenue, 15 dated January 23, 1981, which we quote with approval:

. . . The controlling law is clear and specific; it should therefore be applied as Since the mineral or mineral product removed from its bed or mine at Toledo City by petitioner is copper concentrate as admitted by respondent himself, not copper wire bar, the actual market value of such copper concentrate in its condition at the time of such removal without any deduction from mining, milling, refining, transporting, handling, marketing, or any other expenses should be the basis of the 2% ad valorem tax. The conclusion reached is rendered clearer when it is taken into consideration that the ad valorem tax is a severance tax, a charge upon the privilege of severing or extracting minerals from the earth, and is due and payable upon removal of the mineral product from its bed or mine, the tax being computed on the basis of the market value of the mineral in its condition at the time of such removal and before its being substantially changed by chemical or manufacturing (as distinguished from purely physical) processing. (Cebu Portland Cement Co. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, supra.) Copper wire bars, as discussed above,, have already undergone chemical or manufacturing processing in Japan, they are not extracted or produced from the earth by petitioner in its mine site at Toledo City. Since the ad valorem tax is

computed on the basis of the actual market value of the mineral in its condition at the time of its removal from the earth, which in this case is copper concentrate, there is no basis therefore for an assertion that such tax should be measured on the basis of the London Metal Exchange price quotation of the manufactured wire bars without any deduction of smelting and refining charges. In resume: 1. The mineral or mineral product of petitioner the extraction or severance from the soil. of which the ad valorem tax is directed is copper concentrate. 2. The ad valorem tax is computed on the basis of the actual market value of the copper concentrate in its condition at the time of removal from the earth and before substantially changed by chemical or manufacturing process without any deduction milling, refining, from mining, transporting, handling, marketing, or any other expenses. However, since the copper concentrate is sold abroad by petitioner under C.I.F. terms, the actual cost of ocean freight and insurance is deductible. 3. There being no market price quotation of copper concentrate locally or in the commodity exchanges or markets of the world,

the London Metal Exchange price quotation of copper wire bar, which is used by petitioner and Mitsubishi Metal Corporation as reference to determine the selling price of copper concentrate, may likewise be employed in this case as reference point in ascertaining the actual market value of copper concentrate for ad valorem tax purposes. By deducting from the London Metal Exchange price quotation of copper wire bar all charges and costs incurred after the copper concentrate has been shipped from Toledo City to the time the same has been manufactured into wire bar, namely, smelting, electrolytic refining and fabricating, the remainder represents to a reasonable degree the actual market value of the copper concentrate in its condition at the time of extraction or removal from its bed in Toledo City for the purposes of the ad valorem tax.

The Commissioner of Internal Revenue argues that the ruling in the case above stated is not binding, considering that the incumbent Commissioner of Internal Revenue is not bound by decisions or rulings of his predecessor when he finds that a different construction of the law should be adopted, invoking therefor the doctrine enunciated in Hilado vs. Collector of internal Revenue, et a1, 16 This trenches on specious

reasoning. What was involved in the Hilado case was a previous ruling of a former Commissioner of Internal Revenue. In the case at bar, the Commissioner based his findings on a previous decision rendered by the Court of Tax Appeals itself. The Court of Tax Appeals is not a mere superior administrative agency or tribunal but is a part of the judicial system of the Philippines. 17 It was created by Congress pursuant to Republic Act No. 1125, effective June 16, 1954, as a centralized court specializing in tax cases. It is a regular court vested with exclusive appellate jurisdiction over cases arising under the National Internal Revenue Code, the Tariff and Customs Code, and the Assessment Law. 18 Although only the decisions of the Supreme Court establish jurisprudence or doctrines in this jurisdiction, nonetheless the decisions of subordinate courts have a persuasive effect and may serve as judicial guides. It is even possible that such a conclusion or pronouncement can be raised to the status of a doctrine if, after it has been subjected to test in the crucible of analysis and revision the Supreme Court should find that it has merits and qualities sufficient for its consecration as a rule of jurisprudence. 19

Furthermore, as a matter of practice and principle, the Supreme Court will not set aside the conclusion reached by an agency such as the Court of Tax Appeals, which is, by the very nature of its function, dedicated exclusively to the study and consideration of tax problems and has necessarily developed an expertise on the subject, unless there has been an abuse or improvident exercise of authority on its part. 20 II. G.R. No. 105563
The petition herein raises the following issues for resolution: A. Whether or not petitioner is liable for payment, of the 25% surcharge for alleged late filing of notice of removal/late payment of the ad valorem tax on silver, gold and pyrite extracted during the taxable year 1976. B. Whether or not petitioner is liable for payment of the manufacturer' s sales tax and surcharge during the taxable year 1975, plus interest, on grinding steel balls borrowed by its competitor; and C. 'Whether or not petitioner is liable for payment of the contractor's tax and surcharge on the alleged lease of personal property during the taxable years 1975 and 1976 plus interest. 21

A. Surcharge on Silver, Gold and Pyrite ACMDC argues that the Court of Appeals erred in holding it liable to pay 25% surcharge on silver, gold and pyrite extracted by it during tax year 1976. Sec. 245 of the then tax code states:
Sec. 245. Time and manner of payment of royalties or ad valorem taxes. The royalties or ad valorem taxes as the case may be, shall be due and payable upon the removal of the mineral products from the locality where mined. However, the output of the mine may be removed from such locality without the pre-payment of such royalties or ad valorem taxes if the lessee, owner, or operator shall file a bond in the form and amount and with such sureties as the Commissioner of Internal Revenue may require,. conditioned upon the payment of such royalties or ad valorem taxes, in which case it shall be the duty of every lessee, owner, or operator of a mine to make a true and complete return in duplicate under oath setting forth the quantity and the actual market value of the output of his mine removed during each calendar quarter and pay the royalties or ad valorem taxes due thereon within twenty days after the close of said quarter. In case the royalties or ad valorem taxes are not paid within the period

prescribed above, there shall be added thereto a surcharge of twenty-five per centum. Where a false or fraudulent return is made, there shall be added to the royalties or ad valorem taxes a surcharge of fifty per centum of their amount. The surcharge So, added: shall be collected in the same manner and as part of the royalties or ad valorem taxes, as the case may be.

Under the aforesaid provision, the payment of the ad valorem tax shall be made upon removal of the mineral products from the mine site or if payment cannot be made, by filing a bond in the form and amount to be approved by the Commissioner conditioned upon the payment of the said tax. In the instant case, the records show that the payment of the ad valorem tax on gold, silver and pyrite was belatedly made. ACMDC, however, maintains that it should not be required to pay the 25% surcharge because the correct quantity of gold and silver could be determined only after the copper concentrates had gone through the process of smelting and refining in Japan while the amount of pyrite cannot be determined until after the flotation process separating the copper mineral from the waste material was finished.

Prefatorily, it must not be lost sight of that bad faith is ; not essential for the imposition of the 25% surcharge for late payment of the ad valorem tax. Hence,

MISSING PAGE 19
Q. Now, what do you do with the result of your analysis? A. These are tabulated and then averaged out to represent one shipment. Q. Will you tell this Honorable Court whether in that laboratory testing you physically separate the gold, you physically separate the silver and you physically separate the copper content of that 40 to 50 kilos? A. No, no, we analyze this in one sample. This sample is

analyzed for gold, silver, and copper, but there is no recovery made. Q. You mean there is no physical separation? A. No, no physical separation. Q. So these three minerals copper, gold and silver are in that same powder that you have tested? A Yes, it is in the same powder. Q. Now how do you reflect the results of the testing? A. You mean in analysis? Q. In the analysis, yes. A. Copper is reported in percent. Q. Percentage? A. Yes. Q. How about gold? A. Gold and silver part is represented as grams per dmt or parts per million. Q. Based on the results of your data gathered in the laboratory?

A. Yes. Q. Now where do you submit the results of the laboratory testing? A When a shipment is made we prepare a certificate of analysis signed by me and then which (sic) is sent to Manila. Q. Now, as far as you know in connection with your duty do you know what Manila what do you say, Manila, ACMDC? A. Makati. Q. Makati. What does Makati ACMDC do with your assay report? A. As far as I know it is used as the basis for the payment of ad valorem tax. 24

The above-quoted testimony accordingly supports these findings of the tax court in its decision in this case:
We see it (sic) that even if the silver and gold cannot as yet be physically separated from the copper concentrate until the process of smelting and refining was completed, the estimated commercial quantity of the silver and gold could have been determined in much the same way that petitioner is able to estimate the commercial quantity of copper during the assay. If, as stated by petitioner, it is able to estimate the grade of the copper ore, and it has determined the grade not only of the copper but

also those of the gold and silver during the assay (Petitioner's Memorandum, p. 207, Record), ergo, the estimated commercial quantity of the silver and gold subject to ad valorem tax could have also been determined and provisionally paid as for copper. 25

The other allegation of ACMDC is that there was no removal of pyrite from the mine site because the pyrite was delivered to its sister company, Atlas Fertilizer Corporation, whose plant is located inside the mineral concession of ACMDC in Sangi, Toledo City. ACMDC, however, is already barred by estoppel in pais from putting that matter in issue. An ad valorem tax on pyrite for the same tax year was already declared and paid by ACMDC. In fact, that payment was used as the basis for computing the 25% surcharge. It was only when ACMDC was assessed for the 25% surcharge that said issue was raised by it. Also, the evidence shows that deliveries of pyrite were not exclusively made to its sister company, Atlas Fertilizer Corporation. There were shipments of pyrite to other companies located outside of its mine site, in addition to those delivered to its aforesaid sister company. 26 B. Manufacturer's Tax and Contractor's Tax

The manufacturer's tax is imposed under Section 186 of the tax code then in force which provides:
Sec. 186. Percentage tax on sales of other articles. There shall be levied, assessed and collected once only on every original sale, barter, exchange, or similar transaction either for nominal or valuable consideration, intended to transfer ownership of, or title to, the articles not enumerated in sections one hundred and eighty-four-A, one hundred and eighty five, one hundred and eighty-five-A, one hundred eighty-fiveB, and one hundred eighty-six-B, a tax equivalent to seven per centum of the gross selling price or gross value in money of the articles so sold, bartered, exchanged, or transferred, such tax to be paid by the manufacturer or producer: Provided, That where the articles subject to tax under this Section are manufactured out of materials likewise subject to tax under this section and section one hundred eighty-nine, the total cost of such materials, as duly established, shall be deductible from the gross selling price or gross value in money of such manufactured articles. (As amended by Rep. Act No. 6110 and by Pres. Decree No. 69.)

On the other hand, the contractor's tax is provided for under Section 191 of the same code, paragraph 17 of which declares that lessors of personal property shall be subject to a contractor's tax of 3% of the

gross receipts. Sections 186 and 191 fall under Title V of the tax code, entitled "Privilege Taxes on Business and Occupation." These "privilege taxes on business" are taxes imposed upon the privilege of engaging in business. They are essentially excise taxes. 27 To be held liable for the payment of a privilege tax, the person or entity must be engaged in business, as shown by the fact that the drafters of the tax code had purposely grouped said provisions under the general heading adverted to above. "To engage" is to embark on a business or to employ oneself therein. The word "engaged" connotes more than a single act or a single transaction; it involves some continuity of action. "To engage in business" is uniformly construed as signifying an employment or occupation which occupies one's time, attention, and labor for the purpose of a livelihood or profit. The expressions "engage in business," "carrying on business" or "doing business" do not have different meanings, but separately or connectedly convey the idea of progression, continuity, or sustained activity. "Engaged in business" means occupied or employed in business; carrying on business" does not mean the performance of a single disconnected act, but means conducting,

prosecuting, and continuing business by performing progressively all the acts normally incident thereto; while "doing business" conveys the idea of business being done, not from time to time, but all the time. 28 The foregoing notwithstanding, it has likewise been ruled that one act may be sufficient to constitute carrying on a business according to the intent with which the act is done. A single sale of liquor by one who intends to continue selling is sufficient to render him liable for "engaging in or carrying on" the business of a liquor dealer. 29 There may be a business without any sequence of acts, for if an isolated transaction, which if repeated would be a transaction in a business, is proved to have been undertaken with the intent that it should be the first of several transactions, that is, with the intent of carrying on a business, then it is a first transaction in an existing business. 30 Thus, where the end sought is to make a profit, the act constitutes "doing- business." This is not without basis. The term "business," as used in the law imposing a license tax on business, trades, and so forth, ordinarily means business in the trade or commercial sense only, carried on with a view to profit or livelihood; 31 It is thus restricted to activities or

affairs where profit is the purpose, or livelihood is the motive. Since the term "business" is being used without any qualification in our aforesaid tax code, it should therefore be therefore be construed in its plain and ordinary meaning, restricted to activities for profit or livelihood. 32 In the case at bar, ACMDC claims exemptions from the payment of manufacturer's tax. It asserts that it is not engaged in the business of selling grinding steel balls, but it only produces grinding steel balls solely for its own use or consumption, However, it admits having lent its grinding steel balls to other entities but only in very isolated cases. After a careful review of the records and on the basis of the legal concept of "engaging in business" hereinbefore discussed, we are inclined to agree with ACMDC that it should not and cannot be held liable for the payment of the manufacturer's tax. First, under the tax code then in force, the 7% manufacturer's sales tax is imposed on the manufacturer for every original sale, barter, exchange and other similar transaction intended to transfer ownership of articles. As hereinbefore quoted, and we repeat the same for facility of reference, the term "manufacturer" is defined in the tax code as including "every

person who by physical or chemical process alters the exterior texture or form or inner substance of any raw material or manufactured or partially manufactured product in such manner as to prepare it for a special use or uses to which it could not have been put in its original condition, or who by any such process alters the quality of any such raw material or manufactured or partially manufactured product so as to reduce it to marketable shape or prepare it for any of the uses of industry, or who by any such process combines any such raw material or manufactured or partially manufactured products with other materials or products of the same or of different kinds and in such manner that the finished product of such process or manufacture can be put to a special use or uses to which such raw materials or manufactured or partially manufactured products in their original condition could not have been put, and who in addition alters such raw material or manufactured or partially manufactured products, or combines the same to produce such finished products for the purpose of their sale or distribution to others and not for his own use or consumption. 33 Thus, a manufacturer, in order to be subjected to the necessity of paying the percentage tax imposed by Section 186 of the tax code, must be

'engaged' in the sale, barter or exchange of; personal property. Under a statute which imposes a tax on persons engaged in the sale, barter or exchange of merchandise, a person must be occupied or employed in the sale, barter or exchange of personal property. A person can hardly be considered as occupied or employed in the sale, barter or exchange of personal property when he has made one purchase and sale only. 34 Second, it cannot be legally asserted, for purposes of this particular assessment only, that ACMDC was engaged in the business of selling grinding steel balls on the basis of the isolated transaction entered into by it in 1975. There is no showing that said transaction was undertaken by ACMDC with a view to gaining profit. therefrom and with the intent of carrying on a business therein. On the contrary, what is clear for us is that the sale was more of an accommodation to the other mining companies, and that ACMDC was subsequently replaced by other suppliers shortly thereafter. This finding is strengthened by the investigation report, dated March 11, 1980, of the B.I.R. Investigation Team itself which found that
ACMDC has a foundry shop located at Sangi, Toledo City, and manufactures grinding steel balls for use in its ball mills in pulverizing

the minerals before they go to the concentrators, For the grinding steel balls manufactured by ACMDC and used in its operation, we found it not subject to any business tax. But there were times in 1975 when other mining companies were short of grinding steel balls and ACMDC supplied them with these materials manufactured in its foundry shop. According to the informant, these were merely accommodations and they were replaced by the other suppliers. 35

At most, whatever profit ACMDC may have realized from that single transaction was just incidental to its primordial purpose of accommodating other mining companies. Well-settled is the rule that anything done as a mere incident to, or as a necessary consequence of, the principal business is not ordinarily taxed as an independent business in itself. 36 Where a person or corporation is engaged in a distinct business and, as a feature thereof, in an activity merely incidental which serves no other person or business, the incidental and restricted activity is not considered as intended to be separately taxed.
37

In fine, on this particular aspect, we are consequently of the considered opinion and so hold that ACMDC was not a manufacturer subject to the percentage tax imposed by Section 186 of the tax code.

The same conclusion; however, cannot be made with respect to the contractor's tax being imposed on ACMDC. It cannot validly claim that the leasing out of its personal properties was merely an isolated transaction. Its book of accounts shows that several distinct payments were made for the use of its personal properties such as its plane, motor boat and dump truck. 38 The series of transactions engaged in by ACMDC for the lease of its aforesaid properties could also be deduced from the fact that for the tax years 1975 and 1976 there were profits earned and reported therefor. It received a rental income of P630,171.56 for tax year 39 and P2,450,218.62 for tax year 1976. 40 Considering that there was a series of transactions involved, plus the fact that there was an apparent and protracted intention to profit from such activities, it can be safely concluded that ACMDC was habitually engaged in the leasing out of its plane, motor boat and dump truck, and is perforce subject to the contractor's tax. The allegation of ACMDC that it did not realize any profit from the leasing out of its said personal properties, since its income therefrom covered only the costs of operation such as salaries and fuel, is not supported by any documentary or substantial evidence. We are not, therefore,

convinced by such disavowal. Assessments are prima facie presumed correct and made in good faith. Contrary to the theory of ACMDC, it is the taxpayer and not the Bureau of Internal Revenue who has the duty of proving otherwise. It is an elementary rule that in the absence of proof of any irregularities in the performance of official duties, an assessment will not be disturbed. All presumptions are in favor of tax assessments. 41 Verily, failure to present proof of error in assessments will justify judicial affirmance of said assessment. 42 Finally, we deem it opportune to emphasize the oft-repeated rule that tax statutes are to receive a reasonable construction with a view to carrying out their purposes and intent. 43 They should not be construed as to permit the taxpayer to easily evade the payment of the tax. 44 On this note, and under the confluence of the weighty. considerations and authorities earlier discussed, the challenged assessment against ACMDC for contractor's tax must be upheld. WHEREFORE, the impugned judgment of respondent Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 25945, subject of the present petition in G.R. No. 104151

is hereby AFFIRMED; and its assailed judgment in CA-G.R SP No. 26087 is hereby MODIFIED by exempting Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation, petitioner in G.R. No. 105563 of this Court, from the payment of manufacturer's sales tax, surcharge and interest during the taxable year 1975. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. L-31092 February 27, 1987 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner, vs. JOHN GOTAMCO & SONS, INC. and THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, respondents. YAP, J.: The question involved in this petition is whether respondent John Gotamco & Sons, Inc. should pay the 3% contractor's tax under Section 191 of the National Internal Revenue Code on the gross receipts it realized from the construction of the World Health Organization office building in Manila. The World Health Organization (WHO for short) is an international organization which has a regional office in Manila. As an international organization, it enjoys privileges and immunities which are defined more specifically in the Host Agreement entered into between the Republic of the Philippines and the said Organization on July 22, 1951. Section 11 of that Agreement provides, inter alia, that "the Organization, its assets, income and other properties shall be: (a) exempt from all direct and indirect taxes. It is understood, however, that the Organization will not claim exemption from taxes which are, in fact, no more than charges for public utility services; . . . When the WHO decided to construct a building to house its own offices, as well as the other United Nations offices stationed in Manila, it entered into a further agreement with

the Govermment of the Republic of the Philippines on November 26, 1957. This agreement contained the following provision (Article III, paragraph 2):
The Organization may import into the country materials and fixtures required for the construction free from all duties and taxes and agrees not to utilize any portion of the international reserves of the Government.

Article VIII of the above-mentioned agreement referred to the Host Agreement concluded on July 22, 1951 which granted the Organization exemption from all direct and indirect taxes. In inviting bids for the construction of the building, the WHO informed the bidders that the building to be constructed belonged to an international organization with diplomatic status and thus exempt from the payment of all fees, licenses, and taxes, and that therefore their bids "must take this into account and should not include items for such taxes, licenses and other payments to Government agencies." The construction contract was awarded to respondent John Gotamco & Sons, Inc. (Gotamco for short) on February 10, 1958 for the stipulated price of P370,000.00, but when the building was completed the price reached a total of P452,544.00. Sometime in May 1958, the WHO received an opinion from the Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue stating that "as the 3% contractor's tax is an indirect tax on the assets and income of the Organization, the gross receipts derived by contractors from their contracts with the WHO for the construction of its new building, are exempt

from tax in accordance with . . . the Host Agreement." Subsequently, however, on June 3, 1958, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue reversed his opinion and stated that "as the 3% contractor's tax is not a direct nor an indirect tax on the WHO, but a tax that is primarily due from the contractor, the same is not covered by . . . the Host Agreement." On January 2, 1960, the WHO issued a certification state 91 inter alia,:
When the request for bids for the construction of the World Health Organization office building was called for, contractors were informed that there would be no taxes or fees levied upon them for their work in connection with the construction of the building as this will be considered an indirect tax to the Organization caused by the increase of the contractor's bid in order to cover these taxes. This was upheld by the Bureau of Internal Revenue and it can be stated that the contractors submitted their bids in good faith with the exemption in mind. The undersigned, therefore, certifies that the bid of John Gotamco & Sons, made under the condition stated above, should be exempted from any taxes in connection with the construction of the World Health Organization office building.

On January 17, 1961, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue sent a letter of demand to Gotamco demanding payment of P 16,970.40, representing the 3% contractor's tax plus surcharges on the gross receipts it received from the WHO in the construction of the latter's building. Respondent Gotamco appealed the Commissioner's decision to the Court of Tax Appeals, which after trial rendered a decision, in favor of Gotamco and reversed the

Commissioner's decision. The Court of Tax Appeal's decision is now before us for review on certiorari. In his first assignment of error, petitioner questions the entitlement of the WHO to tax exemption, contending that the Host Agreement is null and void, not having been ratified by the Philippine Senate as required by the Constitution. We find no merit in this contention. While treaties are required to be ratified by the Senate under the Constitution, less formal types of international agreements may be entered into by the Chief Executive and become binding without the concurrence of the legislative body. 1 The Host Agreement comes within the latter category; it is a valid and binding international agreement even without the concurrence of the Philippine Senate. The privileges and immunities granted to the WHO under the Host Agreement have been recognized by this Court as legally binding on Philippine authorities. 2 Petitioner maintains that even assuming that the Host Agreement granting tax exemption to the WHO is valid and enforceable, the 3% contractor's tax assessed on Gotamco is not an "indirect tax" within its purview. Petitioner's position is that the contractor's tax "is in the nature of an excise tax which is a charge imposed upon the performance of an act, the enjoyment of a privilege or the engaging in an occupation. . . It is a tax due primarily and directly on the contractor, not on the owner of the building. Since this tax has no bearing upon the WHO, it cannot be deemed an indirect taxation upon it."

We agree with the Court of Tax Appeals in rejecting this contention of the petitioner. Said the respondent court:
In context, direct taxes are those that are demanded from the very person who, it is intended or desired, should pay them; while indirect taxes are those that are demanded in the first instance from one person in the expectation and intention that he can shift the burden to someone else. (Pollock vs. Farmers, L & T Co., 1957 US 429, 15 S. Ct. 673, 39 Law. Ed. 759.) The contractor's tax is of course payable by the contractor but in the last analysis it is the owner of the building that shoulders the burden of the tax because the same is shifted by the contractor to the owner as a matter of self-preservation. Thus, it is an indirect tax. And it is an indirect tax on the WHO because, although it is payable by the petitioner, the latter can shift its burden on the WHO. In the last analysis it is the WHO that will pay the tax indirectly through the contractor and it certainly cannot be said that 'this tax has no bearing upon the World Health Organization.

Petitioner claims that under the authority of the Philippine Acetylene Company versus Commissioner of Internal Revenue, et al., 3 the 3% contractor's tax fans directly on Gotamco and cannot be shifted to the WHO. The Court of Tax Appeals, however, held that the said case is not controlling in this case, since the Host Agreement specifically exempts the WHO from "indirect taxes." We agree. The Philippine Acetylene case involved a tax on sales of goods which under the law had to be paid by the manufacturer or producer; the fact that the manufacturer or producer might have added the amount of the tax to the price of the goods did not make the sales tax "a tax on the purchaser." The Court held that the sales tax must be paid by the manufacturer or

producer even if the sale is made to tax-exempt entities like the National Power Corporation, an agency of the Philippine Government, and to the Voice of America, an agency of the United States Government. The Host Agreement, in specifically exempting the WHO from "indirect taxes," contemplates taxes which, although not imposed upon or paid by the Organization directly, form part of the price paid or to be paid by it. This is made clear in Section 12 of the Host Agreement which provides:
While the Organization will not, as a general rule, in the case of minor purchases, claim exemption from excise duties, and from taxes on the sale of movable and immovable property which form part of the price to be paid, nevertheless, when the Organization is making important purchases for official use of property on which such duties and taxes have been charged or are chargeable the Government of the Republic of the Philippines shall make appropriate administrative arrangements for the remission or return of the amount of duty or tax. (Emphasis supplied).

The above-quoted provision, although referring only to purchases made by the WHO, elucidates the clear intention of the Agreement to exempt the WHO from "indirect" taxation. The certification issued by the WHO, dated January 20, 1960, sought exemption of the contractor, Gotamco, from any taxes in connection with the construction of the WHO office building. The 3% contractor's tax would be within this category and should be viewed as a form of an "indirect tax" On the Organization, as the payment thereof or its

inclusion in the bid price would have meant an increase in the construction cost of the building. Accordingly, finding no reversible error committed by the respondent Court of Tax Appeals, the appealed decision is hereby affirmed. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 140230 December 15, 2005 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY, Respondent. DECISION GARCIA, J.: In this petition for review on certiorari, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (Commissioner) seeks the review and reversal of the September 17, 1999 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. No. SP 47895, affirming, in effect, the February 18, 1998 decision2 of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) in C.T.A. Case No. 5178, a claim for tax refund/credit instituted by respondent Philippine Long Distance Company (PLDT) against petitioner for taxes it paid to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) in connection with its importation in 1992 to 1994 of equipment, machineries and spare parts. The facts: PLDT is a grantee of a franchise under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7082 to install, operate and maintain a telecommunications system throughout the Philippines. For equipment, machineries and spare parts it imported for its business on different dates from October 1, 1992 to May 31, 1994, PLDT paid the BIR the amount of P164,510,953.00, broken down as follows: (a) compensating tax of P126,713,037.00; advance sales tax of P12,460,219.00

and other internal revenue taxes of P25,337,697.00. For similar importations made between March 1994 to May 31, 1994, PLDT paid P116,041,333.00 value-added tax (VAT). On March 15, 1994, PLDT addressed a letter to the BIR seeking a confirmatory ruling on its tax exemption privilege under Section 12 of R.A. 7082, which reads: Sec. 12. The grantee shall be liable to pay the same taxes on their real estate, buildings, and personal property, exclusive of this franchise, as other persons or corporations are now or hereafter may be required by law to pay. In addition thereto, the grantee, shall pay a franchise tax equivalent to three percent (3%) of all gross receipts of the telephone or other telecommunications businesses transacted under this franchise by the grantee, its successors or assigns, and the said percentage shall be in lieu of all taxes on this franchise or earnings thereof: Provided, That the grantee shall continue to be liable for income taxes payable under Title II of the National Internal Revenue Code pursuant to Sec. 2 of Executive Order No. 72 unless the latter enactment is amended or repealed, in which case the amendment or repeal shall be applicable thereto. (Emphasis supplied). Responding, the BIR issued on April 19, 1994 Ruling No. UN-140-94,3 pertinently reading, as follows: PLDT shall be subject only to the following taxes, to wit: xxx xxx xxx 7. The 3% franchise tax on gross receipts which shall be in lieu of all taxes on its franchise or

earnings thereof. xxx xxx xxx The "in lieu of all taxes" provision under Section 12 of RA 7082 clearly exempts PLDT from all taxes including the 10% value-added tax (VAT) prescribed by Section 101 (a) of the same Code on its importations of equipment, machineries and spare parts necessary in the conduct of its business covered by the franchise, except the aforementioned enumerated taxes for which PLDT is expressly made liable. xxx xxx xxx In view thereof, this Office hereby holds that PLDT, is exempt from VAT on its importation of equipment, machineries and spare parts needed in its franchise operations. Armed with the foregoing BIR ruling, PLDT filed on December 2, 1994 a claim4 for tax credit/refund of the VAT, compensating taxes, advance sales taxes and other taxes it had been paying "in connection with its importation of various equipment, machineries and spare parts needed for its operations". With its claim not having been acted upon by the BIR, and obviously to forestall the running of the prescriptive period therefor, PLDT filed with the CTA a petition for review,5 therein seeking a refund of, or the issuance of a tax credit certificate in, the amount of P280,552,286.00, representing compensating taxes, advance sales taxes, VAT and other internal revenue taxes alleged to have been erroneously paid on its importations from October 1992 to May 1994. The petition was docketed in said court as CTA Case No. 5178.

On February 18, 1998, the CTA rendered a decision6 granting PLDTs petition, pertinently saying: This Court has noted that petitioner has included in its claim receipts covering the period prior to December 16, 1992, thus, prescribed and barred from recovery. In conclusion, We find that the petitioner is entitled to the reduced amount of P223,265,276.00 after excluding from the final computation those taxes that were paid prior to December 16, 1992 as they fall outside the twoyear prescriptive period for claiming for a refund as provided by law. The computation of the refundable amount is summarized as follows: COMPENSATING TAX Total amount claimed P126,713.037.00 Less: a) Amount already prescribed: xxx Total P 38,015,132.00 b) Waived by petitioner (Exh. B-216) P 1,440,874.00 P39,456,006.00 Amount refundable P87,257,031.00 ADVANCE SALES TAX Total amount claimed P12,460.219.00

Less amount already prescribed: P5,043,828.00 Amount refundable P7,416,391.00 OTHER BIR TAXES Total amount claimed P25,337,697.00 Less amount already prescribed: 11,187,740.00 Amount refundable P14,149,957.00 VALUE ADDED TAX Total amount claimed P116.041,333.00 Less amount waived by petitioner (unaccounted receipts) 1,599,436.00 Amount refundable P114,441,897.00 TOTAL AMOUNT REFUNDABLE P223,265,276.00, ============ (Breakdown omitted) and accordingly disposed, as follows: WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, this Court finds the instant petition meritorious and in accordance with law. Accordingly, respondent is hereby ordered to REFUND or to ISSUE in

favor of petitioner a Tax Credit Certificate in the reduced amount of P223,265,276.00 representing erroneously paid value-added taxes, compensating taxes, advance sales taxes and other BIR taxes on its importation of equipments (sic), machineries and spare parts for the period covering the taxable years 1992 to 1994. Noticeably, the CTA decision, penned by then Associate Justice Ramon O. de Veyra, with then CTA Presiding Judge Ernesto D. Acosta, concurring, is punctuated by a dissenting opinion7 of Associate Judge Amancio Q. Saga who maintained that the phrase "in lieu of all taxes" found in Section 12 of R.A. No. 7082, supra, refers to exemption from "direct taxes only" and does not cover "indirect taxes", such as VAT, compensating tax and advance sales tax. In time, the BIR Commissioner moved for a reconsideration but the CTA, in its Resolution8 of May 7, 1998, denied the motion, with Judge Amancio Q. Saga reiterating his dissent.9 Unable to accept the CTA decision, the BIR Commissioner elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA) by way of petition for review, thereat docketed as CA-G.R. No. 47895. As stated at the outset hereof, the appellate court, in the herein challenged Decision10 dated September 17, 1999, dismissed the BIRs petition, thereby effectively affirming the CTAs judgment. Relying on its ruling in an earlier case between the same parties and involving the same issue CA-G.R. SP No. 40811, decided 16 February 1998 the appellate court partly wrote in its assailed decision:

This Court has already spoken on the issue of what taxes are referred to in the phrase "in lieu of all taxes" found in Section 12 of R.A. 7082. There are no reasons to deviate from the ruling and the same must be followed pursuant to the doctrine of stare decisis. xxx. "Stare decisis et non quieta movere. Stand by the decision and disturb not what is settled." Hence, this recourse by the BIR Commissioner on the lone assigned error that: THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT RESPONDENT IS EXEMPT FROM THE PAYMENT OF VALUE-ADDED TAXES, COMPENSATING TAXES, ADVANCE SALES TAXES AND OTHER BIR TAXES ON ITS IMPORTATIONS, BY VIRTUE OF THE PROVISION IN ITS FRANCHISE THAT THE 3% FRANCHISE TAX ON ITS GROSS RECEIPTS SHALL BE IN LIEU OF ALL TAXES ON ITS FRANCHISE OR EARNINGS THEREOF. There is no doubt that, insofar as the Court of Appeals is concerned, the issue petitioner presently raises had been resolved by that court in CA-G.R. SP No. 40811, entitled Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Philippine Long Distance Company. There, the Sixteenth Division of the appellate court declared that under the express provision of Section 12 of R.A. 7082, supra, "the payment [by PLDT] of the 3% franchise tax of [its] gross receipts shall be in lieu of all taxes" exempts PLDT from payment of compensating tax, advance sales tax, VAT and other internal revenue taxes on its importation of various equipment, machinery and spare parts for the use of its telecommunications system. Dissatisfied with the CA decision in that case, the BIR Commissioner initially filed with this

Court a motion for time to file a petition for review, docketed in this Court as G.R. No. 134386. However, on the last day for the filing of the intended petition, the then BIR Commissioner had a change of heart and instead manifested11 that he will no longer pursue G.R. No. 134386, there being no compelling grounds to disagree with the Court of Appeals decision in CA-G.R. 40811. Consequently, on September 28, 1998, the Court issued a Resolution12 in G.R. No. 134386 notifying the parties that "no petition" was filed in said case and that the CA judgment sought to be reviewed therein "has now become final and executory". Pursuant to said Resolution, an Entry of Judgment13 was issued by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 40811. Hence, the CAs dismissal of CA-G.R. No. 47895 on the additional ground of stare decisis. Under the doctrine of stare decisis et non quieta movere, a point of law already established will, generally, be followed by the same determining court and by all courts of lower rank in subsequent cases where the same legal issue is raised.14 For reasons needing no belaboring, however, the Court is not at all concluded by the ruling of the Court of Appeals in its earlier CAG.R. SP No. 47895. The Court has time and again stated that the rule on stare decisis promotes stability in the law and should, therefore, be accorded respect. However, blind adherence to precedents, simply as precedent, no longer rules. More important than anything else is that the court is right,15 thus its duty to abandon any doctrine found to be in violation of the law in force.16 As it were, the former BIR Commissioners decision not to pursue his petition in G.R. No.

134386 denied the BIR, at least as early as in that case, the opportunity to obtain from the Court an authoritative interpretation of Section 12 of R.A. 7082. All is, however, not lost. For, the government is not estopped by acts or errors of its agents, particularly on matters involving taxes. Corollarily, the erroneous application of tax laws by public officers does not preclude the subsequent correct application thereof.17 Withal, the errors of certain administrative officers, if that be the case, should never be allowed to jeopardize the governments financial position.18 Hence, the need to address the main issue tendered herein. According to the Court of Appeals, the "in lieu of all taxes" clause found in Section 12 of PLDTs franchise (R.A. 7082) covers all taxes, whether direct or indirect; and that said section states, in no uncertain terms, that PLDTs payment of the 3% franchise tax on all its gross receipts from businesses transacted by it under its franchise is in lieu of all taxes on the franchise or earnings thereof. In fine, the appellate court, agreeing with PLDT, posits the view that the word "all" encompasses any and all taxes collectible under the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), save those specifically mentioned in PLDTs franchise, such as income and real property taxes. The BIR Commissioner excepts. He submits that the exempting "in lieu of all taxes" clause covers direct taxes only, adding that for indirect taxes to be included in the exemption, the intention to include must be specific and unmistakable. He thus faults the Court of Appeals for erroneously declaring PLDT exempt from payment of VAT and other indirect taxes on its importations. To the Commissioner, PLDTs claimed entitlement to tax refund/credit is without

basis inasmuch as the 3% franchise tax being imposed on PLDT is not a substitute for or in lieu of indirect taxes. The sole issue at hand is whether or not PLDT, given the tax component of its franchise, is exempt from paying VAT, compensating taxes, advance sales taxes and internal revenue taxes on its importations. Based on the possibility of shifting the incidence of taxation, or as to who shall bear the burden of taxation, taxes may be classified into either direct tax or indirect tax. In context, direct taxes are those that are exacted from the very person who, it is intended or desired, should pay them;19 they are impositions for which a taxpayer is directly liable on the transaction or business he is engaged in.20 On the other hand, indirect taxes are those that are demanded, in the first instance, from, or are paid by, one person in the expectation and intention that he can shift the burden to someone else.21 Stated elsewise, indirect taxes are taxes wherein the liability for the payment of the tax falls on one person but the burden thereof can be shifted or passed on to another person, such as when the tax is imposed upon goods before reaching the consumer who ultimately pays for it. When the seller passes on the tax to his buyer, he, in effect, shifts the tax burden, not the liability to pay it, to the purchaser as part of the price of goods sold or services rendered. To put the situation in graphic terms, by tacking the VAT due to the selling price, the seller remains the person primarily and legally liable for the payment of the tax. What is shifted only

to the intermediate buyer and ultimately to the final purchaser is the burden of the tax.22 Stated differently, a seller who is directly and legally liable for payment of an indirect tax, such as the VAT on goods or services, is not necessarily the person who ultimately bears the burden of the same tax. It is the final purchaser or end-user of such goods or services who, although not directly and legally liable for the payment thereof, ultimately bears the burden of the tax.23 There can be no serious argument that PLDT, vis--vis its payment of internal revenue taxes on its importations in question, is effectively claiming exemption from taxes not falling under the category of direct taxes. The claim covers VAT, advance sales tax and compensating tax. The NIRC classifies VAT as "an indirect tax the amount of [which] may be shifted or passed on to the buyer, transferee or lessee of the goods".24 As aptly pointed out by Judge Amancio Q. Saga in his dissent in C.T.A. Case No. 5178, the 10% VAT on importation of goods partakes of an excise tax levied on the privilege of importing articles. It is not a tax on the franchise of a business enterprise or on its earnings. It is imposed on all taxpayers who import goods (unless such importation falls under the category of an exempt transaction under Sec. 109 of the Revenue Code) whether or not the goods will eventually be sold, bartered, exchanged or utilized for personal consumption. The VAT on importation replaces the advance sales tax payable by regular importers who import articles for sale or as raw materials in the manufacture of finished articles for sale.25 Advance sales tax has the attributes of an indirect tax because the tax-paying importer of goods for sale or of raw materials to be processed into merchandise can shift the tax or, to borrow from

Philippine Acetylene Co, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,26 lay the "economic burden of the tax", on the purchaser, by subsequently adding the tax to the selling price of the imported article or finished product. Compensating tax also partakes of the nature of an excise tax payable by all persons who import articles, whether in the course of business or not.27 The rationale for compensating tax is to place, for tax purposes, persons purchasing from merchants in the Philippines on a more or less equal basis with those who buy directly from foreign countries.28 It bears to stress that the liability for the payment of the indirect taxes lies only with the seller of the goods or services, not in the buyer thereof. Thus, one cannot invoke ones exemption privilege to avoid the passing on or the shifting of the VAT to him by the manufacturers/suppliers of the goods he purchased.29 Hence, it is important to determine if the tax exemption granted to a taxpayer specifically includes the indirect tax which is shifted to him as part of the purchase price, otherwise it is presumed that the tax exemption embraces only those taxes for which the buyer is directly liable.30 Time and again, the Court has stated that taxation is the rule, exemption is the exception. Accordingly, statutes granting tax exemptions must be construed in strictissimi juris against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing authority.31 To him, therefore, who claims a refund or exemption from tax payments rests the burden of justifying the exemption by words too plain to be mistaken and too categorical to be misinterpreted.32

As may be noted, the clause "in lieu of all taxes" in Section 12 of RA 7082 is immediately followed by the limiting or qualifying clause "on this franchise or earnings thereof", suggesting that the exemption is limited to taxes imposed directly on PLDT since taxes pertaining to PLDTs franchise or earnings are its direct liability. Accordingly, indirect taxes, not being taxes on PLDTs franchise or earnings, are outside the purview of the "in lieu" provision. If we were to adhere to the appellate courts interpretation of the law that the "in lieu of all taxes" clause encompasses the totality of all taxes collectible under the Revenue Code, then, the immediately following limiting clause "on this franchise and its earnings" would be nothing more than a pure jargon bereft of effect and meaning whatsoever. Needless to stress, this kind of interpretation cannot be accorded a governing sway following the familiar legal maxim redendo singula singulis meaning, take the words distributively and apply the reference. Under this principle, each word or phrase must be given its proper connection in order to give it proper force and effect, rendering none of them useless or superfluous. 33 Significantly, in Manila Electric Company [Meralco] vs. Vera,34 the Court declared the relatively broader exempting clause "shall be in lieu of all taxes and assessments of whatsoever nature upon the privileges earnings, income franchise ... of the grantee" written in par. # 9 of Meralcos franchise as not so all encompassing as to embrace indirect tax, like compensating tax. There, the Court said: It is a well-settled rule or principle in taxation that a compensating tax is an excise tax one that is imposed on the performance of an act, the engaging in an occupation, or the enjoyment of

a privilege. A tax levied upon property because of its ownership is a direct tax, whereas one levied upon property because of its use is an excise duty. . The compensating tax being imposed upon MERALCO, is an impost on its use of imported articles and is not in the nature of a direct tax on the articles themselves, the latter tax falling within the exemption. Thus, in International Business Machine Corporation vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, which involved the collection of a compensating tax from the plaintiffpetitioner on business machines imported by it, this Court stated in unequivocal terms that "it is not the act of importation that is taxed under section 190 but the uses of imported goods not subjected to a sales tax" because the "compensating tax was expressly designated as a substitute to make up or compensate for the revenue lost to the government through the avoidance of sales taxes by means of direct purchases abroad. xxx xxx xxx xxx If it had been the legislative intent to exempt MERALCO from paying a tax on the use of imported equipments, the legislative body could have easily done so by expanding the provision of paragraph 9 and adding to the exemption such words as "compensating tax" or "purchases from abroad for use in its business," and the like. It may be so that in Maceda vs. Macaraig, Jr.35 the Court held that an exemption from "all taxes" granted to the National Power Corporation (NPC) under its charter36 includes both direct and indirect taxes. But far from providing PLDT comfort, Maceda in fact supports the case of herein petitioner, the correct lesson of Maceda being that an exemption from "all taxes"

excludes indirect taxes, unless the exempting statute, like NPCs charter, is so couched as to include indirect tax from the exemption. Wrote the Court: xxx However, the amendment under Republic Act No. 6395 enumerated the details covered by the exemption. Subsequently, P.D. 380, made even more specific the details of the exemption of NPC to cover, among others, both direct and indirect taxes on all petroleum products used in its operation. Presidential Decree No. 938 [NPCs amended charter) amended the tax exemption by simplifying the same law in general terms. It succinctly exempts NPC from "all forms of taxes, duties fees ." The use of the phrase "all forms" of taxes demonstrate the intention of the law to give NPC all the tax exemptions it has been enjoying before. . xxx xxx xxx It is evident from the provisions of P.D. No. 938 that its purpose is to maintain the tax exemption of NPC from all forms of taxes including indirect taxes as provided under R.A. No. 6395 and P.D. 380 if it is to attain its goals. (Italics in the original; words in bracket added) Of similar import is what we said in Borja vs. Collector of Internal Revenue.37 There, the Court upheld the decision of the CTA denying a claim for refund of the compensating taxes paid on the importation of materials and equipment by a grantee of a heat and power legislative franchise containing an "in lieu" provision, rationalizing as follows: xxx Moreover, the petitioners alleged exemption from the payment of compensating tax in the

present case is not clear or expressed; unlike the exemption from the payment of income tax which was clear and expressed in the Carcar case. Unless it appears clearly and manifestly that an exemption is intended, the provision is to be construed strictly against the party claiming exemption. xxx. Jurisprudence thus teaches that imparting the "in lieu of all taxes" clause a literal meaning, as did the Court of Appeals and the CTA before it, is fallacious. It is basic that in construing a statute, it is the duty of courts to seek the real intent of the legislature, even if, by so doing, they may limit the literal meaning of the broad language.38 It cannot be over-emphasized that tax exemption represents a loss of revenue to the government and must, therefore, not rest on vague inference. When claimed, it must be strictly construed against the taxpayer who must prove that he falls under the exception. And, if an exemption is found to exist, it must not be enlarged by construction, since the reasonable presumption is that the state has granted in express terms all it intended to grant at all, and that, unless the privilege is limited to the very terms of the statute the favor would be extended beyond dispute in ordinary cases.39 All told, we fail to see how Section 12 of RA 7082 operates as granting PLDT blanket exemption from payment of indirect taxes, which, in the ultimate analysis, are not taxes on its franchise or earnings. PLDT has not shown its eligibility for the desired exemption. None should be granted. As a final consideration, the Court takes particular stock, as the CTA earlier did, of PLDTs

allegation that the Bureau of Customs assessed the company for advance sales tax and compensating tax for importations entered between October 1, 1992 and May 31, 1994 when the value-added tax system already replaced, if not totally eliminated, advance sales and compensating taxes.40 Indeed, pursuant to Executive Order No. 27341 which took effect on January 1, 1988, a multi-stage value-added tax was put into place to replace the tax on original and subsequent sales tax.42 It stands to reason then, as urged by PLDT, that compensating tax and advance sales tax were no longer collectible internal revenue taxes under the NILRC when the Bureau of Customs made the assessments in question and collected the corresponding tax. Stated a bit differently, PLDT was no longer under legal obligation to pay compensating tax and advance sales tax on its importation from 1992 to 1994. Parenthetically, petitioner has not made an issue about PLDTs allegations concerning the abolition of the provisions of the Tax Code imposing the payment of compensating and advance sales tax on importations and the non-existence of these taxes during the period under review. On the contrary, petitioner admits that the VAT on importation of goods has "replace[d] the compensating tax and advance sales tax under the old Tax Code".43 Given the above perspective, the amount PLDT paid in the concept of advance sales tax and compensating tax on the 1992 to 1994 importations were, in context, erroneous tax payments and would theoretically be refundable. It should be emphasized, however, that, such importations were, when made, already subject to VAT. Factoring in the fact that a portion of the claim was barred by prescription, the CTA had

determined that PLDT is entitled to a total refundable amount of P94,673,422.00 (P87,257,031.00 of compensating tax + P7,416,391.00 = P94,673,422.00). Accordingly, it behooves the BIR to grant a refund of the advance sales tax and compensating tax in the total amount of P94,673,422.00, subject to the condition that PLDT present proof of payment of the corresponding VAT on said transactions. WHEREFORE, the petition is partially GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 47895 dated September 17, 1999 is MODIFIED. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue is ORDERED to issue a Tax Credit Certificate or to refund to PLDT only the of P94,673,422.00 advance sales tax and compensating tax erroneously collected by the Bureau of Customs from October 1, 1992 to May 31, 1994, less the VAT which may have been due on the importations in question, but have otherwise remained uncollected. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 180909 January 19, 2011 EXXONMOBIL PETROLEUM AND CHEMICAL HOLDINGS, INC. - PHILIPPINE BRANCH, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. DECISION MENDOZA, J.: This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 filed by petitioner Exxonmobil Petroleum and Chemical Holdings, Inc. - Philippine Branch (Exxon) to set aside the September 7, 2007 Decision1 of the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc (CTA-En Banc) in CTA E.B. No. 204, and its November 27, 2007 Resolution2 denying petitioners motion for reconsideration. THE FACTS Petitioner Exxon is a foreign corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, United States of America.3 It is authorized to do business in the Philippines through its Philippine Branch, with principal office address at the 17/F The Orient Square, Emerald Avenue, Ortigas Center, Pasig City.4 Exxon is engaged in the business of selling petroleum products to domestic and international carriers.5 In pursuit of its business, Exxon purchased from Caltex Philippines, Inc. (Caltex) and

Petron Corporation (Petron) Jet A-1 fuel and other petroleum products, the excise taxes on which were paid for and remitted by both Caltex and Petron.6 Said taxes, however, were passed on to Exxon which ultimately shouldered the excise taxes on the fuel and petroleum products. 7 From November 2001 to June 2002, Exxon sold a total of 28,635,841 liters of Jet A-1 fuel to international carriers, free of excise taxes amounting to Php105,093,536.47.8 On various dates, it filed administrative claims for refund with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) amounting to Php105,093,536.47.9 On October 30, 2003, Exxon filed a petition for review with the CTA10 claiming a refund or tax credit in the amount of Php105,093,536.47, representing the amount of excise taxes paid on Jet A-1 fuel and other petroleum products it sold to international carriers from November 2001 to June 2002.11 Exxon and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) filed their Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues on June 24, 2004, presenting a total of fourteen (14) issues for resolution.12 During Exxons preparation of evidence, the CIR filed a motion dated January 28, 2005 to first resolve the issue of whether or not Exxon was the proper party to ask for a refund.13 Exxon filed its opposition to the motion on March 15, 2005. On July 27, 2005, the CTA First Division issued a resolution14 sustaining the CIRs position and dismissing Exxons claim for refund. Exxon filed a motion for reconsideration, but this was

denied on July 27, 2006.15 Exxon filed a petition for review16 with the CTA En Banc assailing the July 27, 2005 Resolution of the CTA First Division which dismissed the petition for review, and the July 27, 2006 Resolution17 which affirmed the said ruling. RULING OF THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS EN BANC In its Decision dated September 7, 2007, the CTA En Banc dismissed the petition for review and affirmed the two resolutions of the First Division dated July 27, 2005 and July 27, 2006. Exxon filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied on November 27, 2007. Citing Sections 130 (A)(2)18 and 204 (C) in relation to Section 135 (a)19 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997 (NIRC), the CTA ruled that in consonance with its ruling in several cases,20 only the taxpayer or the manufacturer of the petroleum products sold has the legal personality to claim the refund of excise taxes paid on petroleum products sold to international carriers.21 The CTA stated that Section 130(A)(2) makes the manufacturer or producer of the petroleum products directly liable for the payment of excise taxes.22 Therefore, it follows that the manufacturer or producer is the taxpayer.23 This determination of the identity of the taxpayer designated by law is pivotal as the NIRC provides that it is only the taxpayer who "has the legal personality to ask for a refund in case of

erroneous payment of taxes."24 Further, the excise tax imposed on manufacturers upon the removal of petroleum products by oil companies is an indirect tax, or a tax which is primarily paid by persons who can shift the burden upon someone else.25 The CTA cited the cases of Philippine Acetylene Co., Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,26 Contex Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,27 and Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company,28 and explained that with indirect taxes, "although the burden of an indirect tax can be shifted or passed on to the purchaser of the goods, the liability for the indirect tax remains with the manufacturer."29 Moreover, "the manufacturer has the option whether or not to shift the burden of the tax to the purchaser. When shifted, the amount added by the manufacturer becomes a part of the price, therefore, the purchaser does not really pay the tax per se but only the price of the commodity."30 Going by such logic, the CTA concluded that a refund of erroneously paid or illegally received tax can only be made in favor of the taxpayer, pursuant to Section 204(C) of the NIRC.31 As categorically ruled in the Cebu Portland Cement32 and Contex33 cases, in the case of indirect taxes, it is the manufacturer of the goods who is entitled to claim any refund thereof.34 Therefore, it follows that the indirect taxes paid by the manufacturers or producers of the goods cannot be refunded to the purchasers of the goods because the purchasers are not the taxpayers.35 The CTA also emphasized that tax refunds are in the nature of tax exemptions and are, thus,

regarded as in derogation of sovereign authority and construed strictissimi juris against the person or entity claiming the exemption.36 Finally, the CTA disregarded Exxons argument that "in effectively holding that only petroleum products purchased directly from the manufacturers or producers are exempt from excise taxes, the First Division of [the CTA] sanctioned a universal amendment of existing bilateral agreements which the Philippines have with other countries, in violation of the basic principle of pacta sunt servanda."37 The CTA explained that the findings of fact of the First Division (that when Exxon sold the Jet A-1 fuel to international carriers, it did so free of tax) negated any violation of the exemption from excise tax of the petroleum products sold to international carriers. Second, the right of international carriers to invoke the exemption granted under Section 135(a) of the NIRC was neither affected nor restricted in any way by the ruling of the First Division. At the point of sale, the international carriers were free to invoke the exemption from excise taxes of the petroleum products sold to them. Lastly, the lawmaking body was presumed to have enacted a later law with the knowledge of all other laws involving the same subject matter.38 THE ISSUES Petitioner now raises the following issues in its petition for review: I. WHETHER THE ASSAILED DECISION AND RESOLUTION ERRONEOUSLY

PROHIBITED PETITIONER, AS THE DISTRIBUTOR AND VENDOR OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS TO INTERNATIONAL CARRIERS REGISTERED IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES WHICH HAVE EXISTING BILATERAL AGREEMENTS WITH THE PHILIPPINES, FROM CLAIMING A REFUND OF THE EXCISE TAXES PAID THEREON; AND II. WHETHER THE ASSAILED DECISIONS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE DISMISSAL OF PETITIONERS CLAIM FOR REFUND BASED ON RESPONDENTS "MOTION TO RESOLVE FIRST THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONER IS THE PROPER PARTY THAT MAY ASK FOR A REFUND," SINCE SAID MOTION IS ESSENTIALLY A MOTION TO DISMISS, WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED OUTRIGHT BY THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS FOR HAVING BEEN FILED OUT OF TIME. RULING OF THE COURT I. On respondents "motion to resolve first the issue of whether or not the petitioner is the proper party that may ask for a refund." For a logical resolution of the issues, the court will tackle first the issue of whether or not the CTA erred in granting respondents Motion to Resolve First the Issue of Whether or Not the Petitioner is the Proper Party that may Ask for a Refund.39 In said motion, the CIR prayed that the CTA First Division resolve ahead of the other stipulated issues the sole issue of whether

petitioner was the proper party to ask for a refund.40 Exxon opines that the CIRs motion is essentially a motion to dismiss filed out of time,41 as it was filed after petitioner began presenting evidence42 more than a year after the filing of the Answer.43 By praying that Exxon be declared as not the proper party to ask for a refund, the CIR asked for the dismissal of the petition, as the grant of the Motion to Resolve would bring trial to a close.44 Moreover, Exxon states that the motion should have also complied with the three-day notice and ten-day hearing rules provided in Rule 15 of the Rules of Court.45 Since the CIR failed to set its motion for any hearing before the filing of the Answer, the motion should have been considered a mere scrap of paper.46 Finally, citing Maruhom v. Commission on Elections and Dimaporo,47 Exxon argues that a defendant who desires a preliminary hearing on special and affirmative defenses must file a motion to that effect at the time of filing of his answer.48 The CIR, on the other hand, counters that it did not file a motion to dismiss.49 Instead, the grounds for dismissal of the case were pleaded as special and affirmative defenses in its Answer filed on December 15, 2003.50 Therefore, the issue of "whether or not petitioner is the proper party to claim for a tax refund of the excise taxes allegedly passed on by Caltex and Petron" was included as one of the issues in the Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues dated June 24, 2004

signed by petitioner and respondent.51 The CIR now argues that nothing in the Rules requires the preliminary hearing to be held before the filing of an Answer.52 However, a preliminary hearing cannot be held before the filing of the Answer precisely because any ground raised as an affirmative defense is pleaded in the Answer itself.53 Further, the CIR contends that the case cited by petitioner, Maruhom v. Comelec,54 does not apply here. In the said case, a motion to dismiss was filed after the filing of the answer. 55 And, the said motion to dismiss was found to be a frivolous motion designed to prevent the early termination of the proceedings in the election case therein.56 Here, the Motion to Resolve was filed not to delay the disposition of the case, but rather, to expedite proceedings.571avvphi1 Rule 16, Section 6 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides: SEC. 6. Pleading grounds as affirmative defenses. - If no motion to dismiss has been filed, any of the grounds for dismissal provided for in this Rule may be pleaded as an affirmative defense in the answer, and in the discretion of the court, a preliminary hearing may be had thereon as if a motion to dismiss had been filed. The dismissal of the complaint under this section shall be without prejudice to the prosecution in the same or separate action of a counterclaim pleaded in the answer. (Underscoring supplied.) This case is a clear cut application of the above provision. The CIR did not file a motion to

dismiss. Thus, he pleaded the grounds for dismissal as affirmative defenses in its Answer and thereafter prayed for the conduct of a preliminary hearing to determine whether petitioner was the proper party to apply for the refund of excise taxes paid. The determination of this question was the keystone on which the entire case was leaning. If Exxon was not the proper party to apply for the refund of excise taxes paid, then it would be useless to proceed with the case. It would not make any sense to proceed to try a case when petitioner had no standing to pursue it. In the case of California and Hawaiian Sugar Company v. Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corporation,58 the Court held that: Considering that there was only one question, which may even be deemed to be the very touchstone of the whole case, the trial court had no cogent reason to deny the Motion for Preliminary Hearing. Indeed, it committed grave abuse of discretion when it denied a preliminary hearing on a simple issue of fact that could have possibly settled the entire case. Verily, where a preliminary hearing appears to suffice, there is no reason to go on to trial. One reason why dockets of trial courts are clogged is the unreasonable refusal to use a process or procedure, like a motion to dismiss, which is designed to abbreviate the resolution of a case.59 (Underscoring supplied.) II. On whether petitioner, as the distributor and vendor of petroleum products to international carriers registered in foreign countries which have existing bilateral agreements with the Philippines, can claim a refund of the excise taxes paid thereon

This brings us now to the substantive issue of whether Exxon, as the distributor and vendor of petroleum products to international carriers registered in foreign countries which have existing bilateral agreements with the Philippines, is the proper party to claim a tax refund for the excise taxes paid by the manufacturers, Caltex and Petron, and passed on to it as part of the purchase price. Exxon argues that having paid the excise taxes on the petroleum products sold to international carriers, it is a real party in interest consistent with the rules and jurisprudence.60 It reasons out that the subject of the exemption is neither the seller nor the buyer of the petroleum products, but the products themselves, so long as they are sold to international carriers for use in international flight operations, or to exempt entities covered by tax treaties, conventions and other international agreements for their use or consumption, among other conditions.61 Thus, as the exemption granted under Section 135 attaches to the petroleum products and not to the seller, the exemption will apply regardless of whether the same were sold by its manufacturer or its distributor for two reasons.62 First, Section 135 does not require that to be exempt from excise tax, the products should be sold by the manufacturer or producer.63 Second, the legislative intent was precisely to make Section 135 independent from Sections 129 and 130 of the NIRC,64 stemming from the fact that unlike other products subject to excise tax, petroleum products of this nature have become subject to preferential tax treatment by virtue of

either specific international agreements or simply of international reciprocity.65 Respondent CIR, on the other hand, posits that Exxon is not the proper party to seek a refund of excise taxes paid on the petroleum products.66 In so arguing, the CIR states that excise taxes are indirect taxes, the liability for payment of which falls on one person, but the burden of payment may be shifted to another.67 Here, the sellers of the petroleum products or Jet A-1 fuel subject to excise tax are Petron and Caltex, while Exxon was the buyer to whom the burden of paying excise tax was shifted.68 While the impact or burden of taxation falls on Exxon, as the tax is shifted to it as part of the purchase price, the persons statutorily liable to pay the tax are Petron and Caltex.69 As Exxon is not the taxpayer primarily liable to pay, and not exempted from paying, excise tax, it is not the proper party to claim for the refund of excise taxes paid.70 The excise tax, when passed on to the purchaser, becomes part of the purchase price. Excise taxes are imposed under Title VI of the NIRC. They apply to specific goods manufactured or produced in the Philippines for domestic sale or consumption or for any other disposition, and to those that are imported.71 In effect, these taxes are imposed when two conditions concur: first, that the articles subject to tax belong to any of the categories of goods enumerated in Title VI of the NIRC; and second, that said articles are for domestic sale or consumption, excluding those that are actually exported.72 There are, however, certain exemptions to the coverage of excise taxes, such as petroleum products sold to international carriers and exempt entities or agencies. Section 135 of the NIRC

provides: SEC. 135. Petroleum Products Sold to International Carriers and Exempt Entities or Agencies. - Petroleum products sold to the following are exempt from excise tax: (a) International carriers of Philippine or foreign registry on their use or consumption outside the Philippines: Provided, That the petroleum products sold to these international carriers shall be stored in a bonded storage tank and may be disposed of only in accordance with the rules and regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of Finance, upon recommendation of the Commissioner; (b) Exempt entities or agencies covered by tax treaties, conventions and other international agreements for their use of consumption: Provided, however, That the country of said foreign international carrier or exempt entities or agencies exempts from similar taxes petroleum products sold to Philippine carriers, entities or agencies; and (c) Entities which are by law exempt from direct and indirect taxes. (Underscoring supplied.) Thus, under Section 135, petroleum products sold to international carriers of foreign registry on their use or consumption outside the Philippines are exempt from excise tax, provided that the petroleum products sold to such international carriers shall be stored in a bonded storage tank and may be disposed of only in accordance with the rules and regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of Finance, upon recommendation of the Commissioner.73

The confusion here stems from the fact that excise taxes are of the nature of indirect taxes, the liability for payment of which may fall on a person other than he who actually bears the burden of the tax. In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company,74 the Court discussed the nature of indirect taxes as follows: [I]ndirect taxes are those that are demanded, in the first instance, from, or are paid by, one person to someone else. Stated elsewise, indirect taxes are taxes wherein the liability for the payment of the tax falls on one person but the burden thereof can be shifted or passed on to another person, such as when the tax is imposed upon goods before reaching the consumer who ultimately pays for it. When the seller passes on the tax to his buyer, he, in effect, shifts the tax burden, not the liability to pay it, to the purchaser, as part of the goods sold or services rendered. Accordingly, the party liable for the tax can shift the burden to another, as part of the purchase price of the goods or services. Although the manufacturer/seller is the one who is statutorily liable for the tax, it is the buyer who actually shoulders or bears the burden of the tax, albeit not in the nature of a tax, but part of the purchase price or the cost of the goods or services sold. As petitioner is not the statutory taxpayer, it is not entitled to claim a refund of excise taxes paid. The question we are faced with now is, if the party statutorily liable for the tax is different from the party who bears the burden of such tax, who is entitled to claim a refund of the tax paid? Sections 129 and 130 of the NIRC provide:

SEC. 129. Goods subject to Excise Taxes. - Excise taxes apply to goods manufactured or produced in the Philippines for domestic sales or consumption or for any other disposition and to things imported. The excise tax imposed herein shall be in addition to the value-added tax imposed under Title IV. For purposes of this Title, excise taxes herein imposed and based on weight or volume capacity or any other physical unit of measurement shall be referred to as 'specific tax' and an excise tax herein imposed and based on selling price or other specified value of the good shall be referred to as 'ad valorem tax.' SEC. 130. Filing of Return and Payment of Excise Tax on Domestic Products. (A) Persons Liable to File a Return, Filing of Return on Removal and Payment of Tax. (1) Persons Liable to File a Return. - Every person liable to pay excise tax imposed under this Title shall file a separate return for each place of production setting forth, among others the description and quantity or volume of products to be removed, the applicable tax base and the amount of tax due thereon: Provided, however, That in the case of indigenous petroleum, natural gas or liquefied natural gas, the excise tax shall be paid by the first buyer, purchaser or transferee for local sale, barter or transfer, while the excise tax on exported products shall be paid by the owner, lessee, concessionaire or operator of the mining claim. Should domestic products be removed from the place of production without the payment of the tax, the owner or person having possession thereof shall be liable for the tax due thereon. (2) Time for Filing of Return and Payment of the Tax. - Unless otherwise specifically

allowed, the return shall be filed and the excise tax paid by the manufacturer or producer before removal of domestic products from place of production: Provided, That the tax excise on locally manufactured petroleum products and indigenous petroleum/levied under Sections 148 and 151(A)(4), respectively, of this Title shall be paid within ten (10) days from the date of removal of such products for the period from January 1, 1998 to June 30, 1998; within five (5) days from the date of removal of such products for the period from July 1, 1998 to December 31, 1998; and, before removal from the place of production of such products from January 1, 1999 and thereafter: Provided, further, That the excise tax on nonmetallic mineral or mineral products, or quarry resources shall be due and payable upon removal of such products from the locality where mined or extracted, but with respect to the excise tax on locally produced or extracted metallic mineral or mineral products, the person liable shall file a return and pay the tax within fifteen (15) days after the end of the calendar quarter when such products were removed subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by rules and regulations to be promulgated by the Secretary of Finance, upon recommendation of the Commissioner. For this purpose, the taxpayer shall file a bond in an amount which approximates the amount of excise tax due on the removals for the said quarter. The foregoing rules notwithstanding, for imported mineral or mineral products, whether metallic or nonmetallic, the excise tax due thereon shall be paid before their removal from customs custody. xxx (Italics and underscoring supplied.)

As early as the 1960s, this Court has ruled that the proper party to question, or to seek a refund of, an indirect tax, is the statutory taxpayer, or the person on whom the tax is imposed by law and who paid the same, even if he shifts the burden thereof to another.75 In Philippine Acetylene Co., Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,76 the Court held that the sales tax is imposed on the manufacturer or producer and not on the purchaser, "except probably in a very remote and inconsequential sense."77 Discussing the "passing on" of the sales tax to the purchaser, the Court therein cited Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes opinion in Lashs Products v. United States78 wherein he said: "The phrase passed the tax on is inaccurate, as obviously the tax is laid and remains on the manufacturer and on him alone. The purchaser does not really pay the tax. He pays or may pay the seller more for the goods because of the sellers obligation, but that is all. x x x The price is the sum total paid for the goods. The amount added because of the tax is paid to get the goods and for nothing else. Therefore it is part of the price x x x."79 Proceeding from this discussion, the Court went on to state: It may indeed be that the economic burden of the tax finally falls on the purchaser; when it does the tax becomes a part of the price which the purchaser must pay. It does not matter that an additional amount is billed as tax to the purchaser. x x x The effect is still the same, namely, that the purchaser does not pay the tax. He pays or may pay the seller more for the goods because of the sellers obligation, but that is all and the amount added because of the tax is paid to get the

goods and for nothing else. But the tax burden may not even be shifted to the purchaser at all. A decision to absorb the burden of the tax is largely a matter of economics. Then it can no longer be contended that a sales tax is a tax on the purchaser.80 The above case was cited in the later case of Cebu Portland Cement Company v. Collector (now Commissioner) of Internal Revenue,81 where the Court ruled that as the sales tax is imposed upon the manufacturer or producer and not on the purchaser, "it is petitioner and not its customers, who may ask for a refund of whatever amount it is entitled for the percentage or sales taxes it paid before the amendment of section 246 of the Tax Code."82 The Philippine Acetylene case was also cited in the first Silkair (Singapore) Pte, Ltd. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue83 case, where the Court held that the proper party to question, or to seek a refund of, an indirect tax is the statutory taxpayer, the person on whom the tax is imposed by law and who paid the same even if he shifts the burden thereof to another.84 In the Silkair cases,85 petitioner Silkair (Singapore) Pte, Ltd. (Silkair), filed with the BIR a written application for the refund of excise taxes it claimed to have paid on its purchase of jet fuel from Petron. As the BIR did not act on the application, Silkair filed a Petition for Review before the CTA. In both cases, the CIR argued that the excise tax on petroleum products is the direct liability of the manufacturer/producer, and when added to the cost of the goods sold to the buyer, it is no

longer a tax but part of the price which the buyer has to pay to obtain the article. In the first Silkair case, the Court ruled: The proper party to question, or seek a refund of, an indirect tax is the statutory taxpayer, the person on whom the tax is imposed by law and who paid the same even if he shifts the burden thereof to another. Section 130 (A) (2) of the NIRC provides that "[u]nless otherwise specifically allowed, the return shall be filed and the excise tax paid by the manufacturer or producer before removal of domestic products from place of production." Thus, Petron Corporation, not Silkair, is the statutory taxpayer which is entitled to claim a refund based on Section 135 of the NIRC of 1997 and Article 4(2) of the Air Transport Agreement between RP and Singapore. Even if Petron Corporation passed on to Silkair the burden of the tax, the additional amount billed to Silkair for jet fuel is not a tax but part of the price which Silkair had to pay as a purchaser.86 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.) Citing the above case, the second Silkair case was promulgated a few months after the first, and stated: The issue presented is not novel. In a similar case involving the same parties, this Court has categorically ruled that "the proper party to question, or seek a refund of an indirect tax is the statutory taxpayer, the person on whom the tax is imposed by law and who paid the same even if he shifts the burden thereof to another." The Court added that "even if Petron Corporation passed on to Silkair the burden of the tax, the additional amount billed to Silkair for jet fuel is

not a tax but part of the price which Silkair had to pay as a purchaser."87 The CTA En Banc, thus, held that: The determination of who is the taxpayer plays a pivotal role in claims for refund because the same law provides that it is only the taxpayer who has the legal personality to ask for a refund in case of erroneous payment of taxes. Section 204 (C) of the 1997 NIRC, [provides] in part, as follows: SEC. 204. Authority of the Commissioner to Compromise, Abate, and Refund or Credit Taxes. The Commissioner may xxx xxx xxx (C) Credit or refund taxes erroneously or illegally received or penalties imposed without authority, refund the value of internal revenue stamps when they are returned in good condition by the purchaser, and, in his discretion, redeem or change unused stamps that have been rendered unfit for use and refund their value upon proof of destruction. No credit or refund of taxes or penalties shall be allowed unless the taxpayer files in writing with the Commissioner a claim for credit or refund within two (2) years after the payment of the tax or penalty: Provided, however, That a return showing an overpayment shall be considered as a written claim for credit or refund. xxx xxx xxx (Emphasis shown supplied by the CTA.)88

Therefore, as Exxon is not the party statutorily liable for payment of excise taxes under Section 130, in relation to Section 129 of the NIRC, it is not the proper party to claim a refund of any taxes erroneously paid. There is no unilateral amendment of existing bilateral agreements of the Philippines with other countries. Exxon also argues that in effectively holding that only petroleum products purchased directly from the manufacturers or producers are exempt from excise taxes, the CTA En Banc sanctioned a unilateral amendment of existing bilateral agreements which the Philippines has with other countries, in violation of the basic international law principle of pacta sunt servanda.89 The Court does not agree. As correctly held by the CTA En Banc: One final point, petitioners argument "that in effectively holding that only petroleum products purchased directly from the manufacturers or producers are exempt from excise taxes, the First Division of this Court sanctioned a unilateral amendment of existing bilateral agreements which the Philippines have (sic) with other countries, in violation of the basic international principle of "pacta sunt servanda" is misplaced. First, the findings of fact of the First Division of this Court that "when petitioner sold the Jet A-1 fuel to international carriers, it did so free of tax" negates any violation of the exemption from excise tax of the petroleum products sold to international carriers insofar as this case is concerned. Secondly, the right of international carriers to invoke the exemption granted under Section 135 (a) of the 1997 NIRC has neither been affected nor

restricted in any way by the ruling of the First Division of this Court. At the point of sale, the international carriers are free to invoke the exemption from excise taxes of the petroleum products sold to them. Lastly, the law-making body is presumed to have enacted a later law with the knowledge of all other laws involving the same subject matter."90 (Underscoring supplied.) WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 100959 June 29, 1992 BENGUET CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, LOCAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS OF THE PROVINCE OF BENGUET, and MUNCIPAL ASSESSOR OF ITOGON, BENGUET, respondents. BELLOSILLO, J.: BENGUET CORPORATION, in this original petition for certiorari, seeks to annul and set aside the Decision of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals of May 28, 1991, as well as the Resolution of July 1, 1991, denying its motion for reconsideration, which affirmed the decision of respondent Local Board of Assessment Appeals of the Province of Benguet declaring as valid the tax assessments made by the Municipal Assessor of Itogon, Benguet, on the bunkhouses of petitioner occupied as dwelling by its rank and file employees based on Tax Declarations Nos. 8471 and 10454. The Provincial Assessor of Benguet, through the Municipal Assessor of Itogon, assessed real property tax on the bunkhouses of petitioner Benguet Corporation occupied for residential purposes by its rank and file employees under Tax Declarations

Nos. 8471 (effective 1985) and 10454 (effective 1986). According to the Provincial Assessor, the tax exemption of bunkhouses under Sec. 3 (a), P.D. 745 (Liberalizing the Financing and Credit Terms for Low Cost Housing Projects of Domestic Corporations and Partnerships),was withdrawn by P.D. 1955 (Withdrawing, Subject to Certain Conditions, the Duty and Tax Privileges Granted to Private Business Enterprises and/or Persons Engaged in Any Economic Activity, and Other Purposes). Petitioner appealed the assessment on Tax Declarations Nos. 8471 and 10454 to the Local Board of Assessment Appeals (LBAA) of the Province of Benguet, docketed as LBAA Cases Nos. 42 and 43, respectively. Both were heard jointly. Meanwhile, the parties agreed to suspend hearings in LBAA Cases Nos. 42 and 43 to await the outcome of another case, LBAA Case No. 41, covering Tax Declaration No. 9534(effective 1984), which involved the same parties and issue until the appeal was decided by the Central Board of Assessment Appeals (CBAA). On July 15, 1986, CBAA handed down its decision in LBAA Case No. 41 holding that the buildings of petitioner used as dwellings by its rank and file employees were exempt from real property tax pursuant to P.D. 745. Thereafter, the proceedings in LBAA Cases Nos. 42 and 43 proceeded after which a decision was rendered affirming the taxability of subject property of petitioner. On appeal, CBAA sustained the decision holding that the realty tax exemption under P.D. 745 was withdrawn by P.D. 1955 and E.O. 93, so that petitioner should have applied for restoration of the exemption with the Fiscal Incentives Review Board (FIRB). The

decision of CBAA clarified that Case No. 41 was different because it was effective prior to 1985, hence, was not covered by P.D. 1955 nor by E.O. 93. Petitioner moved for reconsideration but was denied with CBAA holding that petitioner's "classification" of P.D. 745 is unavailing because P.D. 1955 and E.O. 93 do not discriminate against the so-called "social statutes". Hence, this petition. Encapsulized, the issues raised in the petition are:(1) whether respondent Assessors may validly assess real property tax on the properties of petitioner considering the proscription in The Local Tax Code (P.D. 231) and the Mineral Resources Development Degree of 1974 (P.D. 463)against imposition of taxes on mines by local governments; and, (2) whether the real tax exemption granted under P.D. 745 (promulgated July 15, 1975) was withdrawn by P.D. 1955 (took effect October 15, 1984) and E.O. 93. Presidential Decree No. 745, particularly Sec. 3 thereof, provides:
Sec. 3. Pursuant to the above incentive, such domestic corporations and partnerships shall enjoy tax exemption on: (a) real estate taxes on the improvements which will be used exclusively for housing their employees and workers . . .

Presidential Decree No. 1955, Sec. 1, provides:

Sec. 1. The provisions of any special or general law to the contrary notwithstanding, all exemptions from or any preferential treatment in the payment of duties, taxes, fees, imposts and other charges heretofore granted to private business enterprises and/or persons engaged in any economic activity are hereby withdrawn. except those enjoyed

by the following: . . . (e) Those that will be approved by the President of the Philippines upon the recommendation of the Minister of Finance,

should be read in connection with Ministry Order No. 39-84, Sec. 1 (d), of the then Ministry of Finance, which took effect October 15, 1984, states:
Sec. 1. The withdrawal of exemptions from, or any preferential treatment in, the payment of duties, taxes, fees, imposts and other charges as provided for under Presidential Decree No. 1955, does not apply to exemptions or preferential treatment embodied in the following laws: . . . (d) The Real Property Tax Code . . .

Executive Order No. 93, promulgated December 17, 1986, is also to the same effect. Both P.D. 1955 and E.O. 93 operate as wholesale withdrawal of tax incentives granted to private entities so that the government may re-examine existing tax exemptions and restore through the "review mechanism" of the Fiscal Incentives Review Board only those that are consistent with declared economic policy. Thuswise, the chief revenue source of the government will not be greatly, if not unnecessarily, eroded since tax exemptions that were granted on piecemeal basis, and which have lost relevance to existing programs, are eliminated. On the first issue, petitioner contends that local government units are without any authority to levy realty taxes on mines pursuant to Sec. 52 of P.D. 463, which states:
Sec. 52. Power to Levy Taxes on Mines, Mining Operations and Mineral Products. Any law to the contrary notwithstanding, no province, city, municipality, barrio or municipal district shall levy and collect taxes, fees, rentals, royalties or charges of any

kind whatsoever on mines, mining claims, mineral products, or any operation, process or activity connected therewith,

and Sec. 5 (m) of The Local Tax Code, as amended by P.D. 426 (reiterated in Secs. 17 [d] and 22 [c], same Code), which provides:
Sec. 5. Common limitations on the taxing powers of local governments. The exercise of the taxing powers of provinces, cities, municipalities and barrios shall not extend to the imposition of the following: . . . (m) Taxes on mines; mining operations; and minerals, mineral products, and their by-products when sold domestically by the operator . . .

The Solicitor General observes that the petitioner is estopped from raising the question of lack of authority to issue the challenged assessments inasmuch as it was never raised before, hence, not passed upon by, the municipal and provincial assessors, LBAA and CBAA. This observation is well taken. The rule that the issue of jurisdiction over subject matter may be raised anytime, even during appeal, has been qualified where its application results in mockery of the tenets of fair play, as in this case when the issue could have been disposed of earlier and more authoritatively by any of the respondents who are supposed to be experts in the field of realty tax assessment. As We held in Suarez v. Court of Appeals 1:
. . . It is settled that any decision rendered without jurisdiction is a total nullity and may be struck down at any time, even on appeal before this Court. The only exception is where the party raising the issue is barred by estoppel (Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy, 23 SCRA 29, reiterated in Solid Homes, Inc. vs. Payawal and Court of Appeals, G.R. No.

84811, August 29, 1989; emphasis supplied). While petitioner could have prevented the trial court from exercising jurisdiction over the case by seasonably taking exception thereto, they instead invoked the very same jurisdiction by filing an answer and seeking affirmative relief from it. What is more, they participated in the trial of the case by cross-examining respondent. Upon the premises, petitioner cannot now be allowed belatedly to adopt an inconsistent posture by attacking the jurisdiction of the court to which they had submitted themselves voluntarily (Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy, supra).

In Aguinaldo Industries Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the Court of Tax of Appeals, 2 We held:
To allow a litigant to assume a different posture when he comes before the court and challenge the position he had accepted at the administrative level, would be to sanction a procedure whereby the court which is supposed to review administrative determinations would not review, but determine and decide for the first time, a question not raised at the administrative forum. This cannot be permitted, for the same reason that underlies the requirement of prior exhaustion of administrative remedies to give administrative authorities the prior opportunity to decide controversies within its competence, and in much the same way that, an the judicial level, issues not raised in the lower court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.

Besides, the special civil action of certiorari is available to pass upon the determinations of administrative bodies where patent denial of due process is alleged as a consequence of grave abuse of discretion or lack of jurisdiction, or question of law

is raised and no appeal is available. In this case, petitioner may not complain of denial of due process since it had enough opportunity, but opted not, to raise the issue of jurisdiction in any of the administrative bodies to which the case may have been brought. Petitioner argues that realty taxes are local taxes because they are levied by local government units, citing Sec. 39 of P.D. 464, which provides:
Sec. 39. Rates of Levy. The provincial, city or municipal board or council shall fix a uniform rate of real property tax applicable to their respective localities . . .

While local government units are charged with fixing the rate of real property taxes, it does not necessarily follow from that authority the determination of whether or not to impose the tax. In fact, local governments have no alternative but to collect taxes as mandated in Sec. 38 of the Real Property Tax Code, which states:
Sec. 38 Incidence of Real Property Tax. There shall be levied, assessed and collected in all provinces, cities and municipalities an annual ad valorem tax on real property, such as land, buildings, machinery and other improvements affixed or attached to real property not hereinafter specifically exempted.

It is thus clear from the foregoing that it is the national government, expressing itself through the legislative branch, that levies the real property tax. Consequently, when local governments are required to fix the rates, they are merely constituted as agents of the national government in the enforcement of the Real Property Tax Code. The delegation of taxing power is not even involved here because the national government

has already imposed realty tax in Sec. 38 above-quoted, leaving only the enforcement to be done by local governments. The challenge of petitioner against the applicability of Meralco Securities Industrial Corporation v. Central Board of Assessment Appeals, et al., 3 is unavailing, absent any cogent reason to overturn the same. Thus
Meralco Securities argues that the realty tax is a local tax or levy and not a tax of general application. This argument is untenable because the realty tax has always been imposed by the lawmaking body and later by the President of the Philippines in the exercise of his lawmaking powers, as shown in Sections 342 et seq. of the Revised Administrative Code, Act No. 3995, Commonwealth Act No. 470 and Presidential Decree No. 464. The realty tax is enforced throughout the Philippines and not merely in a particular municipality or city but the proceeds of the tax accrue to the province, city, municipality and barrio where the realty taxed is situated (Sec. 86, P.D. No. 464). In contrast, a local tax is imposed by the municipal or city council by virtue of the Local Tax Code, Presidential Decree No. 231, which took effect on July 1, 1973 (69 O.G. 6197).

Consequently, the provisions of Sec. 52 of the Mineral Resources Development Decree of 1974 (P.D. 463), and Secs. 5 (m), 17 (d) and 22 (c) of The Local Tax Code (P.D. 231) cited by petitioner are mere limitations on the taxing power of local government units; they are not pertinent to the issue before Us and, therefore, cannot and should not affect the imposition of real property tax by the national government.

As regards the second issue, petitioner, which claims that E.O. 93 does not repeal social statutes like P.D. 745, in the same breath takes refuge in Sec. 1 (e) of the same E.O. 93, to wit:
Sec. 1. The provisions of any general or special law to the contrary notwithstanding, all tax and duty incentives granted to government and private entities are hereby withdrawn except: . . . (e) those conferred under the four basic codes, namely: . . . (iv) the Real Property Tax Code, as amended . . .

in relation to Sec. 40 of the Real Property Tax Code, which provides:

Sec. 40. Exemptions from Real Property Tax. The exemption shall be as follows: . . . (g) Real property exempt under other laws.

and concluding that P.D. 745 is one of the "other laws" referred to. We do not agree. If We are to sanction this interpretation, then necessarily all real properties exempt by any law would be covered, and there would be no need for the legislature to specify "Real Property Tax Code, as amended", instead of stating clearly "realty tax exemption laws''. Indubitably, the intention is to limit the application of the "exception clause" only to those conferred by the Real Property Tax Code. This is not only a logical construction of the provisions but more so in keeping with the principle of statutory construction that tax exemptions are construed strictly against taxpayers, hence, they cannot be created by mere implication but must be clearly provided by law. Non-exemption, in case of doubt, is favored.

Quite obviously, the exception in Sec. 1 (e), (iv), of E.O. 93, refers to "those conferred under . . . Real Property Tax Case, as amended, and that the exemption claimed by petitioner is granted not by the Real Property Tax Code but by P.D. 745. When Sec. 40 (g) of the Property Tax Code provides that "[T]he exemption shall be as follows: . . . Real Property exempt under other laws", the Code merely recognizes realty tax exemptions provided by other laws, otherwise, it may unwittingly repeal those "other laws" The argument of petitioner that P.D. 745 is a social statute to give flesh to the Constitutional provisions on housing, hence, not covered by P.D. 1955, was squarely met by respondent CBAA in its Resolution of July 1, 1991, to which We fully agree
The phrase "any special or general law" explicitly indicates that P.D. No. 1955 did not distinguish between a social statute and an economic or tax legislation. Hence, where the law does not distinguish, we cannot distinguish. In view thereof, we have no recourse but to apply the express provision of P.D. No. 1955 and rule in favor of the withdrawal of the real property tax exemption provided under P.D. No. 745. We also find without merit the contention of Petitioner-Appellant that B.P. No. 391 (Investment Incentives Policy Act of 1983) is the source and reason for the existence of P.D. No. 1955; therefore, the scope of P.D. No. 1955 is limited to investment incentives. Although Section 20 of said B.P. which authorizes the President to restructure investment incentives systems/legislations to align them with the overall economic development objectives is one of the declared policies of P.D. No. 1955, its primary aim is the formulation of national recovery program to meet and overcome the grave emergency

arising from the current economic crisis. Hence, it cannot be maintained that its provisions apply only to investment incentives. Besides, even granting that its scope is limited, it is noted that P.D. No. 745 also speaks of investment incentives in Section 2 and 3 thereof . . .

In fine, despite the spirited effort put up by petitioner, We find no compelling reason to disturb the findings and conclusion of public respondents. Petitioner, which even changed theories midstream, utterly failed to show that respondents, in issuing the challenged Decision and Resolution, committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or excess of jurisdiction. WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the instant petition is dismissed, with costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. L-19707 August 17, 1967 PHILIPPINE ACETYLENE CO., INC., petitioner, vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE and COURT OF TAX APPEALS, respondents. Ponce Enrile, Siguion Reyna, Montecillo and Belo, for petitioner. Office of the Solicitor General for respondents. CASTRO, J.: The petitioner is a corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of oxygen and acetylene gases. During the period from June 2, 1953 to June 30, 1958, it made various sales of its products to the National Power Corporation, an agency of the Philippine Government, and to the Voice of America an agency of the United States Government. The sales to the NPC amounted to P145,866.70, while those to the VOA amounted to P1,683, on account of which the respondent Commission of Internal Revenue assessed against, and demanded from, the petitioner the payment of P12,910.60 as deficiency sales tax and surcharge, pursuant to the following-provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code: Sec. 186. Percentage tax on sales of other articles.There shall be levied, assessed and collected once only on every original sale, barter, exchange, and similar transaction either for nominal or valuable considerations, intended to transfer ownership of, or title to, the articles not enumerated in sections one hundred and eighty-four and one hundred and

eighty-five a tax equivalent to seven per centum of the gross selling price or gross value in money of the articles so sold, bartered exchanged, or transferred, such tax to be paid by the manufacturer or producer: . . . . Sec. 183. Payment of percentage taxes.(a) In general.It shall be the duty of every person conducting business on which a percentage tax is imposed under this Title, to make a true and complete return of the amount of his, her, or its gross monthly sales, receipts or earnings, or gross value of output actually removed from the factory or mill warehouse and within twenty days after the end of each month, pay the tax due thereon: Provided, That any person retiring from a business subject to the percentage tax shall notify the nearest internal revenue officer thereof, file his return or declaration and pay the tax due thereon within twenty days after closing his business. If the percentage tax on any business is not paid within the time specified above, the amount of the tax shall be increased by twenty-five per centum, the increment to be a part of the tax. The petitioner denied liability for the payment of the tax on the ground that both the NPC and the VOA are exempt from taxation. It asked for a reconsideration of the assessment and, failing to secure one, appealed to the Court of Tax Appeals. The court ruled that the tax on the sale of articles or goods in section 186 of the Code is a tax on the manufacturer and not on the buyer with the result that the "petitioner Philippine Acetylene Company, the manufacturer or producer of oxygen and acetylene gases sold to the National

Power Corporation, cannot claim exemption from the payment of sales tax simply because its buyer the National Power Corporation is exempt from the payment of all taxes." With respect to the sales made to the VOA, the court held that goods purchased by the American Government or its agencies from manufacturers or producers are exempt from the payment of the sales tax under the agreement between the Government of the Philippines and that of the United States, provided the purchases are supported by certificates of exemption, and since purchases amounting to only P558, out of a total of P1,683, were not covered by certificates of exemption, only the sales in the sum of P558 were subject to the payment of tax. Accordingly, the assessment was revised and the petitioner's liability was reduced from P12,910.60, as assessed by the respondent commission, to P12,812.16.1 The petitioner appealed to this Court. Its position is that it is not liable for the payment of tax on the sales it made to the NPC and the VOA because both entities are exempt from taxation. I The NPC enjoys tax exemption by virtue of an act2 of Congress which provides as follows: Sec. 2. To facilitate the payment of its indebtedness, the National Power Corporation shall be exempt from all taxes, except real property tax, and from all duties, fees, imposts, charges, and restrictions of the Republic of the Philippines, its provinces, cities and municipalities. It is contended that the immunity thus given to the NPC would be impaired by the imposition of a tax on sales made to it because while the tax is paid by the manufacturer or producer, the tax is

ultimately shifted by the latter to the former. The petitioner invokes in support of its position a 1954 opinion of the Secretary of Justice which ruled that the NPC is exempt from the payment of all taxes "whether direct or indirect." We begin with an analysis of the nature of the percentage (sales) tax imposed by section 186 of the Code. Is it a tax on the producer or on the purchaser? Statutes of the type under consideration, which impose a tax on sales, have been described as "act[s] with schizophrenic symptoms,"3 as they apparently have two faces one that of a vendor tax, the other, a vendee tax. Fortunately for us the provisions of the Code throw some light on the problem. The Code states that the sales tax "shall be paid by the manufacturer or producer,"4 who must "make a true and complete return of the amount of his, her or its gross monthly sales, receipts or earnings or gross value of output actually removed from the factory or mill warehouse and within twenty days after the end of each month, pay the tax due thereon."5 But it is argued that a sales tax is ultimately passed on to the purchaser, and that, so far as the purchaser is an entity like the NPC which is exempt from the payment of "all taxes, except real property tax," the tax cannot be collected from sales. Many years ago, Mr. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes expressed dissatisfaction with the use of the phrase "pass the tax on." Writing the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in Lash's Products v. United States,6 he said: "The phrase 'passed the tax on' is inaccurate, as obviously the tax is laid and remains on the manufacturer and on him alone. The purchaser does not really pay the tax. He pays or may pay the seller more for the goods because of the seller's obligation, but that is

all. . . . The price is the sum total paid for the goods. The amount added because of the tax is paid to get the goods and for nothing else. Therefore it is part of the price . . .". It may indeed be that the incidence of the tax ultimately settles on the purchaser, but it is not for that reason alone that one may validly argue that it is a tax on the purchaser. The exemption granted to the NPC may be likened to the immunity of the Federal Government from state taxation and vice versa in the federal system of government of the United States. In the early case of Panhandle Oil Co. v. Mississippi7 the doctrine of intergovernment mental tax immunity was held as prohibiting the imposition of a tax on sales of gasoline made to the Federal Government. Said the Supreme court of the United States: A charge at the prescribed. rate is made on account of every gallon acquired by the United States. It is immaterial that the seller and not the purchaser is required to report and make payment to the state. Sale and purchase constitute a transaction by which the tax is measured and on which the burden rests. . . . The necessary operation of these enactments when so construed is directly to retard, impede and burden the exertion by the United States, of its constitutional powers to operate the fleet and hospital. . . . To use the number of gallons sold the United States as a measure of the privilege tax is in substance and legal effect to tax the sale. . . . And that is to tax the United States to exact tribute on its transactions and apply the same to the support of the state.1wph1.t Justice Holmes did not agree. In a powerful dissent joined by Justices Brandeis and Stone, he said:

If the plaintiff in error had paid the tax and added it to the price the government would have nothing to say. It could take the gasoline or leave it but it could not require the seller to abate his charge even if it had been arbitrarily increased in the hope of getting more from the government than could be got from the public at large. . . . It does not appear that the government would have refused to pay a price that included the tax if demanded, but if the government had refused it would not have exonerated the seller. . . . . . . I am not aware that the President, the Members of the Congress, the Judiciary or to come nearer to the case at hand, the Coast Guard or the officials of the Veterans' Hospital [to which the sales were made], because they are instrumentalities of government and cannot function naked and unfed, hitherto have been held entitled to have their bills for food and clothing cut down so far as their butchers and tailors have been taxed on their sales; and I had not supposed that the butchers and tailors could omit from their tax returns all receipts from the large class of customers to which I have referred. The question of interference with Government, I repeat, is one of reasonableness and degree and it seems to me that the interference in this case is too remote. But time was not long in coming to confirm the soundness of Holmes' position. Soon it became obvious that to test the constitutionality of a statute by determining the party on which the legal incidence of the tax fell was an unsatisfactory way of doing things. The fall of the bastion was signalled by Chief Justice Hughes' statement in James v. Dravo Constructing Co.8 that "These cases [referring to Panhandle and Indian Motorcycle Co. v. United States, 283 U.S. 570 (1931)] have been distinguished and must be deemed to be limited to their particular facts."

In 1941, Alabama v. King & Boozer9 held that the constitutional immunity of the United States from state taxation was not infringed by the imposition of a state sales tax with which the seller was chargeable but which he was required to collect from the buyer, in respect of materials purchased by a contractor with the United States on a cost-plus basis for use in carrying out its contract, despite the fact that the economic burden of the tax was borne by the United States. The asserted right of the one to be free of taxation by the other does not spell immunity from paying the added costs, attributable to the taxation of those who furnish supplies to the Government and who have been granted no tax immunity. So far as a different view has prevailed, see Panhandle Oil Co. v. Mississippi and Graves v. Texas Co., supra, we think it no longer tenable. Further inroads into the doctrine of Panhandle were made in 1943 when the U.S. Supreme Court held that immunity from state regulation in the performance of governmental functions by Federal officers and agencies did not extend to those who merely contracted to furnish supplies or render services to the government even though as a result of an increase in the price of such supplies or services attributable to the state regulation, its ultimate effect may be to impose an additional economic burden on the Government.10 But if a complete turnabout from the rule announced in Panhandle was yet to be made, it was so made in 1952 in Esso Standard Oil v. Evans11 which held that a contractor is not exempt from the payment of a state privilege tax on the business of storing gasoline simply because the Federal Government with which it has a contract for the storage of gasoline is immune from

state taxation. This tax was imposed because Esso stored gasoline. It is not . . . based on the worth of the government property. Instead, the amount collected is graduated in accordance with the exercise of Esso's privilege to engage in such operations; so it is not "on" the federal property. . . . Federal ownership of the fuel will not immunize such a private contractor from the tax on storage. It may generally, as it did here, burden the United States financially. But since James vs. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134, 151, 82 L. ed. 155, 167, 58 S. Ct. 208, 114 ALR 318, this has been no fatal flaw. . . . 12 We have determined the current status of the doctrine of intergovernmental tax immunity in the United States, by showing the drift of the decisions following announcement of the original rule, to point up the that fact that even in those cases where exemption from tax was sought on the ground of state immunity, the attempt has not met with success. As Thomas Reed Powell noted in 1945 in reviewing the development of the doctrine: Since the Dravo case settled that it does not matter that the economic burden of the gross receipts tax may be shifted to the Government, it could hardly matter that the shift comes about by explicit agreement covering taxes rather than by being absorbed in a higher contract price by bidders for a contract. The situation differed from that in the Panhandle and similar cases in that they involved but two parties whereas here the transaction was tripartite. These cases are condemned in so far as they rested on the economic ground of the ultimate incidence of the burden being on the Government, but this condemnation still

leaves open the question whether either the state or the United States when acting in governmental matters may be made legally liable to the other for a tax imposed on it as vendee. The carefully chosen language of the Chief Justice keeps these cases from foreclosing the issue. . . . Yet at the time it would have been a rash man who would find in this a dictum that a sales tax clearly on the Government as purchaser is invalid or a dictum that Congress may immunize its contractors.13 If a claim of exemption from sales tax based on state immunity cannot command assent, much less can a claim resting on statutory grant. It may indeed be that the economic burden of the tax finally falls on the purchaser; when it does the tax becomes a part of the price which the purchaser must pay. It does not matter that an additional amount is billed as tax to the purchaser. The method of listing the price and the tax separately and defining taxable gross receipts as the amount received less the amount of the tax added, merely avoids payment by the seller of a tax on the amount of the tax. The effect is still the same, namely, that the purchaser does not pay the tax. He pays or may pay the seller more for the goods because of the seller's obligation, but that is all and the amount added because of the tax is paid to get the goods and for nothing else.14 But the tax burden may not even be shifted to the purchaser at all. A decision to absorb the burden of the tax is largely a matter of economics.15 Then it can no longer be contended that a sales tax is a tax on the purchaser.

We therefore hold that the tax imposed by section 186 of the National Internal Revenue Code is a tax on the manufacturer or producer and not a tax on the purchaser except probably in a very remote and inconsequential sense. Accordingly its levy on the sales made to tax-exempt entities like the NPC is permissible. II This conclusion should dispose of the same issue with respect to sales made to the VOA, except that a claim is here made that the exemption of such sales from taxation rests on stronger grounds. Even the Court of Tax Appeals appears to share this view as is evident from the following portion of its decision: With regard to petitioner's sales to the Voice of America, it appears that the petitioner and the respondent are in agreement that the Voice of America is an agency of the United States Government and as such, all goods purchased locally by it directly from manufacturers or producers are exempt from the payment of the sales tax under the provisions of the agreement between the Government of the Philippines and the Government of the United States, (See Commonwealth Act No. 733) provided such purchases are supported by serially numbered Certificates of Tax Exemption issued by the vendee-agency, as required by General Circular No. V-41, dated October 16, 1947. . . . The circular referred to reads: Goods purchased locally by U.S. civilian agencies directly from manufacturers, producers or importers shall be exempt from the sales tax.

It was issued purportedly to implement the Agreement between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America Concerning Military Bases,16 but we find nothing in the language of the Agreement to warrant the general exemption granted by that circular. The pertinent provisions of the Agreement read: ARTICLE V. Exemption from Customs and Other Duties No import, excise, consumption or other tax, duty or impost shall be charged on material, equipment, supplies or goods, including food stores and clothing, for exclusive use in the construction, maintenance, operation or defense of the bases, consigned to, or destined for, the United States authorities and certified by them to be for such purposes. ARTICLE XVIII.Sales and Services Within the Bases 1. It is mutually agreed that the United States Shall have the right to establish on bases, free of all licenses; fees; sales, excise or other taxes, or imposts; Government agencies, including concessions, such as sales commissaries and post exchanges, messes and social clubs, for the exclusive use of the United States military forces and authorized civilian personnel and their families. The merchandise or services sold or dispensed by such agencies shall be free of all taxes, duties and inspection by the Philippine authorities. . . . Thus only sales made "for exclusive use in the construction, maintenance, operation or defense of the bases," in a word, only sales to the quartermaster, are exempt under article V from taxation. Sales of goods to any other party even if it be an agency of the United States, such as the VOA, or even to the quartermaster but for a different purpose, are not free from the payment

of the tax. On the other hand, article XVIII exempts from the payment of the tax sales made within the base by (not sales to) commissaries and the like in recognition of the principle that a sales tax is a tax on the seller and not on the purchaser. It is a familiar learning in the American law of taxation that tax exemption must be strictly construed and that the exemption will not be held to be conferred unless the terms under which it is granted clearly and distinctly show that such was the intention of the parties.17 Hence, in so far as the circular of the Bureau of Internal Revenue would give the tax exemptions in the Agreement an expansive construction it is void. We hold, therefore, that sales to the VOA are subject to the payment of percentage taxes under section 186 of the Code. The petitioner is thus liable for P12,910.60, computed as follows: Sales to NPC Sales to VOA P145,866.70 P 1,683.00

Total sales subject to P147,549.70 tax 7% sales tax due thereon P 10,328.48

Add: 25% surcharge

P 2,582.12

Total amount due and P 12,910.60 collectible Accordingly, the decision a quo is modified by ordering the petitioner to pay to the respondent Commission the amount of P12,910.60 as sales tax and surcharge, with costs against the petitioner.

.R. No. 76778 June 6, 1990 FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ, petitioner, vs. JAIME B. ONGPIN, in his capacity as Minister of Finance and FIDELINA CRUZ, in her capacity as Acting Municipal Treasurer of the Municipality of Las Pias, respondents, REALTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner-intervenor. Brotherhood of Nationalistic, Involved and Free Attorneys to Combat Injustice and Oppression (Bonifacio) for petitioner. Ambrosia Padilla, Mempin and Reyes Law Offices for movant Realty Owners Association. MEDIALDEA, J.: The petition seeks to declare unconstitutional Executive Order No. 73 dated November 25, 1986, which We quote in full, as follows (78 O.G. 5861):
EXECUTIVE ORDER No. 73 PROVIDING FOR THE COLLECTION OF REAL PROPERTY TAXES BASED ON THE 1984 REAL PROPERTY VALUES, AS PROVIDED FOR UNDER SECTION 21 OF THE REAL PROPERTY TAX CODE, AS AMENDED

WHEREAS, the collection of real property taxes is still based on the 1978 revision of property values; WHEREAS, the latest general revision of real property assessments completed in 1984 has rendered the 1978 revised values obsolete; WHEREAS, the collection of real property taxes based on the 1984 real property values was deferred to take effect on January 1, 1988 instead of January 1, 1985, thus depriving the local government units of an additional source of revenue; WHEREAS, there is an urgent need for local governments to augment their financial resources to meet the rising cost of rendering effective services to the people; NOW, THEREFORE, I. CORAZON C. AQUINO, President of the Philippines, do hereby order: SECTION 1. Real property values as of December 31, 1984 as determined by the local assessors during the latest general revision of assessments shall take effect beginning January 1, 1987 for purposes of real property tax collection. SEC. 2. The Minister of Finance shall promulgate the necessary rules and regulations to implement this Executive Order. SEC. 3. Executive Order No. 1019, dated April 18, 1985, is hereby repealed. SEC. 4. All laws, orders, issuances, and rules and regulations or parts thereof inconsistent with this Executive Order are hereby repealed or modified accordingly. SEC. 5. This Executive Order shall take effect immediately.

On March 31, 1987, Memorandum Order No. 77 was issued suspending the

implementation of Executive Order No. 73 until June 30, 1987. The petitioner, Francisco I. Chavez, 1 is a taxpayer and an owner of three parcels of land. He alleges the following: that Executive Order No. 73 accelerated the application of the general revision of assessments to January 1, 1987 thereby mandating an excessive increase in real property taxes by 100% to 400% on improvements, and up to 100% on land; that any increase in the value of real property brought about by the revision of real property values and assessments would necessarily lead to a proportionate increase in real property taxes; that sheer oppression is the result of increasing real property taxes at a period of time when harsh economic conditions prevail; and that the increase in the market values of real property as reflected in the schedule of values was brought about only by inflation and economic recession. The intervenor Realty Owners Association of the Philippines, Inc. (ROAP), which is the national association of owners-lessors, joins Chavez in his petition to declare unconstitutional Executive Order No. 73, but additionally alleges the following: that Presidential Decree No. 464 is unconstitutional insofar as it imposes an additional one percent (1%) tax on all property owners to raise funds for education, as real property tax is admittedly a local tax for local governments; that the General Revision of Assessments does not meet the requirements of due process as regards publication, notice of hearing, opportunity to be heard and insofar as it authorizes "replacement cost" of buildings (improvements) which is not provided in Presidential Decree No. 464, but only in an administrative regulation of the Department of Finance; and that the Joint

Local Assessment/Treasury Regulations No. 2-86 2 is even more oppressive and unconstitutional as it imposes successive increase of 150% over the 1986 tax. The Office of the Solicitor General argues against the petition. The petition is not impressed with merit. Petitioner Chavez and intervenor ROAP question the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 73 insofar as the revision of the assessments and the effectivity thereof are concerned. It should be emphasized that Executive Order No. 73 merely directs, in Section 1 thereof, that:
SECTION 1. Real property values as of December 31, 1984 as determined by the local assessors during the latest general revision of assessments shall take effect beginning January 1, 1987 for purposes of real property tax collection. (emphasis supplied)

The general revision of assessments completed in 1984 is based on Section 21 of Presidential Decree No. 464 which provides, as follows:
SEC. 21. General Revision of Assessments. Beginning with the assessor shall make a calendar year 1978, the provincial or city general revision of real property assessments in the province or city to take effect January 1, 1979, and once every five years thereafter: Provided; however, That if property values in a province or city, or in any municipality, have greatly changed since the last general revision, the provincial or city assesor may, with the approval of the Secretary of Finance or upon bis direction, undertake a general revision of assessments in the province or city, or in any municipality before the fifth year from the effectivity of the last general revision.

Thus, We agree with the Office of the Solicitor General that the attack on Executive Order No. 73 has no legal basis as the general revision of assessments is a continuing process mandated by Section 21 of Presidential Decree No. 464. If at all, it is Presidential Decree No. 464 which should be challenged as constitutionally infirm. However, Chavez failed to raise any objection against said decree. It was ROAP which questioned the constitutionality thereof. Furthermore, Presidential Decree No. 464 furnishes the procedure by which a tax assessment may be questioned:
SEC. 30. Local Board of Assessment Appeals. Any owner who is not satisfied with the action of the provincial or city assessor in the assessment of his property may, within sixty days from the date of receipt by him of the written notice of assessment as provided in this Code, appeal to the Board of Assessment Appeals of the province or city, by filing with it a petition under oath using the form prescribed for the purpose, together with copies of the tax declarations and such affidavit or documents submitted in support of the appeal. xxx xxx xxx SEC. 34. Action by the Local Board of assessment Appeals. The Local Board of Assessment Appeals shall decide the appeal within one hundred and twenty days from the date of receipt of such appeal. The decision rendered must be based on substantial evidence presented at the hearing or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support the conclusion. In the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, the Board shall have the power to summon

witnesses, administer oaths, conduct ocular inspection, take depositions, and issue subpoena and subpoena duces tecum. The proceedings of the Board shall be conducted solely for the purpose of ascertaining the truth without-necessarily adhering to technical rules applicable in judicial proceedings. The Secretary of the Board shall furnish the property owner and the Provincial or City Assessor with a copy each of the decision of the Board. In case the provincial or city assessor concurs in the revision or the assessment, it shall be his duty to notify the property owner of such fact using the form prescribed for the purpose. The owner or administrator of the property or the assessor who is not satisfied with the decision of the Board of Assessment Appeals, may, within thirty days after receipt of the decision of the local Board, appeal to the Central Board of Assessment Appeals by filing his appeal under oath with the Secretary of the proper provincial or city Board of Assessment Appeals using the prescribed form stating therein the grounds and the reasons for the appeal, and attaching thereto any evidence pertinent to the case. A copy of the appeal should be also furnished the Central Board of Assessment Appeals, through its Chairman, by the appellant. Within ten (10) days from receipt of the appeal, the Secretary of the Board of Assessment Appeals concerned shall forward the same and all papers related thereto, to the Central Board of Assessment Appeals through the Chairman thereof. xxx xxx xxx SEC. 36. Scope of Powers and Functions. The Central Board of Assessment Appeals shall have jurisdiction over appealed assessment cases decided by the Local Board of Assessment Appeals. The said Board shall decide cases brought on appeal within

twelve (12) months from the date of receipt, which decision shall become final and executory after the lapse of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of the decision by the appellant. In the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, the Central Board of Assessment Appeals, or upon express authority, the Hearing Commissioner, shall have the power to summon witnesses, administer oaths, take depositions, and issue subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum. The Central Board of assessment Appeals shall adopt and promulgate rules of procedure relative to the conduct of its business.

Simply stated, within sixty days from the date of receipt of the, written notice of assessment, any owner who doubts the assessment of his property, may appeal to the Local Board of Assessment Appeals. In case the, owner or administrator of the property or the assessor is not satisfied with the decision of the Local Board of Assessment Appeals, he may, within thirty days from the receipt of the decision, appeal to the Central Board of Assessment Appeals. The decision of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals shall become final and executory after the lapse of fifteen days from the date of receipt of the decision. Chavez argues further that the unreasonable increase in real property taxes brought about by Executive Order No. 73 amounts to a confiscation of property repugnant to the constitutional guarantee of due process, invoking the cases of Ermita-Malate Hotel, et al. v. Mayor of Manila (G.R. No. L-24693, July 31, 1967, 20 SCRA 849) and Sison v.

Ancheta, et al. (G.R. No. 59431, July 25, 1984, 130 SCRA 654). The reliance on these two cases is certainly misplaced because the due process requirement called for therein applies to the "power to tax." Executive Order No. 73 does not impose new taxes nor increase taxes. Indeed, the government recognized the financial burden to the taxpayers that will result from an increase in real property taxes. Hence, Executive Order No. 1019 was issued on April 18, 1985, deferring the implementation of the increase in real property taxes resulting from the revised real property assessments, from January 1, 1985 to January 1, 1988. Section 5 thereof is quoted herein as follows:
SEC. 5. The increase in real property taxes resulting from the revised real property assessments as provided for under Section 21 of Presidential Decree No. 464, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1621, shall be collected beginning January 1, 1988 instead of January 1, 1985 in order to enable the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Local Government to establish the new systems of tax collection and assessment provided herein and in order to alleviate the condition of the people, including real property owners, as a result of temporary economic difficulties. (emphasis supplied)

The issuance of Executive Order No. 73 which changed the date of implementation of the increase in real property taxes from January 1, 1988 to January 1, 1987 and therefore repealed Executive Order No. 1019, also finds ample justification in its "whereas' clauses, as follows:
WHEREAS, the collection of real property taxes based on the 1984 real property values

was deferred to take effect on January 1, 1988 instead of January 1, 1985, thus depriving the local government units of an additional source of revenue; WHEREAS, there is an urgent need for local governments to augment their financial resources to meet the rising cost of rendering effective services to the people; (emphasis supplied) xxx xxx xxx

The other allegation of ROAP that Presidential Decree No. 464 is unconstitutional, is not proper to be resolved in the present petition. As stated at the outset, the issue here is limited to the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 73. Intervention is not an independent proceeding, but an ancillary and supplemental one which, in the nature of things, unless otherwise provided for by legislation (or Rules of Court), must be in subordination to the main proceeding, and it may be laid down as a general rule that an intervention is limited to the field of litigation open to the original parties (59 Am. Jur. 950. Garcia, etc., et al. v. David, et al., 67 Phil. 279). We agree with the observation of the Office of the Solicitor General that without Executive Order No. 73, the basis for collection of real property taxes win still be the 1978 revision of property values. Certainly, to continue collecting real property taxes based on valuations arrived at several years ago, in disregard of the increases in the value of real properties that have occurred since then, is not in consonance with a sound tax system. Fiscal adequacy, which is one of the characteristics of a sound tax system, requires that sources of revenues must be adequate to meet government

expenditures and their variations. ACCORDINGLY, the petition and the petition-in-intervention are hereby DISMISSED. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 193007 July 19, 2011 RENATO V. DIAZ and AURORA MA. F. TIMBOL, Petitioners, vs. THE SECRETARY OF FINANCE and THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondents. DECISION ABAD, J.: May toll fees collected by tollway operators be subjected to value- added tax? The Facts and the Case Petitioners Renato V. Diaz and Aurora Ma. F. Timbol (petitioners) filed this petition for declaratory relief1 assailing the validity of the impending imposition of value-added tax (VAT) by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) on the collections of tollway operators. Petitioners claim that, since the VAT would result in increased toll fees, they have an interest as regular users of tollways in stopping the BIR action. Additionally, Diaz claims that he sponsored the approval of Republic Act 7716 (the 1994 Expanded VAT Law or EVAT Law) and Republic Act 8424 (the 1997 National Internal Revenue Code or the NIRC) at the House of Representatives. Timbol, on the other hand, claims that she served as Assistant Secretary of the Department of Trade and Industry and consultant of the Toll Regulatory Board (TRB) in the past administration.

Petitioners allege that the BIR attempted during the administration of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to impose VAT on toll fees. The imposition was deferred, however, in view of the consistent opposition of Diaz and other sectors to such move. But, upon President Benigno C. Aquino IIIs assumption of office in 2010, the BIR revived the idea and would impose the challenged tax on toll fees beginning August 16, 2010 unless judicially enjoined. Petitioners hold the view that Congress did not, when it enacted the NIRC, intend to include toll fees within the meaning of "sale of services" that are subject to VAT; that a toll fee is a "users tax," not a sale of services; that to impose VAT on toll fees would amount to a tax on public service; and that, since VAT was never factored into the formula for computing toll fees, its imposition would violate the non-impairment clause of the constitution. On August 13, 2010 the Court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO), enjoining the implementation of the VAT. The Court required the government, represented by respondents Cesar V. Purisima, Secretary of the Department of Finance, and Kim S. Jacinto-Henares, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, to comment on the petition within 10 days from notice.2 Later, the Court issued another resolution treating the petition as one for prohibition.3 On August 23, 2010 the Office of the Solicitor General filed the governments comment.4 The government avers that the NIRC imposes VAT on all kinds of services of franchise grantees, including tollway operations, except where the law provides otherwise; that the Court should seek the meaning and intent of the law from the words used in the statute; and that the imposition of VAT on tollway operations has been the subject as early as 2003 of several BIR

rulings and circulars.5 The government also argues that petitioners have no right to invoke the non-impairment of contracts clause since they clearly have no personal interest in existing toll operating agreements (TOAs) between the government and tollway operators. At any rate, the non-impairment clause cannot limit the States sovereign taxing power which is generally read into contracts. Finally, the government contends that the non-inclusion of VAT in the parametric formula for computing toll rates cannot exempt tollway operators from VAT. In any event, it cannot be claimed that the rights of tollway operators to a reasonable rate of return will be impaired by the VAT since this is imposed on top of the toll rate. Further, the imposition of VAT on toll fees would have very minimal effect on motorists using the tollways. In their reply6 to the governments comment, petitioners point out that tollway operators cannot be regarded as franchise grantees under the NIRC since they do not hold legislative franchises. Further, the BIR intends to collect the VAT by rounding off the toll rate and putting any excess collection in an escrow account. But this would be illegal since only the Congress can modify VAT rates and authorize its disbursement. Finally, BIR Revenue Memorandum Circular 632010 (BIR RMC 63-2010), which directs toll companies to record an accumulated input VAT of zero balance in their books as of August 16, 2010, contravenes Section 111 of the NIRC which grants entities that first become liable to VAT a transitional input tax credit of 2% on beginning inventory. For this reason, the VAT on toll fees cannot be implemented. The Issues Presented

The case presents two procedural issues: 1. Whether or not the Court may treat the petition for declaratory relief as one for prohibition; and 2. Whether or not petitioners Diaz and Timbol have legal standing to file the action. The case also presents two substantive issues: 1. Whether or not the government is unlawfully expanding VAT coverage by including tollway operators and tollway operations in the terms "franchise grantees" and "sale of services" under Section 108 of the Code; and 2. Whether or not the imposition of VAT on tollway operators a) amounts to a tax on tax and not a tax on services; b) will impair the tollway operators right to a reasonable return of investment under their TOAs; and c) is not administratively feasible and cannot be implemented. The Courts Rulings A. On the Procedural Issues: On August 24, 2010 the Court issued a resolution, treating the petition as one for prohibition rather than one for declaratory relief, the characterization that petitioners Diaz and Timbol gave their action. The government has sought reconsideration of the Courts resolution,7 however, arguing that petitioners allegations clearly made out a case for declaratory relief, an action over which the Court has no original jurisdiction. The government adds, moreover, that the petition

does not meet the requirements of Rule 65 for actions for prohibition since the BIR did not exercise judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial functions when it sought to impose VAT on toll fees. Besides, petitioners Diaz and Timbol has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law against the BIR action in the form of an appeal to the Secretary of Finance. But there are precedents for treating a petition for declaratory relief as one for prohibition if the case has far-reaching implications and raises questions that need to be resolved for the public good.8 The Court has also held that a petition for prohibition is a proper remedy to prohibit or nullify acts of executive officials that amount to usurpation of legislative authority.9 Here, the imposition of VAT on toll fees has far-reaching implications. Its imposition would impact, not only on the more than half a million motorists who use the tollways everyday, but more so on the governments effort to raise revenue for funding various projects and for reducing budgetary deficits. To dismiss the petition and resolve the issues later, after the challenged VAT has been imposed, could cause more mischief both to the tax-paying public and the government. A belated declaration of nullity of the BIR action would make any attempt to refund to the motorists what they paid an administrative nightmare with no solution. Consequently, it is not only the right, but the duty of the Court to take cognizance of and resolve the issues that the petition raises. Although the petition does not strictly comply with the requirements of Rule 65, the Court has ample power to waive such technical requirements when the legal questions to be resolved are

of great importance to the public. The same may be said of the requirement of locus standi which is a mere procedural requisite.10 B. On the Substantive Issues: One. The relevant law in this case is Section 108 of the NIRC, as amended. VAT is levied, assessed, and collected, according to Section 108, on the gross receipts derived from the sale or exchange of services as well as from the use or lease of properties. The third paragraph of Section 108 defines "sale or exchange of services" as follows: The phrase sale or exchange of services means the performance of all kinds of services in the Philippines for others for a fee, remuneration or consideration, including those performed or rendered by construction and service contractors; stock, real estate, commercial, customs and immigration brokers; lessors of property, whether personal or real; warehousing services; lessors or distributors of cinematographic films; persons engaged in milling, processing, manufacturing or repacking goods for others; proprietors, operators or keepers of hotels, motels, resthouses, pension houses, inns, resorts; proprietors or operators of restaurants, refreshment parlors, cafes and other eating places, including clubs and caterers; dealers in securities; lending investors; transportation contractors on their transport of goods or cargoes, including persons who transport goods or cargoes for hire and other domestic common carriers by land relative to their transport of goods or cargoes; common carriers by air and sea relative to their transport of passengers, goods or cargoes from one place in the Philippines to another place in the Philippines; sales of electricity by generation companies, transmission, and distribution

companies; services of franchise grantees of electric utilities, telephone and telegraph, radio and television broadcasting and all other franchise grantees except those under Section 119 of this Code and non-life insurance companies (except their crop insurances), including surety, fidelity, indemnity and bonding companies; and similar services regardless of whether or not the performance thereof calls for the exercise or use of the physical or mental faculties. (Underscoring supplied) It is plain from the above that the law imposes VAT on "all kinds of services" rendered in the Philippines for a fee, including those specified in the list. The enumeration of affected services is not exclusive.11 By qualifying "services" with the words "all kinds," Congress has given the term "services" an all-encompassing meaning. The listing of specific services are intended to illustrate how pervasive and broad is the VATs reach rather than establish concrete limits to its application. Thus, every activity that can be imagined as a form of "service" rendered for a fee should be deemed included unless some provision of law especially excludes it. Now, do tollway operators render services for a fee? Presidential Decree (P.D.) 1112 or the Toll Operation Decree establishes the legal basis for the services that tollway operators render. Essentially, tollway operators construct, maintain, and operate expressways, also called tollways, at the operators expense. Tollways serve as alternatives to regular public highways that meander through populated areas and branch out to local roads. Traffic in the regular public highways is for this reason slow-moving. In consideration for constructing tollways at their expense, the operators are allowed to collect government-approved fees from motorists using the tollways until such operators could fully recover their expenses and earn reasonable returns from

their investments. When a tollway operator takes a toll fee from a motorist, the fee is in effect for the latters use of the tollway facilities over which the operator enjoys private proprietary rights12 that its contract and the law recognize. In this sense, the tollway operator is no different from the following service providers under Section 108 who allow others to use their properties or facilities for a fee: 1. Lessors of property, whether personal or real; 2. Warehousing service operators; 3. Lessors or distributors of cinematographic films; 4. Proprietors, operators or keepers of hotels, motels, resthouses, pension houses, inns, resorts; 5. Lending investors (for use of money); 6. Transportation contractors on their transport of goods or cargoes, including persons who transport goods or cargoes for hire and other domestic common carriers by land relative to their transport of goods or cargoes; and 7. Common carriers by air and sea relative to their transport of passengers, goods or cargoes from one place in the Philippines to another place in the Philippines. It does not help petitioners cause that Section 108 subjects to VAT "all kinds of services" rendered for a fee "regardless of whether or not the performance thereof calls for the exercise or

use of the physical or mental faculties." This means that "services" to be subject to VAT need not fall under the traditional concept of services, the personal or professional kinds that require the use of human knowledge and skills. And not only do tollway operators come under the broad term "all kinds of services," they also come under the specific class described in Section 108 as "all other franchise grantees" who are subject to VAT, "except those under Section 119 of this Code." Tollway operators are franchise grantees and they do not belong to exceptions (the low-income radio and/or television broadcasting companies with gross annual incomes of less than P10 million and gas and water utilities) that Section 11913 spares from the payment of VAT. The word "franchise" broadly covers government grants of a special right to do an act or series of acts of public concern.14 Petitioners of course contend that tollway operators cannot be considered "franchise grantees" under Section 108 since they do not hold legislative franchises. But nothing in Section 108 indicates that the "franchise grantees" it speaks of are those who hold legislative franchises. Petitioners give no reason, and the Court cannot surmise any, for making a distinction between franchises granted by Congress and franchises granted by some other government agency. The latter, properly constituted, may grant franchises. Indeed, franchises conferred or granted by local authorities, as agents of the state, constitute as much a legislative franchise as though the grant had been made by Congress itself.15 The term "franchise" has been broadly construed as referring, not only to authorizations that Congress directly issues in the form of a special law,

but also to those granted by administrative agencies to which the power to grant franchises has been delegated by Congress.16 Tollway operators are, owing to the nature and object of their business, "franchise grantees." The construction, operation, and maintenance of toll facilities on public improvements are activities of public consequence that necessarily require a special grant of authority from the state. Indeed, Congress granted special franchise for the operation of tollways to the Philippine National Construction Company, the former tollway concessionaire for the North and South Luzon Expressways. Apart from Congress, tollway franchises may also be granted by the TRB, pursuant to the exercise of its delegated powers under P.D. 1112.17 The franchise in this case is evidenced by a "Toll Operation Certificate."18 Petitioners contend that the public nature of the services rendered by tollway operators excludes such services from the term "sale of services" under Section 108 of the Code. But, again, nothing in Section 108 supports this contention. The reverse is true. In specifically including by way of example electric utilities, telephone, telegraph, and broadcasting companies in its list of VAT-covered businesses, Section 108 opens other companies rendering public service for a fee to the imposition of VAT. Businesses of a public nature such as public utilities and the collection of tolls or charges for its use or service is a franchise.19 Nor can petitioners cite as binding on the Court statements made by certain lawmakers in the course of congressional deliberations of the would-be law. As the Court said in South African Airways v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,20 "statements made by individual members of

Congress in the consideration of a bill do not necessarily reflect the sense of that body and are, consequently, not controlling in the interpretation of law." The congressional will is ultimately determined by the language of the law that the lawmakers voted on. Consequently, the meaning and intention of the law must first be sought "in the words of the statute itself, read and considered in their natural, ordinary, commonly accepted and most obvious significations, according to good and approved usage and without resorting to forced or subtle construction." Two. Petitioners argue that a toll fee is a "users tax" and to impose VAT on toll fees is tantamount to taxing a tax.21 Actually, petitioners base this argument on the following discussion in Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) v. Court of Appeals:22 No one can dispute that properties of public dominion mentioned in Article 420 of the Civil Code, like "roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and bridges constructed by the State," are owned by the State. The term "ports" includes seaports and airports. The MIAA Airport Lands and Buildings constitute a "port" constructed by the State. Under Article 420 of the Civil Code, the MIAA Airport Lands and Buildings are properties of public dominion and thus owned by the State or the Republic of the Philippines. x x x The operation by the government of a tollway does not change the character of the road as one for public use. Someone must pay for the maintenance of the road, either the public indirectly through the taxes they pay the government, or only those among the public who actually use the road through the toll fees they pay upon using the road. The tollway system is even a more efficient and equitable manner of taxing the public for the maintenance of public

roads. The charging of fees to the public does not determine the character of the property whether it is for public dominion or not. Article 420 of the Civil Code defines property of public dominion as "one intended for public use." Even if the government collects toll fees, the road is still "intended for public use" if anyone can use the road under the same terms and conditions as the rest of the public. The charging of fees, the limitation on the kind of vehicles that can use the road, the speed restrictions and other conditions for the use of the road do not affect the public character of the road. The terminal fees MIAA charges to passengers, as well as the landing fees MIAA charges to airlines, constitute the bulk of the income that maintains the operations of MIAA. The collection of such fees does not change the character of MIAA as an airport for public use. Such fees are often termed users tax. This means taxing those among the public who actually use a public facility instead of taxing all the public including those who never use the particular public facility. A users tax is more equitable a principle of taxation mandated in the 1987 Constitution."23 (Underscoring supplied) Petitioners assume that what the Court said above, equating terminal fees to a "users tax" must also pertain to tollway fees. But the main issue in the MIAA case was whether or not Paraaque City could sell airport lands and buildings under MIAA administration at public auction to satisfy unpaid real estate taxes. Since local governments have no power to tax the national government, the Court held that the City could not proceed with the auction sale. MIAA forms

part of the national government although not integrated in the department framework."24 Thus, its airport lands and buildings are properties of public dominion beyond the commerce of man under Article 420(1)25 of the Civil Code and could not be sold at public auction. As can be seen, the discussion in the MIAA case on toll roads and toll fees was made, not to establish a rule that tollway fees are users tax, but to make the point that airport lands and buildings are properties of public dominion and that the collection of terminal fees for their use does not make them private properties. Tollway fees are not taxes. Indeed, they are not assessed and collected by the BIR and do not go to the general coffers of the government. It would of course be another matter if Congress enacts a law imposing a users tax, collectible from motorists, for the construction and maintenance of certain roadways. The tax in such a case goes directly to the government for the replenishment of resources it spends for the roadways. This is not the case here. What the government seeks to tax here are fees collected from tollways that are constructed, maintained, and operated by private tollway operators at their own expense under the build, operate, and transfer scheme that the government has adopted for expressways.26 Except for a fraction given to the government, the toll fees essentially end up as earnings of the tollway operators. In sum, fees paid by the public to tollway operators for use of the tollways, are not taxes in any sense. A tax is imposed under the taxing power of the government principally for the purpose of raising revenues to fund public expenditures.27 Toll fees, on the other hand, are collected by private tollway operators as reimbursement for the costs and expenses incurred in the

construction, maintenance and operation of the tollways, as well as to assure them a reasonable margin of income. Although toll fees are charged for the use of public facilities, therefore, they are not government exactions that can be properly treated as a tax. Taxes may be imposed only by the government under its sovereign authority, toll fees may be demanded by either the government or private individuals or entities, as an attribute of ownership.28 Parenthetically, VAT on tollway operations cannot be deemed a tax on tax due to the nature of VAT as an indirect tax. In indirect taxation, a distinction is made between the liability for the tax and burden of the tax. The seller who is liable for the VAT may shift or pass on the amount of VAT it paid on goods, properties or services to the buyer. In such a case, what is transferred is not the sellers liability but merely the burden of the VAT.29 Thus, the seller remains directly and legally liable for payment of the VAT, but the buyer bears its burden since the amount of VAT paid by the former is added to the selling price. Once shifted, the VAT ceases to be a tax30 and simply becomes part of the cost that the buyer must pay in order to purchase the good, property or service. Consequently, VAT on tollway operations is not really a tax on the tollway user, but on the tollway operator. Under Section 105 of the Code, 31 VAT is imposed on any person who, in the course of trade or business, sells or renders services for a fee. In other words, the seller of services, who in this case is the tollway operator, is the person liable for VAT. The latter merely shifts the burden of VAT to the tollway user as part of the toll fees. For this reason, VAT on tollway operations cannot be a tax on tax even if toll fees were deemed

as a "users tax." VAT is assessed against the tollway operators gross receipts and not necessarily on the toll fees. Although the tollway operator may shift the VAT burden to the tollway user, it will not make the latter directly liable for the VAT. The shifted VAT burden simply becomes part of the toll fees that one has to pay in order to use the tollways.32 Three. Petitioner Timbol has no personality to invoke the non-impairment of contract clause on behalf of private investors in the tollway projects. She will neither be prejudiced by nor be affected by the alleged diminution in return of investments that may result from the VAT imposition. She has no interest at all in the profits to be earned under the TOAs. The interest in and right to recover investments solely belongs to the private tollway investors. Besides, her allegation that the private investors rate of recovery will be adversely affected by imposing VAT on tollway operations is purely speculative. Equally presumptuous is her assertion that a stipulation in the TOAs known as the Material Adverse Grantor Action will be activated if VAT is thus imposed. The Court cannot rule on matters that are manifestly conjectural. Neither can it prohibit the State from exercising its sovereign taxing power based on uncertain, prophetic grounds. Four. Finally, petitioners assert that the substantiation requirements for claiming input VAT make the VAT on tollway operations impractical and incapable of implementation. They cite the fact that, in order to claim input VAT, the name, address and tax identification number of the tollway user must be indicated in the VAT receipt or invoice. The manner by which the BIR intends to implement the VAT by rounding off the toll rate and putting any excess collection

in an escrow account is also illegal, while the alternative of giving "change" to thousands of motorists in order to meet the exact toll rate would be a logistical nightmare. Thus, according to them, the VAT on tollway operations is not administratively feasible.33 Administrative feasibility is one of the canons of a sound tax system. It simply means that the tax system should be capable of being effectively administered and enforced with the least inconvenience to the taxpayer. Non-observance of the canon, however, will not render a tax imposition invalid "except to the extent that specific constitutional or statutory limitations are impaired."34 Thus, even if the imposition of VAT on tollway operations may seem burdensome to implement, it is not necessarily invalid unless some aspect of it is shown to violate any law or the Constitution. Here, it remains to be seen how the taxing authority will actually implement the VAT on tollway operations. Any declaration by the Court that the manner of its implementation is illegal or unconstitutional would be premature. Although the transcript of the August 12, 2010 Senate hearing provides some clue as to how the BIR intends to go about it,35 the facts pertaining to the matter are not sufficiently established for the Court to pass judgment on. Besides, any concern about how the VAT on tollway operations will be enforced must first be addressed to the BIR on whom the task of implementing tax laws primarily and exclusively rests. The Court cannot preempt the BIRs discretion on the matter, absent any clear violation of law or the Constitution. For the same reason, the Court cannot prematurely declare as illegal, BIR RMC 63-2010 which directs toll companies to record an accumulated input VAT of zero balance in their books as of

August 16, 2010, the date when the VAT imposition was supposed to take effect. The issuance allegedly violates Section 111(A)36 of the Code which grants first time VAT payers a transitional input VAT of 2% on beginning inventory. In this connection, the BIR explained that BIR RMC 63-2010 is actually the product of negotiations with tollway operators who have been assessed VAT as early as 2005, but failed to charge VAT-inclusive toll fees which by now can no longer be collected. The tollway operators agreed to waive the 2% transitional input VAT, in exchange for cancellation of their past due VAT liabilities. Notably, the right to claim the 2% transitional input VAT belongs to the tollway operators who have not questioned the circulars validity. They are thus the ones who have a right to challenge the circular in a direct and proper action brought for the purpose. Conclusion In fine, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue did not usurp legislative prerogative or expand the VAT laws coverage when she sought to impose VAT on tollway operations. Section 108(A) of the Code clearly states that services of all other franchise grantees are subject to VAT, except as may be provided under Section 119 of the Code. Tollway operators are not among the franchise grantees subject to franchise tax under the latter provision. Neither are their services among the VAT-exempt transactions under Section 109 of the Code. If the legislative intent was to exempt tollway operations from VAT, as petitioners so strongly allege, then it would have been well for the law to clearly say so. Tax exemptions must be justified by clear statutory grant and based on language in the law too plain to be mistaken.37

But as the law is written, no such exemption obtains for tollway operators. The Court is thus duty-bound to simply apply the law as it is found.1avvphi1 Lastly, the grant of tax exemption is a matter of legislative policy that is within the exclusive prerogative of Congress. The Courts role is to merely uphold this legislative policy, as reflected first and foremost in the language of the tax statute. Thus, any unwarranted burden that may be perceived to result from enforcing such policy must be properly referred to Congress. The Court has no discretion on the matter but simply applies the law. The VAT on franchise grantees has been in the statute books since 1994 when R.A. 7716 or the Expanded Value-Added Tax law was passed. It is only now, however, that the executive has earnestly pursued the VAT imposition against tollway operators. The executive exercises exclusive discretion in matters pertaining to the implementation and execution of tax laws. Consequently, the executive is more properly suited to deal with the immediate and practical consequences of the VAT imposition. WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES respondents Secretary of Finance and Commissioner of Internal Revenues motion for reconsideration of its August 24, 2010 resolution, DISMISSES the petitioners Renato V. Diaz and Aurora Ma. F. Timbols petition for lack of merit, and SETS ASIDE the Courts temporary restraining order dated August 13, 2010. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 76778 June 6, 1990 FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ, petitioner, vs. JAIME B. ONGPIN, in his capacity as Minister of Finance and FIDELINA CRUZ, in her capacity as Acting Municipal Treasurer of the Municipality of Las Pias, respondents, REALTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner-intervenor. Brotherhood of Nationalistic, Involved and Free Attorneys to Combat Injustice and Oppression (Bonifacio) for petitioner. Ambrosia Padilla, Mempin and Reyes Law Offices for movant Realty Owners Association. MEDIALDEA, J.: The petition seeks to declare unconstitutional Executive Order No. 73 dated November 25, 1986, which We quote in full, as follows (78 O.G. 5861):
EXECUTIVE ORDER No. 73 PROVIDING FOR THE COLLECTION OF REAL PROPERTY TAXES BASED ON THE 1984 REAL PROPERTY VALUES, AS PROVIDED FOR UNDER SECTION 21 OF THE REAL PROPERTY TAX CODE, AS AMENDED

WHEREAS, the collection of real property taxes is still based on the 1978 revision of property values; WHEREAS, the latest general revision of real property assessments completed in 1984 has rendered the 1978 revised values obsolete; WHEREAS, the collection of real property taxes based on the 1984 real property values was deferred to take effect on January 1, 1988 instead of January 1, 1985, thus depriving the local government units of an additional source of revenue; WHEREAS, there is an urgent need for local governments to augment their financial resources to meet the rising cost of rendering effective services to the people; NOW, THEREFORE, I. CORAZON C. AQUINO, President of the Philippines, do hereby order: SECTION 1. Real property values as of December 31, 1984 as determined by the local assessors during the latest general revision of assessments shall take effect beginning January 1, 1987 for purposes of real property tax collection. SEC. 2. The Minister of Finance shall promulgate the necessary rules and regulations to implement this Executive Order. SEC. 3. Executive Order No. 1019, dated April 18, 1985, is hereby repealed. SEC. 4. All laws, orders, issuances, and rules and regulations or parts thereof inconsistent with this Executive Order are hereby repealed or modified accordingly. SEC. 5. This Executive Order shall take effect immediately.

On March 31, 1987, Memorandum Order No. 77 was issued suspending the

implementation of Executive Order No. 73 until June 30, 1987. The petitioner, Francisco I. Chavez, 1 is a taxpayer and an owner of three parcels of land. He alleges the following: that Executive Order No. 73 accelerated the application of the general revision of assessments to January 1, 1987 thereby mandating an excessive increase in real property taxes by 100% to 400% on improvements, and up to 100% on land; that any increase in the value of real property brought about by the revision of real property values and assessments would necessarily lead to a proportionate increase in real property taxes; that sheer oppression is the result of increasing real property taxes at a period of time when harsh economic conditions prevail; and that the increase in the market values of real property as reflected in the schedule of values was brought about only by inflation and economic recession. The intervenor Realty Owners Association of the Philippines, Inc. (ROAP), which is the national association of owners-lessors, joins Chavez in his petition to declare unconstitutional Executive Order No. 73, but additionally alleges the following: that Presidential Decree No. 464 is unconstitutional insofar as it imposes an additional one percent (1%) tax on all property owners to raise funds for education, as real property tax is admittedly a local tax for local governments; that the General Revision of Assessments does not meet the requirements of due process as regards publication, notice of hearing, opportunity to be heard and insofar as it authorizes "replacement cost" of buildings (improvements) which is not provided in Presidential Decree No. 464, but only in an administrative regulation of the Department of Finance; and that the Joint

Local Assessment/Treasury Regulations No. 2-86 2 is even more oppressive and unconstitutional as it imposes successive increase of 150% over the 1986 tax. The Office of the Solicitor General argues against the petition. The petition is not impressed with merit. Petitioner Chavez and intervenor ROAP question the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 73 insofar as the revision of the assessments and the effectivity thereof are concerned. It should be emphasized that Executive Order No. 73 merely directs, in Section 1 thereof, that:
SECTION 1. Real property values as of December 31, 1984 as determined by the local assessors during the latest general revision of assessments shall take effect beginning January 1, 1987 for purposes of real property tax collection. (emphasis supplied)

The general revision of assessments completed in 1984 is based on Section 21 of Presidential Decree No. 464 which provides, as follows:
SEC. 21. General Revision of Assessments. Beginning with the assessor shall make a calendar year 1978, the provincial or city general revision of real property assessments in the province or city to take effect January 1, 1979, and once every five years thereafter: Provided; however, That if property values in a province or city, or in any municipality, have greatly changed since the last general revision, the provincial or city assesor may, with the approval of the Secretary of Finance or upon bis direction, undertake a general revision of assessments in the province or city, or in any municipality before the fifth year from the effectivity of the last general revision.

Thus, We agree with the Office of the Solicitor General that the attack on Executive Order No. 73 has no legal basis as the general revision of assessments is a continuing process mandated by Section 21 of Presidential Decree No. 464. If at all, it is Presidential Decree No. 464 which should be challenged as constitutionally infirm. However, Chavez failed to raise any objection against said decree. It was ROAP which questioned the constitutionality thereof. Furthermore, Presidential Decree No. 464 furnishes the procedure by which a tax assessment may be questioned:
SEC. 30. Local Board of Assessment Appeals. Any owner who is not satisfied with the action of the provincial or city assessor in the assessment of his property may, within sixty days from the date of receipt by him of the written notice of assessment as provided in this Code, appeal to the Board of Assessment Appeals of the province or city, by filing with it a petition under oath using the form prescribed for the purpose, together with copies of the tax declarations and such affidavit or documents submitted in support of the appeal. xxx xxx xxx SEC. 34. Action by the Local Board of assessment Appeals. The Local Board of Assessment Appeals shall decide the appeal within one hundred and twenty days from the date of receipt of such appeal. The decision rendered must be based on substantial evidence presented at the hearing or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support the conclusion. In the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, the Board shall have the power to summon

witnesses, administer oaths, conduct ocular inspection, take depositions, and issue subpoena and subpoena duces tecum. The proceedings of the Board shall be conducted solely for the purpose of ascertaining the truth without-necessarily adhering to technical rules applicable in judicial proceedings. The Secretary of the Board shall furnish the property owner and the Provincial or City Assessor with a copy each of the decision of the Board. In case the provincial or city assessor concurs in the revision or the assessment, it shall be his duty to notify the property owner of such fact using the form prescribed for the purpose. The owner or administrator of the property or the assessor who is not satisfied with the decision of the Board of Assessment Appeals, may, within thirty days after receipt of the decision of the local Board, appeal to the Central Board of Assessment Appeals by filing his appeal under oath with the Secretary of the proper provincial or city Board of Assessment Appeals using the prescribed form stating therein the grounds and the reasons for the appeal, and attaching thereto any evidence pertinent to the case. A copy of the appeal should be also furnished the Central Board of Assessment Appeals, through its Chairman, by the appellant. Within ten (10) days from receipt of the appeal, the Secretary of the Board of Assessment Appeals concerned shall forward the same and all papers related thereto, to the Central Board of Assessment Appeals through the Chairman thereof. xxx xxx xxx SEC. 36. Scope of Powers and Functions. The Central Board of Assessment Appeals shall have jurisdiction over appealed assessment cases decided by the Local Board of Assessment Appeals. The said Board shall decide cases brought on appeal within

twelve (12) months from the date of receipt, which decision shall become final and executory after the lapse of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of the decision by the appellant. In the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, the Central Board of Assessment Appeals, or upon express authority, the Hearing Commissioner, shall have the power to summon witnesses, administer oaths, take depositions, and issue subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum. The Central Board of assessment Appeals shall adopt and promulgate rules of procedure relative to the conduct of its business.

Simply stated, within sixty days from the date of receipt of the, written notice of assessment, any owner who doubts the assessment of his property, may appeal to the Local Board of Assessment Appeals. In case the, owner or administrator of the property or the assessor is not satisfied with the decision of the Local Board of Assessment Appeals, he may, within thirty days from the receipt of the decision, appeal to the Central Board of Assessment Appeals. The decision of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals shall become final and executory after the lapse of fifteen days from the date of receipt of the decision. Chavez argues further that the unreasonable increase in real property taxes brought about by Executive Order No. 73 amounts to a confiscation of property repugnant to the constitutional guarantee of due process, invoking the cases of Ermita-Malate Hotel, et al. v. Mayor of Manila (G.R. No. L-24693, July 31, 1967, 20 SCRA 849) and Sison v.

Ancheta, et al. (G.R. No. 59431, July 25, 1984, 130 SCRA 654). The reliance on these two cases is certainly misplaced because the due process requirement called for therein applies to the "power to tax." Executive Order No. 73 does not impose new taxes nor increase taxes. Indeed, the government recognized the financial burden to the taxpayers that will result from an increase in real property taxes. Hence, Executive Order No. 1019 was issued on April 18, 1985, deferring the implementation of the increase in real property taxes resulting from the revised real property assessments, from January 1, 1985 to January 1, 1988. Section 5 thereof is quoted herein as follows:
SEC. 5. The increase in real property taxes resulting from the revised real property assessments as provided for under Section 21 of Presidential Decree No. 464, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1621, shall be collected beginning January 1, 1988 instead of January 1, 1985 in order to enable the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Local Government to establish the new systems of tax collection and assessment provided herein and in order to alleviate the condition of the people, including real property owners, as a result of temporary economic difficulties. (emphasis supplied)

The issuance of Executive Order No. 73 which changed the date of implementation of the increase in real property taxes from January 1, 1988 to January 1, 1987 and therefore repealed Executive Order No. 1019, also finds ample justification in its "whereas' clauses, as follows:
WHEREAS, the collection of real property taxes based on the 1984 real property values

was deferred to take effect on January 1, 1988 instead of January 1, 1985, thus depriving the local government units of an additional source of revenue; WHEREAS, there is an urgent need for local governments to augment their financial resources to meet the rising cost of rendering effective services to the people; (emphasis supplied) xxx xxx xxx

The other allegation of ROAP that Presidential Decree No. 464 is unconstitutional, is not proper to be resolved in the present petition. As stated at the outset, the issue here is limited to the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 73. Intervention is not an independent proceeding, but an ancillary and supplemental one which, in the nature of things, unless otherwise provided for by legislation (or Rules of Court), must be in subordination to the main proceeding, and it may be laid down as a general rule that an intervention is limited to the field of litigation open to the original parties (59 Am. Jur. 950. Garcia, etc., et al. v. David, et al., 67 Phil. 279). We agree with the observation of the Office of the Solicitor General that without Executive Order No. 73, the basis for collection of real property taxes win still be the 1978 revision of property values. Certainly, to continue collecting real property taxes based on valuations arrived at several years ago, in disregard of the increases in the value of real properties that have occurred since then, is not in consonance with a sound tax system. Fiscal adequacy, which is one of the characteristics of a sound tax system, requires that sources of revenues must be adequate to meet government

expenditures and their variations. ACCORDINGLY, the petition and the petition-in-intervention are hereby DISMISSED. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. L-31685 July 31, 1975 RAMON A. GONZALES, petitioner, vs. IMELDA R. MARCOS, as Chairman of the Cultural Center of the Philippines, Father HORACIO DE LA COSTA, I. P. SOLIONGCO, ERNESTO RUFINO, ANTONIO MADRIGAL, and ANDRES SORIANO, as Members thereof, respondents. Ramon A. Gonzales in his own behalf. Acting Solicitor General Hugo E. Gutierrez; Jr. and Assistant Solicitor General Reynato S. Puno for respondent Imelda R. Marcos. Siguion Reyna, Montecillo, Beto and Ongsiako for respondents. FERNANDO, J.: It was the novelty of the constitutional question raised, there being an imputation by petitioner Ramon A. Gonzales of an impermissible encroachment by the President of the Philippines on the legislative prerogative, that led this Tribunal to give due course to an appeal by certiorari from an order of dismissal by the Court of First Instance of Manila. 1 More specifically, the issue centered on the validity of the creation in Executive Order No. 30 of a trust for the benefit of the Filipino people under the name

and style of the Cultural Center of the Philippines entrusted with the task to construct a national theatre, a national music hall, an arts building and facilities, to awaken our people's consciousness in the nation's cultural heritage and to encourage its assistance in the preservation, promotion, enhancement and development thereof, with the Board of Trustees to be appointed by the President, the Center having as its estate the real and personal property vested in it as well as donations received, financial commitments that could thereafter be collected, and gifts that may be forthcoming in the future. 2 It was likewise alleged that the Board of Trustees did accept donations from the private sector and did secure from the Chemical Bank of New York a loan of $5 million guaranteed by the National Investment & Development Corporation as well as $3.5 million received from President Johnson of the United States in the concept of war damage funds, all intended for the construction of the Cultural Center building estimated to cost P48 million. The Board of Trustees has as its Chairman the First Lady, Imelda Romualdez Marcos, who is named as the principal respondent. 3 In an order of dismissal by the then Judge, now Justice of the Court of Appeals, Jose G. Bautista of a suit for prohibition filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila, stress was laid on the funds administered by the Center as coming from donations and contributions, with not a single centavo raised by taxation, and the absence of any pecuniary or monetary interest of petitioner that could in any wise be prejudiced distinct from those of the general public. Moreover, reference was made to the admission by petitioner of the desirability of the objective of Executive Order No. 30, his objection arising from the

alleged illegality of its issuance. 4 There was a motion of respondents to file a motion to dismiss this appeal by certiorari, and it was granted in a resolution of March 5, 1970. Such a pleading was submitted to this Court twelve days later, where it was contended that Executive Order No. 30 represented the legitimate exercise of executive power, there being no invasion of the legislative domain and that it was supplementary to rather than a disregard of Republic Act No. 4165 creating the National Commission on Culture. In this exhaustive motion to dismiss, the point was likewise raised that petitioner did not have the requisite personality to contest as a taxpayer the validity of the executive order in question, as the funds held by the Cultural Center came from donations and contributions, not one centavo being raised by taxation. 5 Thereafter, a manifestation was filed by the then Solicitor General, now Associate Justice, Felix Q. Antonio, adopting "the Motion to Dismiss the Petition dated February 25, 1970, filed by respondents with this Honorable Court." 6 There was an opposition to such motion to dismiss on the part of petitioner. 7 That was the status of the case, there being no further pleadings filed except two motions for extension of time to file answer submitted by the Solicitor General and granted by this Court, when on July 22, 1975, there was a second motion to dismiss on the part of respondents through the Acting Solicitor General Hugo E. Gutierrez Jr. and Assistant Solicitor General Reynato S. Puno. It is therein set forth: "(1) As stated in the petition itself its undeniable quintessence is [the allegation of] "an executive usurpation of legislative powers, hence, respondents in enforcing the same, are acting without

jurisdiction, hence, are restrainable by prohibition." ... (2) On October 5, 1972, Presidential Decree No. 15 ... was promulgated creating the Cultural Center of the Philippines, defining its objectives, powers and functions and other purposes. Section 4, thereof was amended by Presidential Decree No. 179 ... enacted on April 26, 1973. It is submitted that it is now moot and academic to discuss the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 30 considering the promulgation of PD Nos. 15 and 179, done by the President in the exercise of legislative powers under martial law. Executive Order No. 30 has ceased to exist while PD Nos. 15 and 179 meet all the constitutional arguments raised in the petition at bar." 8 It would thus appear that the petition cannot succeed. There is no justification for setting aside the order of dismissal. Notwithstanding the exhaustive and scholarly pleadings submitted by petitioner on his own behalf, the burden of persuasion to warrant a reversal of the action of the lower court was not met. Both on procedural and substantive grounds, a case for prohibition was not made out, notwithstanding the valiant efforts of petitioner. With this latest manifestation, that Executive Order No. 30 had been superseded by Presidential Decree Nos. 15 and 179, the moot and academic character of this appeal by certiorari became rather obvious. To repeat, the petition must fail. 1. It may not be amiss though to consider briefly both the procedural and substantive grounds that led to the lower court's order of dismissal. It was therein pointed out as "one more valid reason" why such an outcome was unavoidable that "the funds

administered by the President of the Philippines came from donations [and] contributions [not] by taxation." Accordingly, there was that absence of the "requisite pecuniary or monetary interest." 9 The stand of the lower court finds support in judicial precedents. 10 This is not to retreat from the liberal approach followed in Pascual v. Secretary of Public Works, 11 foreshadowed by People v. Vera, 12 where the doctrine of standing was first fully discussed. It is only to make clear that petitioner, judged by orthodox legal learning, has not satisfied the elemental requisite for a taxpayer's suit. Moreover, even on the assumption that public funds raised by taxation were involved, it does not necessarily follow that such kind of an action to assail the validity of a legislative or executive act has to be passed upon. This Court, as held in the recent case of Tan v. Macapagal, 13 "is not devoid of discretion as to whether or not it should be entertained." 14 The lower court thus did not err in so viewing the situation. 2. Nor was the lower court any more impressed by the contention that there was an encroachment on the legislative prerogative discernible in the issuance of Executive Order No. 30. It first took note of the exchange of diplomatic notes between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States as to the use of a special fund coming from the latter for a Philippine cultural development project. Then, as set forth in the order of dismissal, it explained why no constitutional objection could be validly interposed. Thus: "When the President, therefore, acted by disposing of a matter of general concern (Section 63, Rev. Adm. Code) in accord with the constitutional injunction to promote arts and letters (Section 4, Article XIV, Constitution of the

Philippines) and issued Executive Order No. 30, he simply carried out the purpose of the trust in establishing the Cultural Center of the Philippines as the instrumentality through which this agreement between the two governments would be realized. Needless to state, the President alone cannot and need not personally handle the duties of a trustee for and in behalf of the Filipino people in relation with this trust. He can do this by means of an executive order by creating as he did, a group of persons, who would receive and administer the trust estate, responsible to the President. As head of the State, as chief executive, as spokesman in domestic and foreign affairs, in behalf of the estate as parens patriae, it cannot be successfully questioned that the President has authority to implement for the benefit of the Filipino people by creating the Cultural Center consisting of private citizens to administer the private contributions and donations given not only by the United States government but also by private persons." 15 There is impressive juridical support for the stand taken by the lower court. Justice Malcolm in Government of the Philippine Islands v. Springer 16 took pains to emphasize: "Just as surely as the duty of caring for governmental property is neither judicial nor legislative in character is it as surely executive." 17 It Would be an unduly narrow or restrictive view of such a principle if the public funds that accrued by way of donation from the United States and financial contributions for the Cultural Center project could not be legally considered as "governmental property." They may be acquired under the concept of dominium, the state as a persona in law not being

deprived of such an attribute, thereafter to be administered by virtue of its prerogative of imperium. 18 What is a more appropriate agency for assuring that they be not wasted or frittered away than the Executive, the department precisely entrusted with management functions? It would thus appear that for the President to refrain from taking positive steps and await the action of the then Congress could be tantamount to dereliction of duty. He had to act; time was of the essence. Delay was far from conducive to public interest. It was as simple as that. Certainly then, it could be only under the most strained construction of executive power to conclude that in taking the step he took, he transgressed on terrain constitutionally reserved for Congress. This is not to preclude legislative action in the premises. While to the Presidency under the 1935 Constitution was entrusted the responsibility for administering public property, the then Congress could provide guidelines for such a task. Relevant in this connection is the excerpt from an opinion of Justice Jackson in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer: 19 "When the President acts in absence of either a congressional grant or denial of authority, he can only rely upon his own independent powers, but there is a zone of twilight in which he and Congress may have concurrent authority, or in which its distribution is uncertain. Therefore, congressional inertia, indifference or quiescence may sometimes, at least as a practical matter, enable, if not invite, measures on independent presidential responsibility. In this area, any actual test of power is likely to depend on the imperative of events and contemporary imponderables rather than on abstract theories of law." 20 To vary the phraseology, to recall Thomas Reed Powell, if

Congress would continue to keep its peace notwithstanding the action taken by the executive department, it may be considered as silently vocal. In plainer language, it could be an instance of silence meaning consent. The Executive Order assailed was issued on June 25, 1966. Congress until the time of the filing of the petition on August 26, 1969 remained quiescent. Parenthetically, it may be observed that petitioner waited until almost the day of inaugurating the Cultural Center on September 11, 1969 before filing his petition in the lower court. However worthy of commendation was his resolute determination to keep the Presidency within the bounds of its competence, it cannot be denied that the remedy, if any, could be supplied by Congress asserting itself in the premises. Instead, there was apparent conformity on its part to the way the President saw fit to administer such governmental property. 3. The futility of this appeal by certiorari becomes even more apparent with the issuance of Presidential Decree No. 15 on October 5, 1972. As contended by the Solicitor General, the matter, as of that date, became moot and academic. Executive Order No. 30 was thus superseded. The institution known as the Cultural Center is other than that assailed in this suit. In that sense a coup de grace was administered to this proceeding. The labored attempt of petitioner could thus be set at rest. This particular litigation is at an end. There is, too, relevance in the observation that the aforesaid decree is part of the law of the land. So the Constitution provides. 21 4. It only remains to be added that respondents as trustees lived up fully to the weighty responsibility entrusted to them. The task imposed on them was performed with

competence, fidelity, and dedication. That was to be expected. From the inception of the Marcos Administration, the First Lady has given unsparingly of herself in the encouragement and support of literary, musical, and artistic endeavors and in the appreciation of our rich and diverse cultural heritage. The rest of the then Board of Trustees, named as the other respondents, were equally deserving of their being chosen for this worthy project. One of them, the late I.P Soliongco, was in his lifetime one of the most gifted men of letters. Father Horacio de la Costa is a historian and scholar of international repute. Respondents Ernesto Rufino, Antonio Madrigal and Andres Soriano, all men of substance, have contributed in time and money to civic efforts. It is not surprising then that the Cultural Center became a reality, the massive and imposing structure constructed at a shorter period and at a lower cost than at first thought possible. What is of even greater significance, with a portion thereof being accessible at modest admission prices, musical and artistic performances of all kinds are within reach of the lower-income groups. Only thus may meaning be imparted to the Constitutional provision that arts and letters shall be under State patronage. 22 For equally important as the encouragement and support for talented Filipinos with a creative spark is the diffusion of the opportunity for the rest of their countrymen to savour the finer things in life. Who knows, if state efforts along these lines are diligently pursued, that what was said by Justice Holmes about France could apply to the Philippines. Thus: "We have not that respect for art that is one of the glories of France." 23 In justice to petitioner Gonzales, it may be noted that he did not question the wisdom

or soundness of the goal of having a Cultural Center or the disbursement of the funds by respondents. It is the absence of statutory authority that bothered him. The lower court did not see things in the same light. It is easily understandable why, as the preceding discussion has made clear, it cannot be said that such a conclusion suffered from legal infirmity. What is more, with the issuance of Presidential Decree No. 15, the suit, to repeat, has assumed a moot and academic character. WHEREFORE, this appeal by certiorari to review the lower court's order of dismissal dated December 4, 1969 is dismissed. No costs.

G.R. No. L-59068 January 27, 1983 JOSE MARI EULALIO C. LOZADA and ROMEO B. IGOT, petitioners, vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent. DE CASTRO, J.: This is a petition for mandamus filed by Jose Mari Eulalio C. Lozada and Romeo B. Igot as a representative suit for and in behalf of those who wish to participate in the election irrespective of party affiliation, to compel the respondent COMELEC to call a special election to fill up existing vacancies numbering twelve (12) in the Interim Batasan Pambansa. The petition is based on Section 5(2), Article VIII of the 1973 Constitution which reads:
(2) In case a vacancy arises in the Batasang Pambansa eighteen months or more before a regular election, the Commission on Election shall call a special election to be held within sixty (60) days after the vacancy occurs to elect the Member to serve the unexpired term.

Petitioner Lozada claims that he is a taxpayer and a bonafide elector of Cebu City and a transient voter of Quezon City, Metro Manila, who desires to run for the position in the Batasan Pambansa; while petitioner Romeo B. Igot alleges that, as a taxpayer, he has standing to petition by mandamus the calling of a special election as mandated by the

1973 Constitution. As reason for their petition, petitioners allege that they are "... deeply concerned about their duties as citizens and desirous to uphold the constitutional mandate and rule of law ...; that they have filed the instant petition on their own and in behalf of all other Filipinos since the subject matters are of profound and general interest. " The respondent COMELEC, represented by counsel, opposes the petition alleging, substantially, that 1) petitioners lack standing to file the instant petition for they are not the proper parties to institute the action; 2) this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this petition; and 3) Section 5(2), Article VIII of the 1973 Constitution does not apply to the Interim Batasan Pambansa. The petition must be dismiss. I As taxpayers, petitioners may not file the instant petition, for nowhere therein is it alleged that tax money is being illegally spent. The act complained of is the inaction of the COMELEC to call a special election, as is allegedly its ministerial duty under the constitutional provision above cited, and therefore, involves no expenditure of public funds. It is only when an act complained of, which may include a legislative enactment or statute, involves the illegal expenditure of public money that the so-called taxpayer suit may be allowed. 1 What the case at bar seeks is one that entails expenditure of public funds which may be illegal because it would be spent for a purpose that of calling

a special election which, as will be shown, has no authority either in the Constitution or a statute. As voters, neither have petitioners the requisite interest or personality to qualify them to maintain and prosecute the present petition. The unchallenged rule is that the person who impugns the validity of a statute must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforcement. 2 In the case before Us, the alleged inaction of the COMELEC to call a special election to fill-up the existing vacancies in the Batasan Pambansa, standing alone, would adversely affect only the generalized interest of all citizens. Petitioners' standing to sue may not be predicated upon an interest of the kind alleged here, which is held in common by all members of the public because of the necessarily abstract nature of the injury supposedly shared by all citizens. Concrete injury, whether actual or threatened, is that indispensable element of a dispute which serves in part to cast it in a form traditionally capable of judicial resolution. 3 When the asserted harm is a "generalized grievance" shared in substantially equal measure by all or a large class of citizens, that harm alone normally does not warrant exercise of jurisdiction. 4 As adverted to earlier, petitioners have not demonstrated any permissible personal stake, for petitioner Lozada's interest as an alleged candidate and as a voter is not sufficient to confer standing. Petitioner Lozada does not only fail to inform the Court of the region he wants to be a candidate but makes indiscriminate demand that special election be called throughout the country. Even his plea as a voter is predicated on an interest held

in common by all members of the public and does not demonstrate any injury specially directed to him in particular. II The Supreme Court's jurisdiction over the COMELEC is only to review by certiorari the latter's decision, orders or rulings. This is as clearly provided in Article XI IC Section 11 of the New Constitution which reads:
Any decision, order, or ruling of the Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days from his receipt of a copy thereof.

There is in this case no decision, order or ruling of the COMELEC which is sought to be reviewed by this Court under its certiorari jurisdiction as provided for in the aforequoted provision which is the only known provision conferring jurisdiction or authority on the Supreme Court over the COMELEC. It is not alleged that the COMELEC was asked by petitioners to perform its alleged duty under the Constitution to call a special election, and that COMELEC has issued an order or resolution denying such petition. Even from the standpoint of an action for mandamus, with the total absence of a showing that COMELEC has unlawfully neglected the performance of a ministerial duty, or has refused on being demanded, to discharge such a duty; and as demonstrated above, it is not shown, nor can it ever be shown, that petitioners have a clear right to the holding of a special election. which is equally the clear and ministerial duty of COMELEC to respect, mandamus will not lie. 5 The writ will not issue in doubtful cases.

It is obvious that the holding of special elections in several regional districts where vacancies exist, would entail huge expenditure of money. Only the Batasan Pambansa can make the necessary appropriation for the purpose, and this power of the Batasan Pambansa may neither be subject to mandamus by the courts much less may COMELEC compel the Batasan to exercise its power of appropriation. From the role Batasan Pambansa has to play in the holding of special elections, which is to appropriate the funds for the expenses thereof, it would seem that the initiative on the matter must come from said body, not the COMELEC, even when the vacancies would occur in the regular not interim Batasan Pambansa. The power to appropriate is the sole and exclusive prerogative of the legislative body, the exercise of which may not be compelled through a petition for mandamus. What is more, the provision of Section 5(2), Article VIII of the Constitution was intended to apply to vacancies in the regular National Assembly, now Batasan Pambansa, not to the Interim Batasan Pambansa, as will presently be shown. III Perhaps the strongest reason why the aforecited provision of the Constitution is not intended to apply to the Interim National Assembly as originally envisioned by the 1973 Constitution is the fact that as passed by the Constitutional Convention, the Interim National Assembly was to be composed by the delegates to the Constitutional Convention, as well as the then incumbent President and Vice-President, and the

members of the Senate and House of Representatives of Congress under the 1935 Constitution. With such number of representatives representing each congressional district, or a province, not to mention the Senators, there was felt absolutely no need for filing vacancies occurring in the Interim National Assembly, considering the uncertainty of the duration of its existence. What was in the mind of the Constitutional Convention in providing for special elections to fill up vacancies is the regular National Assembly, because a province or representative district would have only one representative in the said National Assembly. Even as presently constituted where the representation in the Interim Batasan Pambansa is regional and sectoral, the need to fill up vacancies in the Body is neither imperative nor urgent. No district or province would ever be left without representation at all, as to necessitate the filling up of vacancies in the Interim Batasan Pambansa. There would always be adequate representation for every province which only forms part of a certain region, specially considering that the Body is only transitory in character. The unmistakable intent of the Constitutional Convention as adverted to is even more positively revealed by the fact that the provision of Section 5(2) of Article VIII of the New Constitution is in the main body of the said Constitution, not in the transitory provisions in which all matters relating to the Interim Batasan Pambansa are found. No provision outside of Article VIII on the "Transitory Provisions" has reference or relevance to the Interim Batasan Pambansa.

Also under the original provision of the Constitution (Section 1, Article XVII-Transitory Provisions), the Interim National Assembly had only one single occasion on which to call for an election, and that is for the election of members of the regular National Assembly.1wph1.t The Constitution could not have at that time contemplated to fill up vacancies in the Interim National Assembly the composition of which, as already demonstrated, would not raise any imperious necessity of having to call special elections for that purpose, because the duration of its existence was neither known or pre-determined. It could be for a period so brief that the time prescriptions mentioned in Section 5(2), Article VIII of the Constitution cannot be applicable. The foregoing observations make it indubitably clear that the aforementioned provision for calling special elections to fill up vacancies apply only to the regular Batasan Pambansa. This is evident from the language thereof which speaks of a vacancy in the Batasan Pambansa, " which means the regular Batasan Pambansa as the same words "Batasan Pambansa" found in all the many other sections of Article VIII, undoubtedly refer to the regular Batasan, not the interim one. A word or phrase used in one part of a Constitution is to receive the same interpretation when used in every other part, unless it clearly appears, from the context or otherwise, that a different meaning should be applied. 7 WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby dismissed. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. L-39699 March 14, 1979 SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. HON. CELSO AVELINO, Presiding Judge of the Court of First In. stance of Cebu, Branch XIII, and the City of Mandaue, respondents. Gadioma & Colon for petitioner. Lorenzo A. Parandiang, Jr. and Amadeo D. Seno for respondent City of Mandaue. FERNANDO, J.: It is understandable for petitioner San Miguel Corporation to expect the speedy determination of its claim that the challenged ordinance of respondent City of Mandaue 1 imposing a specific tax should be nullified. Hence its concern at the failure of respondent Judge Celso Avelino of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch XIII, to grant its motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction a complaint for the collection of such tax filed by respondent City. The challenged order reads as follows: "Acting on the [motion to dismiss] filed by the defendant through counsel on October 11, 1974 and the [opposition] thereto filed by the plaintiff through counsel on October 17, 1974, the Court finds no justifiable reason in dismissing the Complaint at this stage of the proceedings and hereby denies said motion." 2 Offhand, it would not be easy to

assail its correctness, manifesting as it does caution and care in ascertaining the principal question involved in the suit for the collection of the specific tax, which is its validity. It is undoubted that under the Constitution, even the legislative body cannot deprive this Court of its appellate jurisdiction over all cases coming from inferior courts where the constitutionality or validity of an ordinance or the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll is in question. 3 Since it is likewise expressly provided in Section 43 of the Judiciary Act that the original jurisdiction over all civil actions involving the legality of any tax, impost or assessment appertains to the Court of First Instance, 4 it takes a certain degree of ingenuity to allege that the lower court was bereft of such authority. Counsel for petitioner, Attorney Demosthenes B. Gadioma, both in the petition and in his scholarly and exhaustive memorandum, did seek to impart plausibility to a suit of this character by relying not so much on the alleges ultra vires or constitutional infirmity of the ordinance but rather on the failure of respondent City to follow the procedure set fort in the Local Tax Code. 5 It was contended that there was a finding of invalidity by the then Acting Justice Secretary, at present Acting Minister of Justice, Catalino Macaraig, Jr. There is inaccuracy in such a characterization as the actual phrase used by such dignitary is that it "is of doubtful validity. 6 The argument pressed is that a suit for collection is not the appeal provided for in the last sentence of Section 47: "The decision of the Secretary of Justice shall be final and executory unless, within thirty days upon receipt thereof, the aggrieved party contents the same in a court of competent jurisdiction." 7 Respondent City disagrees. It is its submission that the suit

for collection cannot be viewed other than as an appeal. The aggrieved party, here respondent City, in the suit for collection, did definitely contest the correctness of the decision of the Secretary of Justice in a court of competent jurisdiction this, even on the assumption that there was a finding a invalidity. The statutory purpose is thus satisfied. Such an action is in accordance with the traditional and appropriate procedure to test the legality of a statute, decree, or ordinance. This Court finds such an approach persuasive. It conforms to the authoritative principle that the question of validity is for the judiciary to decide. As far back as the leading case of Marbury v. Madison, 8 where the American Supreme Court enunciated the principle of judicial review, Chief Justice Marshall stressed: "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." 9 That was precisely what was done by respondent City. It has likewise in its favor the fact that even the very decision of the Acting Secretary of Justice relied upon did not squarely rule on the validity of the ordinance but only on its "doubtful character." The writs prayed for, certiorari and prohibition, cannot issue. The facts are undisputed. Respondent City, in accordance with Presidential Decree No. 231, enacted in 1973, to take effect on January 1, 1974, the challenged ordinance, otherwise known as the Mandaue City Tax Code. The City Treasurer, on April 1, 1974, demanded from petitioner payment of the made specific tax on the total volume of beer it produced in the City of Mandaue. Petitioner, on April 8, 1974, contested the correction of said specific tax "on the ground that Section 12(e) (7) in relation to Section

12(e) (1) and (2), Mandaue City Ordinance No. 97, is illegal and void because it imposed a specific tax beyond its territorial jurisdiction. " The matter was then referred by respondent City to its City Fiscal pursuant to such Presidential Decree. Its validity was sustained. Then came the appeal to the Secretary of Justice, with the then Acting Secretary of Justice Macaraig, as noted, rendering the opinion that it is "of doubtful validity." A suit for collection was thereafter filed by the City where it squarely put in issue the validity of such ordinance, thus contesting the opinion of the Acting Secretary of Justice. The crucial issue from the petitioner's standpoint is whether the filing of such action after such opinion was rendered may be considered "an appeal" under the Presidential Decree. Hence the motion to dismiss by petitioner, which was denied, respondent Judge finding "no justifiable reason at [that] stage of the proceedings 10 rating in this petition for certiorari and prohibition. To repeat, the petition must fait The writs prayed for cannot be granted. 1. Tersely and bluntly put, petitioner would deny the jurisdiction of respondent Judge to pass upon the validity of a challenged ordinance in an appropriate action. To say the least, there is unorthodoxy in such an approach What immediately calls attention is its novelty. It is opposed to and is not in conformity with the accepted juridical norm that the validity of a statute, an executive order or ordinance is a matter for the judiciary to decide and that whenever in the disposition of a pending case such a question

becomes unavoidable, then it is not only the power but the duty of the Court to resolve such a question. In the pending suit by respondent City, sought to be dismissed by petitioner corporation, it specifically prayed "that Ordinance No. 97, Series of 1973, of the herein plaintiff is valid, legal, and enforceable in accordance with law; ... 11 Since both under the Constitution and the Judiciary Act, respondent Judge is vested with jurisdiction to make such a declaration, it would be, at the very least, premature for the corrective power of this Tribunal to be interposed , just because he did not, "at [that] stage of the proceedings," grant -the motion to dismiss on the allegation that there was lack of jurisdiction. The authorities support squarely the procedure followed by respondent City to remove doubts as to the validity of the ordinance in question. 12 Even more in point are these two decisions with reference to the municipal power to impose specific taxes on beverages manufactured within its territorial boundaries, City of Bacolod v. Gruet 13 and City of Naga v. Court of Appeals. 14 It is worth mentioning that in the first case cited, the entity involved is petitioner corporation, then known as San Miguel Brewery, Inc., defendant and appellant Gruet being sued in his capacity as manager of its Coca-Cola Plant in Bacolod City. 2. There is this reinforcement to the conclusion reached. To so construe Section 47 would be to raise a serious constitutional question For it would in effect bar what otherwise would be a proper case cognizable by a court precisely in the exercise of the conceded power of judicial review just because the procedure contended for which is that of an "appeal" under the circumstances a term vague and ambiguous, was not

followed. Petitioner may not be sufficiently aware of the implications of such a proposition. It would run counter to the well-settled doctrine that between two possible modes of constructions, the one which would not be in conflict with what is ordained by the Constitution is to be preferred. Every intendment of the law should lean towards its validity, not its invalidity. 15 The judiciary, as noted by Justice Douglas, should 6 favor that t interpret ration of legislation which gives it the greater chance of giving the test of constitutionality. 16 3. The inherent weakness of this suit for certiorari and prohibition is likewise discernible from the fact that the then Acting Secretary of Justice Macaraig limited himself to a finding that the ordinance in question was "of doubtful validity. 17 That is far from a categorical declaration of its being repugnant to the Constitution or its being ultra vires. That betrays a realization that unless and until the judiciary speaks in no uncertain terms, the presumption of validity continues misgivings as to the likelihood of an alleged infringement of any binding norm do not suffice. There is this aphorism from Justice Malcolm "To doubt is to sustain. 18 That is merely to accord recognition to the wellsettled and binding doctrine that only in a very clear case is the judiciary judged in nullifying a statute, or ordinance. 4. One last word. The decision y does not extend to any de determination by this Court as to the validity, or lack of it, of the assailed ordinance. To do so would be, at the very least, premature. That is a function for the lower court to perform.

WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed. The of the case before respondent Judge should be conducted as speedily as circumstances permit. Costs against petitioner.

G.R. No. L-39086 June 15, 1988 ABRA VALLEY COLLEGE, INC., represented by PEDRO V. BORGONIA, petitioner, vs. HON. JUAN P. AQUINO, Judge, Court of First Instance, Abra; ARMIN M. CARIAGA, Provincial Treasurer, Abra; GASPAR V. BOSQUE, Municipal Treasurer, Bangued, Abra; HEIRS OF PATERNO MILLARE, respondents. PARAS, J.: This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision * of the defunct Court of First Instance of Abra, Branch I, dated June 14, 1974, rendered in Civil Case No. 656, entitled "Abra Valley Junior College, Inc., represented by Pedro V. Borgonia, plaintiff vs. Armin M. Cariaga as Provincial Treasurer of Abra, Gaspar V. Bosque as Municipal Treasurer of Bangued, Abra and Paterno Millare, defendants," the decretal portion of which reads:
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Court hereby declares: That the distraint seizure and sale by the Municipal Treasurer of Bangued, Abra, the Provincial Treasurer of said province against the lot and building of the Abra Valley Junior College, Inc., represented by Director Pedro Borgonia located at Bangued, Abra, is valid; That since the school is not exempt from paying taxes, it should therefore pay all back

taxes in the amount of P5,140.31 and back taxes and penalties from the promulgation of this decision; That the amount deposited by the plaintaff him the sum of P60,000.00 before the trial, be confiscated to apply for the payment of the back taxes and for the redemption of the property in question, if the amount is less than P6,000.00, the remainder must be returned to the Director of Pedro Borgonia, who represents the plaintiff herein; That the deposit of the Municipal Treasurer in the amount of P6,000.00 also before the trial must be returned to said Municipal Treasurer of Bangued, Abra; And finally the case is hereby ordered dismissed with costs against the plaintiff. SO ORDERED. (Rollo, pp. 22-23)

Petitioner, an educational corporation and institution of higher learning duly incorporated with the Securities and Exchange Commission in 1948, filed a complaint (Annex "1" of Answer by the respondents Heirs of Paterno Millare; Rollo, pp. 95-97) on July 10, 1972 in the court a quo to annul and declare void the "Notice of Seizure' and the "Notice of Sale" of its lot and building located at Bangued, Abra, for non-payment of real estate taxes and penalties amounting to P5,140.31. Said "Notice of Seizure" of the college lot and building covered by Original Certificate of Title No. Q-83 duly registered in the name of petitioner, plaintiff below, on July 6, 1972, by respondents Municipal Treasurer and Provincial Treasurer, defendants below, was issued for the satisfaction of the said taxes thereon. The "Notice of Sale" was caused to be served upon the petitioner by the respondent treasurers on July 8, 1972 for the sale at public auction of

said college lot and building, which sale was held on the same date. Dr. Paterno Millare, then Municipal Mayor of Bangued, Abra, offered the highest bid of P6,000.00 which was duly accepted. The certificate of sale was correspondingly issued to him. On August 10, 1972, the respondent Paterno Millare (now deceased) filed through counstel a motion to dismiss the complaint. On August 23, 1972, the respondent Provincial Treasurer and Municipal Treasurer, through then Provincial Fiscal Loreto C. Roldan, filed their answer (Annex "2" of Answer by the respondents Heirs of Patemo Millare; Rollo, pp. 98-100) to the complaint. This was followed by an amended answer (Annex "3," ibid, Rollo, pp. 101-103) on August 31, 1972. On September 1, 1972 the respondent Paterno Millare filed his answer (Annex "5," ibid; Rollo, pp. 106-108). On October 12, 1972, with the aforesaid sale of the school premises at public auction, the respondent Judge, Hon. Juan P. Aquino of the Court of First Instance of Abra, Branch I, ordered (Annex "6," ibid; Rollo, pp. 109-110) the respondents provincial and municipal treasurers to deliver to the Clerk of Court the proceeds of the auction sale. Hence, on December 14, 1972, petitioner, through Director Borgonia, deposited with the trial court the sum of P6,000.00 evidenced by PNB Check No. 904369. On April 12, 1973, the parties entered into a stipulation of facts adopted and embodied by the trial court in its questioned decision. Said Stipulations reads:

STIPULATION OF FACTS COME NOW the parties, assisted by counsels, and to this Honorable Court respectfully enter into the following agreed stipulation of facts: 1. That the personal circumstances of the parties as stated in paragraph 1 of the complaint is admitted; but the particular person of Mr. Armin M. Cariaga is to be substituted, however, by anyone who is actually holding the position of Provincial Treasurer of the Province of Abra; 2. That the plaintiff Abra Valley Junior College, Inc. is the owner of the lot and buildings thereon located in Bangued, Abra under Original Certificate of Title No. 0-83; 3. That the defendant Gaspar V. Bosque, as Municipal treasurer of Bangued, Abra caused to be served upon the Abra Valley Junior College, Inc. a Notice of Seizure on the property of said school under Original Certificate of Title No. 0-83 for the satisfaction of real property taxes thereon, amounting to P5,140.31; the Notice of Seizure being the one attached to the complaint as Exhibit A; 4. That on June 8, 1972 the above properties of the Abra Valley Junior College, Inc. was sold at public auction for the satisfaction of the unpaid real property taxes thereon and the same was sold to defendant Paterno Millare who offered the highest bid of P6,000.00 and a Certificate of Sale in his favor was issued by the defendant Municipal Treasurer. 5. That all other matters not particularly and specially covered by this stipulation of facts will be the subject of evidence by the parties. WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed of the Honorable Court to consider and admit

this stipulation of facts on the point agreed upon by the parties. Bangued, Abra, April 12, 1973. Sgd. Agripino Brillantes Typ AGRIPINO BRILLANTES Attorney for Plaintiff Sgd. Loreto Roldan Typ LORETO ROLDAN Provincial Fiscal Counsel for Defendants Provincial Treasurer of Abra and the Municipal Treasurer of Bangued, Abra Sgd. Demetrio V. Pre Typ. DEMETRIO V. PRE Attorney for Defendant Paterno Millare (Rollo, pp. 17-18)

Aside from the Stipulation of Facts, the trial court among others, found the following: (a) that the school is recognized by the government and is offering Primary, High School and College Courses, and has a school population of more than one thousand students all in all; (b) that it is located right in the heart of the town of Bangued, a few meters from the plaza and about 120 meters from the Court of First Instance building; (c) that the elementary pupils are housed in a two-storey building across the street; (d) that the

high school and college students are housed in the main building; (e) that the Director with his family is in the second floor of the main building; and (f) that the annual gross income of the school reaches more than one hundred thousand pesos. From all the foregoing, the only issue left for the Court to determine and as agreed by the parties, is whether or not the lot and building in question are used exclusively for educational purposes. (Rollo, p. 20) The succeeding Provincial Fiscal, Hon. Jose A. Solomon and his Assistant, Hon. Eustaquio Z. Montero, filed a Memorandum for the Government on March 25, 1974, and a Supplemental Memorandum on May 7, 1974, wherein they opined "that based on the evidence, the laws applicable, court decisions and jurisprudence, the school building and school lot used for educational purposes of the Abra Valley College, Inc., are exempted from the payment of taxes." (Annexes "B," "B-1" of Petition; Rollo, pp. 24-49; 44 and 49). Nonetheless, the trial court disagreed because of the use of the second floor by the Director of petitioner school for residential purposes. He thus ruled for the government and rendered the assailed decision. After having been granted by the trial court ten (10) days from August 6, 1974 within which to perfect its appeal (Per Order dated August 6, 1974; Annex "G" of Petition; Rollo, p. 57) petitioner instead availed of the instant petition for review on certiorari with prayer for preliminary injunction before this Court, which petition was filed on August 17,

1974 (Rollo, p.2). In the resolution dated August 16, 1974, this Court resolved to give DUE COURSE to the petition (Rollo, p. 58). Respondents were required to answer said petition (Rollo, p. 74). Petitioner raised the following assignments of error: I THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN SUSTAINING AS VALID THE SEIZURE AND SALE OF THE COLLEGE LOT AND BUILDING USED FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES OF THE PETITIONER. II THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN DECLARING THAT THE COLLEGE LOT AND BUILDING OF THE PETITIONER ARE NOT USED EXCLUSIVELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES MERELY BECAUSE THE COLLEGE PRESIDENT RESIDES IN ONE ROOM OF THE COLLEGE BUILDING. III THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN DECLARING THAT THE COLLEGE LOT AND BUILDING OF THE PETITIONER ARE NOT EXEMPT FROM PROPERTY TAXES AND IN ORDERING PETITIONER TO PAY P5,140.31 AS REALTY TAXES. IV

THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN ORDERING THE CONFISCATION OF THE P6,000.00 DEPOSIT MADE IN THE COURT BY PETITIONER AS PAYMENT OF THE P5,140.31 REALTY TAXES. (See Brief for the Petitioner, pp. 1-2) The main issue in this case is the proper interpretation of the phrase "used exclusively for educational purposes." Petitioner contends that the primary use of the lot and building for educational purposes, and not the incidental use thereof, determines and exemption from property taxes under Section 22 (3), Article VI of the 1935 Constitution. Hence, the seizure and sale of subject college lot and building, which are contrary thereto as well as to the provision of Commonwealth Act No. 470, otherwise known as the Assessment Law, are without legal basis and therefore void. On the other hand, private respondents maintain that the college lot and building in question which were subjected to seizure and sale to answer for the unpaid tax are used: (1) for the educational purposes of the college; (2) as the permanent residence of the President and Director thereof, Mr. Pedro V. Borgonia, and his family including the in-laws and grandchildren; and (3) for commercial purposes because the ground floor of the college building is being used and rented by a commercial establishment, the Northern Marketing Corporation (See photograph attached as Annex "8" (Comment; Rollo, p. 90]). Due to its time frame, the constitutional provision which finds application in the case at

bar is Section 22, paragraph 3, Article VI, of the then 1935 Philippine Constitution, which expressly grants exemption from realty taxes for "Cemeteries, churches and parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto, and all lands, buildings, and improvements used exclusively for religious, charitable or educational purposes ... Relative thereto, Section 54, paragraph c, Commonwealth Act No. 470 as amended by Republic Act No. 409, otherwise known as the Assessment Law, provides:
The following are exempted from real property tax under the Assessment Law: xxx xxx xxx (c) churches and parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto, and all lands, buildings, and improvements used exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific or educational purposes. xxx xxx xxx

In this regard petitioner argues that the primary use of the school lot and building is the basic and controlling guide, norm and standard to determine tax exemption, and not the mere incidental use thereof. As early as 1916 in YMCA of Manila vs. Collector of lnternal Revenue, 33 Phil. 217 [1916], this Court ruled that while it may be true that the YMCA keeps a lodging and a boarding house and maintains a restaurant for its members, still these do not constitute business in the ordinary acceptance of the word, but an institution used exclusively for religious, charitable and educational purposes, and as such, it is entitled to be

exempted from taxation. In the case of Bishop of Nueva Segovia v. Provincial Board of Ilocos Norte, 51 Phil. 352 [1972], this Court included in the exemption a vegetable garden in an adjacent lot and another lot formerly used as a cemetery. It was clarified that the term "used exclusively" considers incidental use also. Thus, the exemption from payment of land tax in favor of the convent includes, not only the land actually occupied by the building but also the adjacent garden devoted to the incidental use of the parish priest. The lot which is not used for commercial purposes but serves solely as a sort of lodging place, also qualifies for exemption because this constitutes incidental use in religious functions. The phrase "exclusively used for educational purposes" was further clarified by this Court in the cases of Herrera vs. Quezon City Board of assessment Appeals, 3 SCRA 186 [1961] and Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Bishop of the Missionary District, 14 SCRA 991 [1965], thus
Moreover, the exemption in favor of property used exclusively for charitable or educational purposes is 'not limited to property actually indispensable' therefor (Cooley on Taxation, Vol. 2, p. 1430), but extends to facilities which are incidental to and reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of said purposes, such as in the case of hospitals, "a school for training nurses, a nurses' home, property use to provide housing facilities for interns, resident doctors, superintendents, and other members of the hospital staff, and recreational facilities for student nurses, interns, and residents' (84 CJS 6621), such as "Athletic fields" including "a firm used for the inmates of the

institution. (Cooley on Taxation, Vol. 2, p. 1430).

The test of exemption from taxation is the use of the property for purposes mentioned in the Constitution (Apostolic Prefect v. City Treasurer of Baguio, 71 Phil, 547 [1941]). It must be stressed however, that while this Court allows a more liberal and nonrestrictive interpretation of the phrase "exclusively used for educational purposes" as provided for in Article VI, Section 22, paragraph 3 of the 1935 Philippine Constitution, reasonable emphasis has always been made that exemption extends to facilities which are incidental to and reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the main purposes. Otherwise stated, the use of the school building or lot for commercial purposes is neither contemplated by law, nor by jurisprudence. Thus, while the use of the second floor of the main building in the case at bar for residential purposes of the Director and his family, may find justification under the concept of incidental use, which is complimentary to the main or primary purposeeducational, the lease of the first floor thereof to the Northern Marketing Corporation cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered incidental to the purpose of education. It will be noted however that the aforementioned lease appears to have been raised for the first time in this Court. That the matter was not taken up in the to court is really apparent in the decision of respondent Judge. No mention thereof was made in the stipulation of facts, not even in the description of the school building by the trial judge, both embodied in the decision nor as one of the issues to resolve in order to determine whether or not said properly may be exempted from payment of real estate taxes (Rollo,

pp. 17-23). On the other hand, it is noteworthy that such fact was not disputed even after it was raised in this Court. Indeed, it is axiomatic that facts not raised in the lower court cannot be taken up for the first time on appeal. Nonetheless, as an exception to the rule, this Court has held that although a factual issue is not squarely raised below, still in the interest of substantial justice, this Court is not prevented from considering a pivotal factual matter. "The Supreme Court is clothed with ample authority to review palpable errors not assigned as such if it finds that their consideration is necessary in arriving at a just decision." (Perez vs. Court of Appeals, 127 SCRA 645 [1984]). Under the 1935 Constitution, the trial court correctly arrived at the conclusion that the school building as well as the lot where it is built, should be taxed, not because the second floor of the same is being used by the Director and his family for residential purposes, but because the first floor thereof is being used for commercial purposes. However, since only a portion is used for purposes of commerce, it is only fair that half of the assessed tax be returned to the school involved. PREMISES CONSIDERED, the decision of the Court of First Instance of Abra, Branch I, is hereby AFFIRMED subject to the modification that half of the assessed tax be returned to the petitioner. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 144104 June 29, 2004 LUNG CENTER OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. QUEZON CITY and CONSTANTINO P. ROSAS, in his capacity as City Assessor of Quezon City, respondents. DECISION CALLEJO, SR., J.: This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, as amended, of the Decision1 dated July 17, 2000 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 57014 which affirmed the decision of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals holding that the lot owned by the petitioner and its hospital building constructed thereon are subject to assessment for purposes of real property tax. The Antecedents The petitioner Lung Center of the Philippines is a non-stock and non-profit entity established on January 16, 1981 by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 1823.2 It is the registered owner of a parcel of land, particularly described as Lot No. RP-3-B-3A-1-B-1, SWO-04-000495, located at Quezon Avenue corner Elliptical Road, Central District, Quezon City. The lot has an area of 121,463 square meters and is covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 261320 of the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City. Erected in the middle of the aforesaid lot is a hospital known as the Lung Center of the Philippines. A big space at the ground floor is being leased to private

parties, for canteen and small store spaces, and to medical or professional practitioners who use the same as their private clinics for their patients whom they charge for their professional services. Almost one-half of the entire area on the left side of the building along Quezon Avenue is vacant and idle, while a big portion on the right side, at the corner of Quezon Avenue and Elliptical Road, is being leased for commercial purposes to a private enterprise known as the Elliptical Orchids and Garden Center. The petitioner accepts paying and non-paying patients. It also renders medical services to outpatients, both paying and non-paying. Aside from its income from paying patients, the petitioner receives annual subsidies from the government. On June 7, 1993, both the land and the hospital building of the petitioner were assessed for real property taxes in the amount of P4,554,860 by the City Assessor of Quezon City.3 Accordingly, Tax Declaration Nos. C-021-01226 (16-2518) and C-021-01231 (15-2518-A) were issued for the land and the hospital building, respectively.4 On August 25, 1993, the petitioner filed a Claim for Exemption5 from real property taxes with the City Assessor, predicated on its claim that it is a charitable institution. The petitioners request was denied, and a petition was, thereafter, filed before the Local Board of Assessment Appeals of Quezon City (QC-LBAA, for brevity) for the reversal of the resolution of the City Assessor. The petitioner alleged that under Section 28, paragraph 3 of the 1987 Constitution, the property is exempt from real property taxes. It averred that a minimum of 60% of its hospital beds are exclusively used for charity patients and that the major thrust of its hospital operation is to serve charity patients. The petitioner contends that it is a charitable institution and, as such, is exempt from real property

taxes. The QC-LBAA rendered judgment dismissing the petition and holding the petitioner liable for real property taxes.6 The QC-LBAAs decision was, likewise, affirmed on appeal by the Central Board of Assessment Appeals of Quezon City (CBAA, for brevity)7 which ruled that the petitioner was not a charitable institution and that its real properties were not actually, directly and exclusively used for charitable purposes; hence, it was not entitled to real property tax exemption under the constitution and the law. The petitioner sought relief from the Court of Appeals, which rendered judgment affirming the decision of the CBAA.8 Undaunted, the petitioner filed its petition in this Court contending that: A. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN DECLARING PETITIONER AS NOT ENTITLED TO REALTY TAX EXEMPTIONS ON THE GROUND THAT ITS LAND, BUILDING AND IMPROVEMENTS, SUBJECT OF ASSESSMENT, ARE NOT ACTUALLY, DIRECTLY AND EXCLUSIVELY DEVOTED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES. B. WHILE PETITIONER IS NOT DECLARED AS REAL PROPERTY TAX EXEMPT UNDER ITS CHARTER, PD 1823, SAID EXEMPTION MAY NEVERTHELESS BE EXTENDED UPON PROPER APPLICATION. The petitioner avers that it is a charitable institution within the context of Section 28(3), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. It asserts that its character as a charitable institution is not altered by the fact that it admits paying patients and renders medical services to them, leases portions of the land to private parties, and rents out portions of the hospital to private medical practitioners

from which it derives income to be used for operational expenses. The petitioner points out that for the years 1995 to 1999, 100% of its out-patients were charity patients and of the hospitals 282-bed capacity, 60% thereof, or 170 beds, is allotted to charity patients. It asserts that the fact that it receives subsidies from the government attests to its character as a charitable institution. It contends that the "exclusivity" required in the Constitution does not necessarily mean "solely." Hence, even if a portion of its real estate is leased out to private individuals from whom it derives income, it does not lose its character as a charitable institution, and its exemption from the payment of real estate taxes on its real property. The petitioner cited our ruling in Herrera v. QC-BAA9 to bolster its pose. The petitioner further contends that even if P.D. No. 1823 does not exempt it from the payment of real estate taxes, it is not precluded from seeking tax exemption under the 1987 Constitution. In their comment on the petition, the respondents aver that the petitioner is not a charitable entity. The petitioners real property is not exempt from the payment of real estate taxes under P.D. No. 1823 and even under the 1987 Constitution because it failed to prove that it is a charitable institution and that the said property is actually, directly and exclusively used for charitable purposes. The respondents noted that in a newspaper report, it appears that graft charges were filed with the Sandiganbayan against the director of the petitioner, its administrative officer, and Zenaida Rivera, the proprietress of the Elliptical Orchids and Garden Center, for entering into a lease contract over 7,663.13 square meters of the property in 1990 for only P20,000 a month, when the monthly rental should be P357,000 a month as determined by the Commission on Audit; and that instead of complying with the directive of the COA for the

cancellation of the contract for being grossly prejudicial to the government, the petitioner renewed the same on March 13, 1995 for a monthly rental of only P24,000. They assert that the petitioner uses the subsidies granted by the government for charity patients and uses the rest of its income from the property for the benefit of paying patients, among other purposes. They aver that the petitioner failed to adduce substantial evidence that 100% of its out-patients and 170 beds in the hospital are reserved for indigent patients. The respondents further assert, thus: 13. That the claims/allegations of the Petitioner LCP do not speak well of its record of service. That before a patient is admitted for treatment in the Center, first impression is that it is pay-patient and required to pay a certain amount as deposit. That even if a patient is living below the poverty line, he is charged with high hospital bills. And, without these bills being first settled, the poor patient cannot be allowed to leave the hospital or be discharged without first paying the hospital bills or issue a promissory note guaranteed and indorsed by an influential agency or person known only to the Center; that even the remains of deceased poor patients suffered the same fate. Moreover, before a patient is admitted for treatment as free or charity patient, one must undergo a series of interviews and must submit all the requirements needed by the Center, usually accompanied by endorsement by an influential agency or person known only to the Center. These facts were heard and admitted by the Petitioner LCP during the hearings before the Honorable QC-BAA and Honorable CBAA. These are the reasons of indigent patients, instead of seeking treatment with the Center, they prefer to be treated at the Quezon Institute. Can such practice by the Center be called charitable?10

The Issues The issues for resolution are the following: (a) whether the petitioner is a charitable institution within the context of Presidential Decree No. 1823 and the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions and Section 234(b) of Republic Act No. 7160; and (b) whether the real properties of the petitioner are exempt from real property taxes. The Courts Ruling The petition is partially granted. On the first issue, we hold that the petitioner is a charitable institution within the context of the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions. To determine whether an enterprise is a charitable institution/entity or not, the elements which should be considered include the statute creating the enterprise, its corporate purposes, its constitution and by-laws, the methods of administration, the nature of the actual work performed, the character of the services rendered, the indefiniteness of the beneficiaries, and the use and occupation of the properties.11 In the legal sense, a charity may be fully defined as a gift, to be applied consistently with existing laws, for the benefit of an indefinite number of persons, either by bringing their minds and hearts under the influence of education or religion, by assisting them to establish themselves in life or otherwise lessening the burden of government.12 It may be applied to almost anything that tend to promote the well-doing and well-being of social man. It embraces the improvement and promotion of the happiness of man.13 The word "charitable" is not restricted to relief of the poor or sick.14 The test of a charity and a charitable organization are in law the same. The test

whether an enterprise is charitable or not is whether it exists to carry out a purpose reorganized in law as charitable or whether it is maintained for gain, profit, or private advantage. Under P.D. No. 1823, the petitioner is a non-profit and non-stock corporation which, subject to the provisions of the decree, is to be administered by the Office of the President of the Philippines with the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Human Settlements. It was organized for the welfare and benefit of the Filipino people principally to help combat the high incidence of lung and pulmonary diseases in the Philippines. The raison detre for the creation of the petitioner is stated in the decree, viz: Whereas, for decades, respiratory diseases have been a priority concern, having been the leading cause of illness and death in the Philippines, comprising more than 45% of the total annual deaths from all causes, thus, exacting a tremendous toll on human resources, which ailments are likely to increase and degenerate into serious lung diseases on account of unabated pollution, industrialization and unchecked cigarette smoking in the country;lavvph!l.net Whereas, the more common lung diseases are, to a great extent, preventable, and curable with early and adequate medical care, immunization and through prompt and intensive prevention and health education programs; Whereas, there is an urgent need to consolidate and reinforce existing programs, strategies and efforts at preventing, treating and rehabilitating people affected by lung diseases, and to undertake research and training on the cure and prevention of lung diseases, through a Lung

Center which will house and nurture the above and related activities and provide tertiarylevel care for more difficult and problematical cases; Whereas, to achieve this purpose, the Government intends to provide material and financial support towards the establishment and maintenance of a Lung Center for the welfare and benefit of the Filipino people.15 The purposes for which the petitioner was created are spelled out in its Articles of Incorporation, thus: SECOND: That the purposes for which such corporation is formed are as follows: 1. To construct, establish, equip, maintain, administer and conduct an integrated medical institution which shall specialize in the treatment, care, rehabilitation and/or relief of lung and allied diseases in line with the concern of the government to assist and provide material and financial support in the establishment and maintenance of a lung center primarily to benefit the people of the Philippines and in pursuance of the policy of the State to secure the well-being of the people by providing them specialized health and medical services and by minimizing the incidence of lung diseases in the country and elsewhere. 2. To promote the noble undertaking of scientific research related to the prevention of lung or pulmonary ailments and the care of lung patients, including the holding of a series of relevant congresses, conventions, seminars and conferences; 3. To stimulate and, whenever possible, underwrite scientific researches on the

biological, demographic, social, economic, eugenic and physiological aspects of lung or pulmonary diseases and their control; and to collect and publish the findings of such research for public consumption; 4. To facilitate the dissemination of ideas and public acceptance of information on lung consciousness or awareness, and the development of fact-finding, information and reporting facilities for and in aid of the general purposes or objects aforesaid, especially in human lung requirements, general health and physical fitness, and other relevant or related fields; 5. To encourage the training of physicians, nurses, health officers, social workers and medical and technical personnel in the practical and scientific implementation of services to lung patients; 6. To assist universities and research institutions in their studies about lung diseases, to encourage advanced training in matters of the lung and related fields and to support educational programs of value to general health; 7. To encourage the formation of other organizations on the national, provincial and/or city and local levels; and to coordinate their various efforts and activities for the purpose of achieving a more effective programmatic approach on the common problems relative to the objectives enumerated herein; 8. To seek and obtain assistance in any form from both international and local foundations and organizations; and to administer grants and funds that may be given to

the organization; 9. To extend, whenever possible and expedient, medical services to the public and, in general, to promote and protect the health of the masses of our people, which has long been recognized as an economic asset and a social blessing; 10. To help prevent, relieve and alleviate the lung or pulmonary afflictions and maladies of the people in any and all walks of life, including those who are poor and needy, all without regard to or discrimination, because of race, creed, color or political belief of the persons helped; and to enable them to obtain treatment when such disorders occur; 11. To participate, as circumstances may warrant, in any activity designed and carried on to promote the general health of the community; 12. To acquire and/or borrow funds and to own all funds or equipment, educational materials and supplies by purchase, donation, or otherwise and to dispose of and distribute the same in such manner, and, on such basis as the Center shall, from time to time, deem proper and best, under the particular circumstances, to serve its general and non-profit purposes and objectives;lavvphil.net 13. To buy, purchase, acquire, own, lease, hold, sell, exchange, transfer and dispose of properties, whether real or personal, for purposes herein mentioned; and 14. To do everything necessary, proper, advisable or convenient for the accomplishment of any of the powers herein set forth and to do every other act and

thing incidental thereto or connected therewith.16 Hence, the medical services of the petitioner are to be rendered to the public in general in any and all walks of life including those who are poor and the needy without discrimination. After all, any person, the rich as well as the poor, may fall sick or be injured or wounded and become a subject of charity.17 As a general principle, a charitable institution does not lose its character as such and its exemption from taxes simply because it derives income from paying patients, whether outpatient, or confined in the hospital, or receives subsidies from the government, so long as the money received is devoted or used altogether to the charitable object which it is intended to achieve; and no money inures to the private benefit of the persons managing or operating the institution.18 In Congregational Sunday School, etc. v. Board of Review,19 the State Supreme Court of Illinois held, thus: [A]n institution does not lose its charitable character, and consequent exemption from taxation, by reason of the fact that those recipients of its benefits who are able to pay are required to do so, where no profit is made by the institution and the amounts so received are applied in furthering its charitable purposes, and those benefits are refused to none on account of inability to pay therefor. The fundamental ground upon which all exemptions in favor of charitable institutions are based is the benefit conferred upon the public by them, and a consequent relief, to some extent, of the burden upon the state to care for and advance the interests of its citizens.20

As aptly stated by the State Supreme Court of South Dakota in Lutheran Hospital Association of South Dakota v. Baker:21 [T]he fact that paying patients are taken, the profits derived from attendance upon these patients being exclusively devoted to the maintenance of the charity, seems rather to enhance the usefulness of the institution to the poor; for it is a matter of common observation amongst those who have gone about at all amongst the suffering classes, that the deserving poor can with difficulty be persuaded to enter an asylum of any kind confined to the reception of objects of charity; and that their honest pride is much less wounded by being placed in an institution in which paying patients are also received. The fact of receiving money from some of the patients does not, we think, at all impair the character of the charity, so long as the money thus received is devoted altogether to the charitable object which the institution is intended to further.22 The money received by the petitioner becomes a part of the trust fund and must be devoted to public trust purposes and cannot be diverted to private profit or benefit.23 Under P.D. No. 1823, the petitioner is entitled to receive donations. The petitioner does not lose its character as a charitable institution simply because the gift or donation is in the form of subsidies granted by the government. As held by the State Supreme Court of Utah in Yorgason v. County Board of Equalization of Salt Lake County:24 Second, the government subsidy payments are provided to the project. Thus, those payments are like a gift or donation of any other kind except they come from the

government. In both Intermountain Health Care and the present case, the crux is the presence or absence of material reciprocity. It is entirely irrelevant to this analysis that the government, rather than a private benefactor, chose to make up the deficit resulting from the exchange between St. Marks Tower and the tenants by making a contribution to the landlord, just as it would have been irrelevant in Intermountain Health Care if the patients income supplements had come from private individuals rather than the government. Therefore, the fact that subsidization of part of the cost of furnishing such housing is by the government rather than private charitable contributions does not dictate the denial of a charitable exemption if the facts otherwise support such an exemption, as they do here.25 In this case, the petitioner adduced substantial evidence that it spent its income, including the subsidies from the government for 1991 and 1992 for its patients and for the operation of the hospital. It even incurred a net loss in 1991 and 1992 from its operations. Even as we find that the petitioner is a charitable institution, we hold, anent the second issue, that those portions of its real property that are leased to private entities are not exempt from real property taxes as these are not actually, directly and exclusively used for charitable purposes. The settled rule in this jurisdiction is that laws granting exemption from tax are construed strictissimi juris against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing power. Taxation is the rule and exemption is the exception. The effect of an exemption is equivalent to an appropriation. Hence, a claim for exemption from tax payments must be clearly shown and based on language in the law too plain to be mistaken.26 As held in Salvation Army v. Hoehn:27

An intention on the part of the legislature to grant an exemption from the taxing power of the state will never be implied from language which will admit of any other reasonable construction. Such an intention must be expressed in clear and unmistakable terms, or must appear by necessary implication from the language used, for it is a well settled principle that, when a special privilege or exemption is claimed under a statute, charter or act of incorporation, it is to be construed strictly against the property owner and in favor of the public. This principle applies with peculiar force to a claim of exemption from taxation . 28 Section 2 of Presidential Decree No. 1823, relied upon by the petitioner, specifically provides that the petitioner shall enjoy the tax exemptions and privileges: SEC. 2. TAX EXEMPTIONS AND PRIVILEGES. Being a non-profit, non-stock corporation organized primarily to help combat the high incidence of lung and pulmonary diseases in the Philippines, all donations, contributions, endowments and equipment and supplies to be imported by authorized entities or persons and by the Board of Trustees of the Lung Center of the Philippines, Inc., for the actual use and benefit of the Lung Center, shall be exempt from income and gift taxes, the same further deductible in full for the purpose of determining the maximum deductible amount under Section 30, paragraph (h), of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended. The Lung Center of the Philippines shall be exempt from the payment of taxes, charges and fees imposed by the Government or any political subdivision or instrumentality thereof

with respect to equipment purchases made by, or for the Lung Center.29 It is plain as day that under the decree, the petitioner does not enjoy any property tax exemption privileges for its real properties as well as the building constructed thereon. If the intentions were otherwise, the same should have been among the enumeration of tax exempt privileges under Section 2: It is a settled rule of statutory construction that the express mention of one person, thing, or consequence implies the exclusion of all others. The rule is expressed in the familiar maxim, expressio unius est exclusio alterius. The rule of expressio unius est exclusio alterius is formulated in a number of ways. One variation of the rule is the principle that what is expressed puts an end to that which is implied. Expressium facit cessare tacitum. Thus, where a statute, by its terms, is expressly limited to certain matters, it may not, by interpretation or construction, be extended to other matters. ... The rule of expressio unius est exclusio alterius and its variations are canons of restrictive interpretation. They are based on the rules of logic and the natural workings of the human mind. They are predicated upon ones own voluntary act and not upon that of others. They proceed from the premise that the legislature would not have made specified enumeration in a statute had the intention been not to restrict its meaning and confine its terms to those expressly mentioned.30

The exemption must not be so enlarged by construction since the reasonable presumption is that the State has granted in express terms all it intended to grant at all, and that unless the privilege is limited to the very terms of the statute the favor would be intended beyond what was meant.31 Section 28(3), Article VI of the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides, thus: (3) Charitable institutions, churches and parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and all lands, buildings, and improvements, actually, directly and exclusively used for religious, charitable or educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation.32 The tax exemption under this constitutional provision covers property taxes only.33 As Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., then a member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, explained: ". . . what is exempted is not the institution itself . . .; those exempted from real estate taxes are lands, buildings and improvements actually, directly and exclusively used for religious, charitable or educational purposes."34 Consequently, the constitutional provision is implemented by Section 234(b) of Republic Act No. 7160 (otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991) as follows: SECTION 234. Exemptions from Real Property Tax. The following are exempted from payment of the real property tax: ... (b) Charitable institutions, churches, parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto,

mosques, non-profit or religious cemeteries and all lands, buildings, and improvements actually, directly, and exclusively used for religious, charitable or educational purposes.35 We note that under the 1935 Constitution, "... all lands, buildings, and improvements used exclusively for charitable purposes shall be exempt from taxation."36 However, under the 1973 and the present Constitutions, for "lands, buildings, and improvements" of the charitable institution to be considered exempt, the same should not only be "exclusively" used for charitable purposes; it is required that such property be used "actually" and "directly" for such purposes.37 In light of the foregoing substantial changes in the Constitution, the petitioner cannot rely on our ruling in Herrera v. Quezon City Board of Assessment Appeals which was promulgated on September 30, 1961 before the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions took effect.38 As this Court held in Province of Abra v. Hernando:39 Under the 1935 Constitution: "Cemeteries, churches, and parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto, and all lands, buildings, and improvements used exclusively for religious, charitable, or educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation." The present Constitution added "charitable institutions, mosques, and non-profit cemeteries" and required that for the exemption of "lands, buildings, and improvements," they should not only be "exclusively" but also "actually" and "directly" used for religious or charitable purposes. The Constitution is worded differently. The change should not be ignored. It

must be duly taken into consideration. Reliance on past decisions would have sufficed were the words "actually" as well as "directly" not added. There must be proof therefore of the actual and direct use of the lands, buildings, and improvements for religious or charitable purposes to be exempt from taxation. Under the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions and Rep. Act No. 7160 in order to be entitled to the exemption, the petitioner is burdened to prove, by clear and unequivocal proof, that (a) it is a charitable institution; and (b) its real properties are ACTUALLY, DIRECTLY and EXCLUSIVELY used for charitable purposes. "Exclusive" is defined as possessed and enjoyed to the exclusion of others; debarred from participation or enjoyment; and "exclusively" is defined, "in a manner to exclude; as enjoying a privilege exclusively."40 If real property is used for one or more commercial purposes, it is not exclusively used for the exempted purposes but is subject to taxation.41 The words "dominant use" or "principal use" cannot be substituted for the words "used exclusively" without doing violence to the Constitutions and the law.42 Solely is synonymous with exclusively.43 What is meant by actual, direct and exclusive use of the property for charitable purposes is the direct and immediate and actual application of the property itself to the purposes for which the charitable institution is organized. It is not the use of the income from the real property that is determinative of whether the property is used for tax-exempt purposes.44 The petitioner failed to discharge its burden to prove that the entirety of its real property is actually, directly and exclusively used for charitable purposes. While portions of the hospital are

used for the treatment of patients and the dispensation of medical services to them, whether paying or non-paying, other portions thereof are being leased to private individuals for their clinics and a canteen. Further, a portion of the land is being leased to a private individual for her business enterprise under the business name "Elliptical Orchids and Garden Center." Indeed, the petitioners evidence shows that it collected P1,136,483.45 as rentals in 1991 and P1,679,999.28 for 1992 from the said lessees. Accordingly, we hold that the portions of the land leased to private entities as well as those parts of the hospital leased to private individuals are not exempt from such taxes.45 On the other hand, the portions of the land occupied by the hospital and portions of the hospital used for its patients, whether paying or non-paying, are exempt from real property taxes. IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The respondent Quezon City Assessor is hereby DIRECTED to determine, after due hearing, the precise portions of the land and the area thereof which are leased to private persons, and to compute the real property taxes due thereon as provided for by law. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 124043 October 14, 1998 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, COURT OF TAX APPEALS and YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC., respondents. PANGANIBAN, J.: Is the income derived from rentals of real property owned by the Young Men's Christian Association of the Philippines, Inc. (YMCA) established as "a welfare, educational and charitable non-profit corporation" subject to income tax under the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) and the Constitution? The Case This is the main question raised before us in this petition for review on certiorari challenging two Resolutions issued by the Court of Appeals 1 on September 28, 1995 2 and February 29, 1996 3 in CA-GR SP No. 32007. Both Resolutions affirmed the Decision of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) allowing the YMCA to claim tax exemption on the latter's income from the lease of its real property. The Facts The facts are undisputed. 4 Private Respondent YMCA is a non-stock, non-profit

institution, which conducts various programs and activities that are beneficial to the public, especially the young people, pursuant to its religious, educational and charitable objectives. In 1980, private respondent earned, among others, an income of P676,829.80 from leasing out a portion of its premises to small shop owners, like restaurants and canteen operators, and P44,259.00 from parking fees collected from non-members. On July 2, 1984, the commissioner of internal revenue (CIR) issued an assessment to private respondent, in the total amount of P415,615.01 including surcharge and interest, for deficiency income tax, deficiency expanded withholding taxes on rentals and professional fees and deficiency withholding tax on wages. Private respondent formally protested the assessment and, as a supplement to its basic protest, filed a letter dated October 8, 1985. In reply, the CIR denied the claims of YMCA. Contesting the denial of its protest, the YMCA filed a petition for review at the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) on March 14, 1989. In due course, the CTA issued this ruling in favor of the YMCA:
. . . [T]he leasing of [private respondent's] facilities to small shop owners, to restaurant and canteen operators and the operation of the parking lot are reasonably incidental to and reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the objectives of the [private respondents]. It appears from the testimonies of the witnesses for the [private respondent] particularly Mr. James C. Delote, former accountant of YMCA, that these facilities were leased to members and that they have to service the needs of its

members and their guests. The rentals were minimal as for example, the barbershop was only charged P300 per month. He also testified that there was actually no lot devoted for parking space but the parking was done at the sides of the building. The parking was primarily for members with stickers on the windshields of their cars and they charged P.50 for non-members. The rentals and parking fees were just enough to cover the costs of operation and maintenance only. The earning[s] from these rentals and parking charges including those from lodging and other charges for the use of the recreational facilities constitute [the] bulk of its income which [is] channeled to support its many activities and attainment of its objectives. As pointed out earlier, the membership dues are very insufficient to support its program. We find it reasonably necessary therefore for [private respondent] to make [the] most out [of] its existing facilities to earn some income. It would have been different if under the circumstances, [private respondent] will purchase a lot and convert it to a parking lot to cater to the needs of the general public for a fee, or construct a building and lease it out to the highest bidder or at the market rate for commercial purposes, or should it invest its funds in the buy and sell of properties, real or personal. Under these circumstances, we could conclude that the activities are already profit oriented, not incidental and reasonably necessary to the pursuit of the objectives of the association and therefore, will fall under the last paragraph of Section 27 of the Tax Code and any income derived therefrom shall be taxable. Considering our findings that [private respondent] was not engaged in the business of operating or contracting [a] parking lot, we find no legal basis also for the imposition of [a] deficiency fixed tax and [a] contractor's tax in the amount[s] of P353.15 and P3,129.73, respectively.

xxx xxx xxx WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the following assessments are hereby dismissed for lack of merit: 1980 Deficiency Fixed Tax P353,15; 1980 Deficiency Contractor's Tax P3,129.23; 1980 Deficiency Income Tax P372,578.20.

While the following assessments are hereby sustained:

1980 Deficiency Expanded Withholding Tax P1,798.93; 1980 Deficiency Withholding Tax on Wages P33,058.82 plus 10% surcharge and 20% interest per annum from July 2, 1984 until fully paid but not to exceed three (3) years pursuant to Section 51(e)(2) & (3) of the National Internal Revenue Code effective as of 1984. 5

Dissatisfied with the CTA ruling, the CIR elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA). In its Decision of February 16, 1994, the CA 6 initially decided in favor of the CIR and disposed of the appeal in the following manner:
Following the ruling in the afore-cited cases of Province of Abra vs. Hernando and Abra Valley College Inc. vs. Aquino, the ruling of the respondent Court of Tax Appeals that "the leasing of petitioner's (herein respondent's) facilities to small shop owners, to restaurant and canteen operators and the operation of the parking lot are reasonably incidental to and reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the objectives of the

petitioners, and the income derived therefrom are tax exempt, must be reversed. WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby REVERSED in so far as it dismissed the assessment for: 1980 Deficiency Income Tax P 353.15 1980 Deficiency Contractor's Tax P 3,129.23, & 1980 Deficiency Income Tax P 372,578.20

but the same is AFFIRMED in all other respect. 7 Aggrieved, the YMCA asked for reconsideration based on the following grounds:
I The findings of facts of the Public Respondent Court of Tax Appeals being supported by substantial evidence [are] final and conclusive. II The conclusions of law of [p]ublic [r]espondent exempting [p]rivate [r]espondent from the income on rentals of small shops and parking fees [are] in accord with the applicable law and jurisprudence. 8

Finding merit in the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the YMCA, the CA reversed itself and promulgated on September 28, 1995 its first assailed Resolution which, in part, reads:
The Court cannot depart from the CTA's findings of fact, as they are supported by

evidence beyond what is considered as substantial. xxx xxx xxx The second ground raised is that the respondent CTA did not err in saying that the rental from small shops and parking fees do not result in the loss of the exemption. Not even the petitioner would hazard the suggestion that YMCA is designed for profit. Consequently, the little income from small shops and parking fees help[s] to keep its head above the water, so to speak, and allow it to continue with its laudable work. The Court, therefore, finds the second ground of the motion to be meritorious and in accord with law and jurisprudence. WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is GRANTED; the respondent CTA's decision is AFFIRMED in toto. 9

The internal revenue commissioner's own Motion for Reconsideration was denied by Respondent Court in its second assailed Resolution of February 29, 1996. Hence, this petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. 10 The Issues Before us, petitioner imputes to the Court of Appeals the following errors:
I In holding that it had departed from the findings of fact of Respondent Court of Tax Appeals when it rendered its Decision dated February 16, 1994; and II

In affirming the conclusion of Respondent Court of Tax Appeals that the income of private respondent from rentals of small shops and parking fees [is] exempt from taxation. 11

This Court's Ruling The petition is meritorious. First Issue: Factual Findings of the CTA Private respondent contends that the February 16, 1994 CA Decision reversed the factual findings of the CTA. On the other hand, petitioner argues that the CA merely reversed the "ruling of the CTA that the leasing of private respondent's facilities to small shop owners, to restaurant and canteen operators and the operation of parking lots are reasonably incidental to and reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the objectives of the private respondent and that the income derived therefrom are tax exempt." 12 Petitioner insists that what the appellate court reversed was the legal conclusion, not the factual finding, of the CTA. 13 The commissioner has a point. Indeed, it is a basic rule in taxation that the factual findings of the CTA, when supported by substantial evidence, will be disturbed on appeal unless it is shown that the said court committed gross error in the appreciation of facts. 14 In the present case, this Court finds that the February 16, 1994 Decision of the CA did not deviate from this rule. The latter merely applied the law to the facts as found by the CTA and ruled on the

issue raised by the CIR: "Whether or not the collection or earnings of rental income from the lease of certain premises and income earned from parking fees shall fall under the last paragraph of Section 27 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1977, as amended." 15 Clearly, the CA did not alter any fact or evidence. It merely resolved the aforementioned issue, as indeed it was expected to. That it did so in a manner different from that of the CTA did not necessarily imply a reversal of factual findings. The distinction between a question of law and a question of fact is clear-cut. It has been held that "[t]here is a question of law in a given case when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts; there is a question of fact when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of alleged facts." 16 In the present case, the CA did not doubt, much less change, the facts narrated by the CTA. It merely applied the law to the facts. That its interpretation or conclusion is different from that of the CTA is not irregular or abnormal. Second Issue: Is the Rental Income of the YMCA Taxable? We now come to the crucial issue: Is the rental income of the YMCA from its real estate subject to tax? At the outset, we set forth the relevant provision of the NIRC:
Sec. 27. Exemptions from tax on corporations. The following organizations shall not be taxed under this Title in respect to income received by them as such

xxx xxx xxx (g) Civic league or organization not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare; (h) Club organized and operated exclusively for pleasure, recreation, and other nonprofitable purposes, no part of the net income of which inures to the benefit of any private stockholder or member; xxx xxx xxx Notwithstanding the provisions in the preceding paragraphs, the income of whatever kind and character of the foregoing organizations from any of their properties, real or personal, or from any of their activities conducted for profit, regardless of the disposition made of such income, shall be subject to the tax imposed under this Code. (as amended by Pres. Decree No. 1457)

Petitioner argues that while the income received by the organizations enumerated in Section 27 (now Section 26) of the NIRC is, as a rule, exempted from the payment of tax "in respect to income received by them as such," the exemption does not apply to income derived ". . . from any of their properties, real or personal, or from any of their activities conducted for profit, regardless of the disposition made of such income . . . ." Petitioner adds that "rental income derived by a tax-exempt organization from the lease of its properties, real or personal, [is] not, therefore, exempt from income taxation, even if such income [is] exclusively used for the accomplishment of its objectives." 17 We agree with the commissioner.

Because taxes are the lifeblood of the nation, the Court has always applied the doctrine of strict in interpretation in construing tax exemptions. 18 Furthermore, a claim of statutory exemption from taxation should be manifest. and unmistakable from the language of the law on which it is based. Thus, the claimed exemption "must expressly be granted in a statute stated in a language too clear to be mistaken." 19 In the instant case, the exemption claimed by the YMCA is expressly disallowed by the very wording of the last paragraph of then Section 27 of the NIRC which mandates that the income of exempt organizations (such as the YMCA) from any of their properties, real or personal, be subject to the tax imposed by the same Code. Because the last paragraph of said section unequivocally subjects to tax the rent income of the YMCA from its real property, 20 the Court is duty-bound to abide strictly by its literal meaning and to refrain from resorting to any convoluted attempt at construction. It is axiomatic that where the language of the law is clear and unambiguous, its express terms must be applied. 21 Parenthetically, a consideration of the question of construction must not even begin, particularly when such question is on whether to apply a strict construction or a liberal one on statutes that grant tax exemptions to "religious, charitable and educational propert[ies] or institutions." 22 The last paragraph of Section 27, the YMCA argues, should be "subject to the qualification that the income from the properties must arise from activities 'conducted for profit' before it may be considered taxable." 23 This argument is erroneous. As

previously stated, a reading of said paragraph ineludibly shows that the income from any property of exempt organizations, as well as that arising from any activity it conducts for profit, is taxable. The phrase "any of their activities conducted for profit" does not qualify the word "properties." This makes from the property of the organization taxable, regardless of how that income is used whether for profit or for lofty nonprofit purposes. Verba legis non est recedendum. Hence, Respondent Court of Appeals committed reversible error when it allowed, on reconsideration, the tax exemption claimed by YMCA on income it derived from renting out its real property, on the solitary but unconvincing ground that the said income is not collected for profit but is merely incidental to its operation. The law does not make a distinction. The rental income is taxable regardless of whence such income is derived and how it is used or disposed of. Where the law does not distinguish, neither should we. Constitutional Provisions On Taxation Invoking not only the NIRC but also the fundamental law, private respondent submits that Article VI, Section 28 of par. 3 of the 1987 Constitution, 24 exempts "charitable institutions" from the payment not only of property taxes but also of income tax from any source. 25 In support of its novel theory, it compares the use of the words "charitable institutions," "actually" and "directly" in the 1973 and the 1987 Constitutions,

on the one hand; and in Article VI, Section 22, par. 3 of the 1935 Constitution, on the other hand. 26 Private respondent enunciates three points. First, the present provision is divisible into two categories: (1) "[c]haritable institutions, churches and parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto, mosques and non-profit cemeteries," the incomes of which are, from whatever source, all tax-exempt; 27 and (2) "[a]ll lands, buildings and improvements actually and directly used for religious, charitable or educational purposes," which are exempt only from property taxes. 28 Second, Lladoc v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 29 which limited the exemption only to the payment of property taxes, referred to the provision of the 1935 Constitution and not to its counterparts in the 1973 and the 1987 Constitutions. 30 Third, the phrase "actually, directly and exclusively used for religious, charitable or educational purposes" refers not only to "all lands, buildings and improvements," but also to the above-quoted first category which includes charitable institutions like the private respondent. 31 The Court is not persuaded. The debates, interpellations and expressions of opinion of the framers of the Constitution reveal their intent which, in turn, may have guided the people in ratifying the Charter. 32 Such intent must be effectuated. Accordingly, Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., a former constitutional commissioner, who is now a member of this Court, stressed during the Concom debates that ". . . what is exempted is not the institution itself . . .; those exempted from real estate taxes are

lands, buildings and improvements actually, directly and exclusively used for religious, charitable or educational purposes." 33 Father Joaquin G. Bernas, an eminent authority on the Constitution and also a member of the Concom, adhered to the same view that the exemption created by said provision pertained only to property taxes. 34 In his treatise on taxation, Mr. Justice Jose C. Vitug concurs, stating that "[t]he tax exemption covers property taxes only." 35 Indeed, the income tax exemption claimed by private respondent finds no basis in Article VI, Section 26, par. 3 of the Constitution. Private respondent also invokes Article XIV, Section 4, par. 3 of the Character, 36 claiming that the YMCA "is a non-stock, non-profit educational institution whose revenues and assets are used actually, directly and exclusively for educational purposes so it is exempt from taxes on its properties and income." 37 We reiterate that private respondent is exempt from the payment of property tax, but not income tax on the rentals from its property. The bare allegation alone that it is a non-stock, non-profit educational institution is insufficient to justify its exemption from the payment of income tax. As previously discussed, laws allowing tax exemption are construed strictissimi juris. Hence, for the YMCA to be granted the exemption it claims under the aforecited provision, it must prove with substantial evidence that (1) it falls under the classification non-stock, non-profit educational institution; and (2) the income it seeks to be exempted

from taxation is used actually, directly, and exclusively for educational purposes. However, the Court notes that not a scintilla of evidence was submitted by private respondent to prove that it met the said requisites. Is the YMCA an educational institution within the purview of Article XIV, Section 4, par. 3 of the Constitution? We rule that it is not. The term "educational institution" or "institution of learning" has acquired a well-known technical meaning, of which the members of the Constitutional Commission are deemed cognizant. 38 Under the Education Act of 1982, such term refers to schools. 39 The school system is synonymous with formal education, 40 which "refers to the hierarchically structured and chronologically graded learnings organized and provided by the formal school system and for which certification is required in order for the learner to progress through the grades or move to the higher levels." 41 The Court has examined the "Amended Articles of Incorporation" and "By-Laws" 43 of the YMCA, but found nothing in them that even hints that it is a school or an educational institution. 44 Furthermore, under the Education Act of 1982, even non-formal education is understood to be school-based and "private auspices such as foundations and civicspirited organizations" are ruled out. 45 It is settled that the term "educational institution," when used in laws granting tax exemptions, refers to a ". . . school seminary, college or educational establishment . . . ." 46 Therefore, the private respondent cannot be deemed one of the educational institutions covered by the

constitutional provision under consideration.

. . . Words used in the Constitution are to be taken in their ordinary acceptation. While in its broadest and best sense education embraces all forms and phases of instruction, improvement and development of mind and body, and as well of religious and moral sentiments, yet in the common understanding and application it means a place where systematic instruction in any or all of the useful branches of learning is given by methods common to schools and institutions of learning. That we conceive to be the true intent and scope of the term [educational institutions,] as used in the Constitution. 47

Moreover, without conceding that Private Respondent YMCA is an educational institution, the Court also notes that the former did not submit proof of the proportionate amount of the subject income that was actually, directly and exclusively used for educational purposes. Article XIII, Section 5 of the YMCA by-laws, which formed part of the evidence submitted, is patently insufficient, since the same merely signified that "[t]he net income derived from the rentals of the commercial buildings shall be apportioned to the Federation and Member Associations as the National Board may decide." 48 In sum, we find no basis for granting the YMCA exemption from income tax under the constitutional provision invoked. Cases Cited by Private Respondent Inapplicable

The cases 49 relied on by private respondent do not support its cause. YMCA of Manila v. Collector of Internal Revenue 50 and Abra Valley College, Inc. v. Aquino 51 are not applicable, because the controversy in both cases involved exemption from the payment of property tax, not income tax. Hospital de San Juan de Dios, Inc. v. Pasay City 52 is not in point either, because it involves a claim for exemption from the payment of regulatory fees, specifically electrical inspection fees, imposed by an ordinance of Pasay City an issue not at all related to that involved in a claimed exemption from the payment of income taxes imposed on property leases. In Jesus Sacred Heart College v. Com. of Internal Revenue, 53 the party therein, which claimed an exemption from the payment of income tax, was an educational institution which submitted substantial evidence that the income subject of the controversy had been devoted or used solely for educational purposes. On the other hand, the private respondent in the present case has not given any proof that it is an educational institution, or that part of its rent income is actually, directly and exclusively used for educational purposes. Epilogue In deliberating on this petition, the Court expresses its sympathy with private respondent. It appreciates the nobility of its cause. However, the Court's power and function are limited merely to applying the law fairly and objectively. It cannot change the law or bend it to suit its sympathies and appreciations. Otherwise, it would be overspilling its role and invading the realm of legislation.

We concede that private respondent deserves the help and the encouragement of the government. It needs laws that can facilitate, and not frustrate, its humanitarian tasks. But the Court regrets that, given its limited constitutional authority, it cannot rule on the wisdom or propriety of legislation. That prerogative belongs to the political departments of government. Indeed, some of the members of the Court may even believe in the wisdom and prudence of granting more tax exemptions to private respondent. But such belief, however well-meaning and sincere, cannot bestow upon the Court the power to change or amend the law. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated September 28, 1995 and February 29, 1996 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated February 16, 1995 is REINSTATED, insofar as it ruled that the income derived by petitioner from rentals of its real property is subject to income tax. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. L-6093 February 24, 1954 THE SHELL CO. OF P.I., LTD., plaintiff-appellant, vs. E. E. VAO, as Municipal Treasurer of the Municipality of Cordova, Province of Cebu, defendant-appellee. C.J. Johnston and A.P. Deen for appellant. Provincial Fiscal Jose C. Borromeo and Assistant Provincial Fiscal Ananias V. Maribao for appellee. PADILLA, J.: The Municipal Council of Cordova, Province of Cebu, adopted the following ordinances: No. 10, series of 1946, which imposes an annual tax of P150 on occupation or the exercise of the privilege of installation manager; No. 9, series of 1947, which imposes an annual tax of P40 for local deposits in drums of combustible and inflammable materials and an annual tax of P200 for tin can factories; and No. 11, series of 1948, which imposes an annual tax of P150 on tin can factories having a maximum output capacity of 30,000 tin cans. The Shell Co. of P.I. Ltd., a foreign corporation, filed suit for the refund of the taxes paid by it, on the ground that the ordinances imposing such taxes are ultra vires. The defendant denies that they are so. The controversy was submitted for judgment upon stipulation of facts which reads as follows: Come now the parties in the above-entitled case by their undersigned attorneys and hereby agree to the following stipulation of facts:

1. That the parties admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of the Amended Complaint referring to residence, personality, and capacity of the parties except the fact that E.E. Vao is now replaced by F.A. Corbo as Municipal Treasurer of Cordova, Cebu; 2. That the parties admit the allegations contained in paragraph 2 of the Amended Complaint. Official Receipts Nos. A-1280606, A-37607422, A-3769852 and A-21030388 are herein marked as Exhibits A, B, C, and D, respectively for the plaintiff; 3. That the parties admit that payments made under Exhibits B, C, and D were all under protest and plaintiff admits that Exhibit A was not paid under protest; 4. That the parties admit that Official Receipt No. A-1280606 for P40 and Official Receipt No. A-3760742 for P200 were collected by the defendant by virtue of Ordinance No. 9, (Secs. E-4 and E-6, respectively) under Resolution No. 31, series of 1947, enacted December 15, 1947, approved by the Provincial Board of Cebu in its Resolution No. 644, series of 1948. Copy of said Ordinance No. 9, series of 1947, is herein marked as Exhibit "E" for the plaintiff, and as Exhibit "I" for the defendant; 5. That the parties admit that Official Receipt No. A-3760852 for P150 was paid for taxes imposed on Installation Managers, collected by the defendant by virtue of Ordinance No. 10 (section 3, E-12) under Resolution No. 38, series of 1946, approved by the Provincial Board of Cebu in its Resolution No. 1070, series of 1946. Copy of .said Ordinance No. 10, series of 1946 is marked as Exhibit "F" for the plaintiff and as Exhibit "2" for the defendant; 6. That the parties admit that Official Receipt No. A-21030388 for P5,450 was paid by

plaintiff and that said amount was collected by defendant by virtue of Ordinance No. 11, series of 1948 (under Resolution No. 46) enacted August 31, 1948 and approved by the Provincial Board of Cebu in its Resolution No. 115, series of 1949, and same was approved by the Honorable Secretary of Finance under the provisions of section 4 of Commonwealth Act No. 472. Copy of said Ordinance No. 11, series of 1948 is herein marked as Exhibit "G" for the plaintiff, and Exhibit "3" for the defendant. Copy of the approval of the Honorable Secretary of Finance of the same Ordinance is herein marked as Exhibit "4" for the defendant. Wherefore, aside from oral evidence which may be offered by the parties and other points not covered by this stipulation, this case is hereby submitted upon the foregoing agreed facts and record of evidence. Cebu City, Philippines, January 20, 1950. THE SHELL CO. OF P.I. C.D. JOHNSTON & A.P. LTD. DEEN (Sgd.) L. DE (Sgd.) A.P. DEEN BLECHYNDEN Attys. for the plaintiff Plaintiff (Sgd.) JOSE C. THE MUNICIPALITY OF CORDOVA BORROMEO

(Sgd.) F.A. CORBO Defendant

Provincial Fiscal Attorney for the defendant

(Record on Appeal, pp. 15-18.) The parties reserved the right to introduce parole evidence but no such evidence was submitted by either party. From the judgment holding the ordinances valid and dismissing the complaint the plaintiff has appealed. It is contended that as the municipal ordinance imposing an annual tax of P40 for "minor local deposit in drums of combustible and inflammable materials," and of P200 "for tin factory" was adopted under and pursuant to section 2244 of the Revised Administrative Code, which provides that the municipal council in the exercise of the regulative authority may require any person engaged in any business or occupation, such as "storing combustible or explosive materials" or "the conducting of any other business of an unwholesome, obnoxious, offensive, or dangerous character," to obtain a permit for which a reasonable fee, in no case to exceed P10 per annum, may be charged, the annual tax of P40 and P200 are unauthorized and illegal. The permit and the fee referred to may be required and charged by the Municipal Council of Cordova in the exercise of its regulative authority, whereas the ordinance which imposes the taxes in question was adopted under and pursuant to the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 472, which authorizes municipal councils and municipal district councils "to impose license taxes upon

persons engaged in any occupation or business, or exercising privileges in the municipality or municipal district, by requiring them to secure licenses at rates fixed by the municipal council or municipal district council," which shall be just and uniform but not "percentage taxes and taxes on specified articles." Likewise, Ordinance No. 10, series of 1946, which imposes an annual tax of P150 on "installation manager" comes under the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 472. But it is claimed that "installation manager" is a designation made by the plaintiff and such designation cannot be deemed to be a "calling" as defined in section 178 of the National Internal Revenue Code (Com. Act No. 466), and that the installation manager employed by the plaintiff is a salaried employee which may not be taxed by the municipal council under the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 472. This contention is without merit, because even if the installation manager is a salaried employee of the plaintiff, still it is an occupation "and one occupation or line of business does not become exempt by being conducted with some other occupation or business for which such tax has been paid'1 and the occupation tax must be paid "by each individual engaged in a calling subject thereto."2 And pursuant to section 179 of the National Internal Revenue Code, "The payment of . . . occupation tax shall not exempt any person from any tax, . . . provided by law or ordinance in places where such . . . occupation in . . . regulated by municipal law, nor shall the payment of any such tax be held to prohibit any municipality from placing a tax upon the same . . . occupation, for local purposes, where the imposition of such tax is authorized by law." It is true that, according to the stipulation of facts, Ordinance No. 10, series of 1946, was approved by the Provincial Board of Cebu in its Resolution No. 1070, series of 1946, and that it does not appear that it was approved by the Department of Finance, as

provided for and required in section 4, paragraph 2, of Commonwealth Act No. 472, the rate of municipal tax being in excess of P50 per annum. But at this point on the approval of the Department of Finance was not raised in the court below, it cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. The issue joined by the parties in their pleadings and the point raised by the plaintiff is that the municipal council was not empowered to adopt the ordinance and not that it was not approved by the Department of Finance. The fact that it was not stated in the stipulation of facts justifies the presumption that the ordinance was approved in accordance with law. The contention that the ordinance is discriminatory and hostile because there is no other person in the locality who exercises such "designation" or occupation is also without merit, because the fact that there is no other person in the locality who exercises such a "designation" or calling does not make the ordinance discriminatory and hostile, inasmuch as it is and will be applicable to any person or firm who exercises such calling or occupation named or designated as "installation manager." Lastly, Ordinance No. 11, series of 1948, which imposes a municipal tax of P150 on tin can factories having a maximum annual output capacity of 30,000 tin cans which, according to the stipulation of facts, was approved by the Provincial Board of Cebu and the Department of Finance, is valid and lawful, because it is neither a percentage tax nor one on specified articles which are the only exceptions provided in section 1, Commonwealth Act No. 472. Neither does it fall under any of the prohibitions provided for in section 3 of the same Act. Specific taxes enumerated in the National Internal Revenue Code are those that are imposed upon "things manufactured or produced in the Philippines for domestic sale or consumption" and upon

"things imported from the United States and foreign countries," such as distilled spirits, domestic denatured alcohol, fermented liquors, products of tobacco, cigars and cigarettes, matches, mechanical lighters, firecrackers, skimmed milk, manufactured oils and other fuels, coal, bunker fuel oil, diesel fuel oil, cinematographic films, playing cards, sacharine. 3 And it is not a percentage tax because it is tax on business and the maximum annual output capacity is not a percentage, because it is not a share or a tax based on the amount of the proceeds realized out of the sale of the tin cans manufactured therein but on the business of manufacturing tin cans having a maximum annual output capacity of 30,000 tin cans. In an action for refund of municipal taxes claimed to have been paid and collected under an illegal ordinance, the real party in interest is not the municipal treasurer but the municipality concerned that is empowered to sue and be sued.4 The judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against the appellant.

G.R. No. L-4376 May 22, 1953 ASSOCIATION OF CUSTOMS BROKERS, INC. and G. MANLAPIT, INC., petitionersappellants, vs. THE MUNICIPALITY BOARD, THE CITY TREASURER, THE CITY ASSESSOR and THE CITY MAYOR, all of the City of Manila, respondents-appellees. Teotimo A. Roja for appellants. City Fiscal Eugenio Angeles and Assistant Fiscal Eulogio S. Serrano for appellees. BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.: This is a petition for declaratory relief to test the validity of Ordinance No. 3379 passed by the Municipal Board of the City of Manila on March 24, 1950. The Association of Customs Brokers, Inc., which is composed of all brokers and public service operators of motor vehicles in the City of Manila, and G. Manlapit, Inc., a member of said association, also a public service operator of the trucks in said City, challenge the validity of said ordinance on the ground that (1) while it levies a so-called property tax it is in reality a license tax which is beyond the power of the Municipal Board of the City of Manila; (2) said ordinance offends against the rule of uniformity of taxation; and (3) it constitutes double taxation. The respondents, represented by the city fiscal, contend on their part that the challenged ordinance imposes a property tax which is within the power of the City of Manila to impose

under its Revised Charter [Section 18 (p) of Republic Act No. 409], and that the tax in question does not violate the rule of uniformity of taxation, nor does it constitute double taxation. The issues having been joined, the Court of First Instance of Manila sustained the validity of the ordinance and dismissed the petition. Hence this appeal. The disputed ordinance was passed by the Municipal Board of the City of Manila under the authority conferred by section 18 (p) of Republic Act No. 409. Said section confers upon the municipal board the power "to tax motor and other vehicles operating within the City of Manila the provisions of any existing law to the contrary notwithstanding." It is contended that this power is broad enough to confer upon the City of Manila the power to enact an ordinance imposing the property tax on motor vehicles operating within the city limits. In the deciding the issue before us it is necessary to bear in mind the pertinent provisions of the Motor Vehicles Law, as amended, (Act No. 3992) which has a bearing on the power of the municipal corporation to impose tax on motor vehicles operating in any highway in the Philippines. The pertinent provisions are contained in section 70 (b) which provide in part: No further fees than those fixed in this Act shall be exacted or demanded by any public highway, bridge or ferry, or for the exercise of the profession of chauffeur, or for the operation of any motor vehicle by the owner thereof: Provided, however, That nothing in this Act shall be construed to exempt any motor vehicle from the payment of any lawful and equitable insular, local or municipal property tax imposed thereupon. . . . Note that under the above section no fees may be exacted or demanded for the operation of any

motor vehicle other than those therein provided, the only exception being that which refers to the property tax which may be imposed by a municipal corporation. This provision is allinclusive in that sense that it applies to all motor vehicles. In this sense, this provision should be construed as limiting the broad grant of power conferred upon the City of Manila by its Charter to impose taxes. When section 18 of said Charter provides that the City of Manila can impose a tax on motor vehicles operating within its limit, it can only refers to property tax as a different interpretation would make it repugnant to the Motor Vehicle Law. Coming now to the ordinance in question, we find that its title refers to it as "An Ordinance Levying a Property Tax on All Motor Vehicles Operating Within the City of Manila", and that in its section 1 it provides that the tax should be 1 per cent ad valorem per annum. It also provides that the proceeds of the tax "shall accrue to the Streets and Bridges Funds of the City and shall be expended exclusively for the repair, maintenance and improvement of its streets and bridges." Considering the wording used in the ordinance in the light in the purpose for which the tax is created, can we consider the tax thus imposed as property tax, as claimed by respondents? While as a rule an ad valorem tax is a property tax, and this rule is supported by some authorities, the rule should not be taken in its absolute sense if the nature and purpose of the tax as gathered from the context show that it is in effect an excise or a license tax. Thus, it has been held that "If a tax is in its nature an excise, it does not become a property tax because it is proportioned in amount to the value of the property used in connection with the occupation, privilege or act which is taxed. Every excise necessarily must finally fall upon and be paid by property and so may be indirectly a tax upon property; but if it is really imposed upon the

performance of an act, enjoyment of a privilege, or the engaging in an occupation, it will be considered an excise." (26 R. C. L., 35-36.) It has also been held that The character of the tax as a property tax or a license or occupation tax must be determined by its incidents, and from the natural and legal effect of the language employed in the act or ordinance, and not by the name by which it is described, or by the mode adopted in fixing its amount. If it is clearly a property tax, it will be so regarded, even though nominally and in form it is a license or occupation tax; and, on the other hand, if the tax is levied upon persons on account of their business, it will be construed as a license or occupation tax, even though it is graduated according to the property used in such business, or on the gross receipts of the business. (37 C.J., 172) The ordinance in question falls under the foregoing rules. While it refers to property tax and it is fixed ad valorem yet we cannot reject the idea that it is merely levied on motor vehicles operating within the City of Manila with the main purpose of raising funds to be expended exclusively for the repair, maintenance and improvement of the streets and bridges in said city. This is precisely what the Motor Vehicle Law (Act No. 3992) intends to prevent, for the reason that, under said Act, municipal corporation already participate in the distribution of the proceeds that are raised for the same purpose of repairing, maintaining and improving bridges and public highway (section 73 of the Motor Vehicle Law). This prohibition is intended to prevent duplication in the imposition of fees for the same purpose. It is for this reason that we believe that the ordinance in question merely imposes a license fee although under the cloak of an ad valorem tax to circumvent the prohibition above adverted to.

It is also our opinion that the ordinance infringes the rule of the uniformity of taxation ordained by our Constitution. Note that the ordinance exacts the tax upon all motor vehicles operating within the City of Manila. It does not distinguish between a motor vehicle for hire and one which is purely for private use. Neither does it distinguish between a motor vehicle registered in the City of Manila and one registered in another place but occasionally comes to Manila and uses its streets and public highways. The distinction is important if we note that the ordinance intends to burden with the tax only those registered in the City of Manila as may be inferred from the word "operating" used therein. The word "operating" denotes a connotation which is akin to a registration, for under the Motor Vehicle Law no motor vehicle can be operated without previous payment of the registration fees. There is no pretense that the ordinance equally applies to motor vehicles who come to Manila for a temporary stay or for short errands, and it cannot be denied that they contribute in no small degree to the deterioration of the streets and public highway. The fact that they are benefited by their use they should also be made to share the corresponding burden. And yet such is not the case. This is an inequality which we find in the ordinance, and which renders it offensive to the Constitution. Wherefore, reversing the decision appealed from, we hereby declare the ordinance null and void.

[ G.R. No. L-9167, September 27, 1956 ]

WE WA YU, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. CITY OP LIPA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

DECISION
BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.: Plaintiff is the owner and manager of a gasoline station located in the City of Lipa where gasoline, kerosene, oil and the like are sold. He paid under protest to the city treasurer during the period from October 24, 1952 to September 30, 1953 the aggregate sum of P733.84 as taxes levied under Ordinance No. 457-A, as amended by Ordiance No. 462, imposing one-tenth 1/10) centavo per liter on the sale of gasoline and one-half (1/2) centavo per liter on the sale of alcohol, gas, or petroleum that may be made in any store or establishment within the city. To recover the amount paid on the ground that the two ordinances are ultra vires, he brought the present action in the Court of First Instance of Batangas. The City of Lipa put up the defense that the ordinances are valid because they were enacted pursuant to the power grantee} to it by the Charter, Republic Act No. 162. The parties submitted a joint motion for judgment on the pleadings, and on May 27, 1954, the court rendered judgment declaring the ordinances ultra vires and ordering defendant to reimburse to plaintiff the amount of P733.84 and such other fees as plaintiff may have paid after the filing of the complaint. Defendant took the case directly to this Court. Ordinance No. 457-A, as amended by Ordinance No. 462, of the City of Lipa, provides in section 1 as follows: "SECTION 1.There is hereby imposed a tax of one tenth (1/10) centavo per liter on

the sale of gasoline and one-half (1/2) centavo per liter on the sale of alcohol, gas, petroleum, or all of any kindred type of combustible liquid made in any store or establishment by any person or entity within the City of Lipa." The above ordinances were enacted pursuant to section 15, paragraph (p), of Republic Act No. 162, otherwise known as Charter of the City of Lipa, which reads: "SEC. 15. General powers and duties of the Board.-Except as otherwise provided by law, and subject to the conditions and limitations thereof, the Municipal Board shall have the following legislative powers: (p) To tax, fix the license fee for, regulate the business and fix the location of, match factories, blacksmith shops, foundries, steam boilers, lumber yards, shipyards, the storage and sale of gunpowder, tar, pitch, resin, coal, oil, gasoline, benzine, turpentine, hemp, cotton, nitroglycerine, petroleum, or any of the products thereof, and of all other highly combustible or explosive materials, and other establishments likely to endanger the public safety or give rise to conflagrations or explosion, and, subject to the rules and regulations issued by the Director of Health in accordance with law, tanneries, renderies, tallow chandleries, embalmers, and scrap factories." It is clear from the above that the City of Lipa is given the power and authority (1) to tax, (2) to fix the license fee for, (3) to regulate the business, and (4) to fix the location of * * * the

storage and sale of oil, gasoline and the like. In other words, it is given the power to tax, fix the license fee for, or regulate the business affecting match factories, blacksmith shops, foundries, steam boilers, lumber yards, shipyards, the storage and the sale of oil, gasoline, petroleum and the like. It does not possess the power to impose a tax on specific articles which may take the form of specific tax. In order that such power may be exercised, the grant must be clear. It cannot be implied for the reason that a municipal corporation, unlike a sovereign state, does not possess inherent power of taxation. It is settled that a municipal corporation, unlike a sovereign state, is clothed with no inherent power of taxation. The charter or statute must plainly show an intent to confer that power or the municipality cannot assume it. And the power when granted is to be construed strictissimi juris. Any doubt or ambiguity arising out of the term used in granting that power must be resolved against the municipality. Inferences, implications, deductionsall these have no place in the interpretation of the taxing power of a municipal corporations. [Icard vs. City Council of Baguio and the City of Baguio, 48 Off. Gaz., (Supp. 11) 320; Medina, et al. vs. City of Baguio, 48 Off. Gaz., No. 11, 4769]. The question now to be determined is: Do the ordinances impose merely a tax on the business of selling and storing oil, gasoline, or petroleum, or a specific tax on the article therein enumerated? We are inclined to uphold the latter view for the reason that the tax which they seek to

collect is Imposed by "some standard of weight or measurement" and not regardless of it. Thus, the tax imposed is y10 centavo per liter on the sale of gasoline and i centavo per liter on the sale of alcohol, gas, or petroleum. And it has been held that "A tax which imposes a specific sum by the head or number, or some standard of weight or measurement, and which requires no assessment beyond a listing and classification of the objects to be taxed", is a specific tax (61 C. J., 74). It is the sense that the tax on manufactured oils and other fuels is imposed by the National Internal Revenue Code (section 142, Commonwealth Act No. 466, as amended by section 11, Republic Act No. 56). The tax is considered a specific tax if the amount is imposed per liter of volume capacity." It is therefore plain that the enactment of the ordinances in question is ultra vires. There is a marked parallelism between the case of Medina, et al. vs.,City of Baguio, supra and the present case. In the Medina case we said: "An examination of section 2553 (c), of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended, will reveal that the power given to the City of Baguio to tax, to license and to regulate only refers to the business of the taxpayer and not to the articles used in said business. This is clearly inferred from a reading of said section and from the concluding sentence appearing therein, to wit, 'and such other businesses, trades and occupations as may be established or practised in. the City.' One reason for this undoubtedly is the fact that under section 142 of the Internal Revenue Code (Commonwealth Act No. 466, as amended by the Republic Act No. 39), most of the products mentioned in the charter, particularly gasoline and oil, are already

specifically taxed, and under section 361 of said code, the City of Baguio gets a share of 20 per cent of the amount of specific tax collected. At any rate, the charter of the City of Baguio does not show plainly an intent to confer that power upon the City of Baguio and, following the rule already adverted to, this doubt or ambiguity must be resolved against the city. An indication of the legislative intent on this matter is Commonwealth Act No. 472 which confers general authority upon municipal councils to levy taxes, subject to certain limitations, wherein it was specifically provided that the general authority so conferred shall not include 'percentage taxes and taxes on specified articles.' In other words, the power to levy a percentage tax or a specified tax has been expressly withheld. It is, therefore, our considered opinion that Ordinance No. 100 is ultra vire and has no force and effect." Wherefore, the decision appealed from is affirmed, without pronouncement as to costs. Paras, C. J. Padilla, Montemayor, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia, and Felix, JJ., concur.

RESOLUTION February 25, 1957 In G. R. No. L-9167, We Wa Yu vs. City of Lipa, acting in the motion for reconsideration filed by appellant, the Court adopted the following resolution: Considering that on June 14, 1956 Congress enacted Republic Act No. 1435 providing in section 4 that Municipal boards of councils may, notwithstanding the provisions of sections one hundred and forty-two and one hundred and forty-five of the National Internal Revenue Code, as herein above amended, levy an additional tax of not exceeding twenty-five percent of the rates fixed in said sections, on manufactured oils sold or distributed with in the limits of the city or municipality"; Considering that municipal taxes heretofore levied by the city councils on gasoline, airplane fuel, lubricating oil and other fuels, were ratified and declared valid by said Act (Section 4); Considering that the tax imposed by the ordinances in question does not go beyond the limit of twenty-five per cent of the rates prescribed in section 142 and 145 of the National Internal Revenue Code; Considering that revenue acts, retroactively applied, are not open to the objection that they infringe upon the due process of law clause of the Constitution (Republic of the Philippines vs. Angelina Oasan, et al., supra, p. 934) ; The decision of this Court dated September 27, 1956 is hereby modified by reversing

the decision appealed from and dismissing the case, without costs.

[ G.R. No. 46720, June 28, 1940 ]

WELLS FARGO' BANK & UNION TRUST COMPANY, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT AND APPELLEE. DECISION
MORAN, J.: An appeal from a declaratory judgment rendered by the Court of First Instance of Manila. Birdie Lillian Eye, wife of Clyde Milton Eye, died on September 16, 1932, at Los Angeles, California, the place of her alleged last residence and domicile. Among the properties she left was her one-half conjugal share in 70,000 shares of stock in the Benguet Consolidated Mining Company, an anonymous partnership (socie4ad annima), organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines, with its principal office in the City of Manila. She left a will which was duly admitted to probate in California where her estate was administered and settled. Petitioner appellant, Wells Fargo Bank & Union Trust Company, was duly appointed trustee of the trust created by the said will. The Federal and State of California's inheritance taxes due on said shares have been duly paid. Respondent Collector of Internal Revenue sought to subject anew the aforesaid shares of stock to the Philippine inheritance tax, to which petitioner-appellant

objected. Wherefore a petition for a declaratory judgment was filed in ttye lower court, with the statement that, "if it should be held by a final declaratory judgment that the transfer of the aforesaid shares of stock is legally subject to the Philippine inheritance tax, the petitioner will pay such tax, interest and penalties (saving error in computation) without' protest and will not file an action to recover the same; and the petitioner believes and therefore alleges that if it should be held that such transfer is not subject to said tax, the respondent will not proceed to assess and collect the s^me." The Court of First Instance of Manila rendered judg roept, holding that the transmission by will of the said 35,5oO shares of stock is subject to Philippine inheritance tax. Hence, this appeal by the petitioner. Petitioner concedes (1) that the Philippine inheritance tax is not a tax on property, but upon transmission by inheritance (Lorenzo vs. Posadas, 35 Of. Gaz., 2393, 2395), and (2) that as to real and tangible personal property of a non-resident decedent, located in the Philippines, the Philippine inheritance tax may be imposed upon their transmission by death, for the self-evident reason that, being a property situated in this country, its transfer is, in some way, dependent, for its effectiveness, upon Philippine laws. It is contended, however, that, as to intangibles, like the shares of stock in question, their situs is in the domicile of the owner thereof, and, therefore, their transmission by death necessarily takes place under his domiciliary laws. Section 1536 of the Administrative Code, as amended, provides that every transmission by virtue of inheritance of any share issued by any corporation or sociedad andnima organized or

constituted in the Philippines, is subject to the tax therein provided. This provision has already been applied to shares of stock in a domestic corporation which were owned by a British subject residing and domiciled i Great Britain. (Knowles vs. Yatco, G. R. No. 42967. See also Gibbs vs. Government of P. I., G. R. No. 35694.) Petitioner, however, invokes the rule laid down by the United States Supreme Court in four cases (Farmers Loan fy Trust Company vs. Minnesota, 280 U. S. 204; 74 Law. ed., 371; Baldwin vs. Missouri, 281 U. S., 586; 74 Law. ed., 1056, Beidler vs. South Carolina Tax Commission, 282 U. S., 1; 75 Law. ed., 131; First National Bank of Boston vs. Maine, 284 U. S., 312; 52 S. Ct., 174, 76 Law. ed., 313; 77 A. L. R., 1401), to the effect that an inheritince tax can be imposed with respect to intangibles only by the State where the decedent was domiciled at the time )f his death, and that, under the due-process clause, the State in which a corporation has been incorporated has no sower to impose such tax if the shares' of stock in such :orporation are owned by a non-resident decedent. It is o be observed, however, that in a later case (Burnet vs. Brooks, 288 U. S., 378; 77 Law. ed., 844), the United States Supreme Court upheld the authority of the Federal jovernment to impose an inheritance tax on the transmision, by death of a non-resident, of stocks in. a domestic (American) corporation, irrespective of the situs of the corresponding certificates of stock. But it is contended that the doctrine in the foregoing case is not applicable, because the due-process clause is directed at the State and not at the Federal Government, and that the federal or national power of the United States is to be determined in relation to other countries and their subjects by applying the principles of jurisdiction recognized in international relations. Be that as it may, the truth is that the due-process clause is "directed at the protection of the individual and he is entitled to its

immunity as much against the state as against the national government." (Curry vs. McCanless, 307 U. S., 357, 370; 83 Law. ed., 1339, 1349.) Indeed, the rule laid down in the four cases relied upon by the appellant was predicated on a proper regard for the relation of the states of the American Union, which requires that property should be taxed in only one state and that jurisdiction to tax is restricted accordingly. In other words, the application to the states of the due-process rule springs from a proper distribution of their powers and spheres of activity as ordained by the United States Constitution, and such distribution is enforced and protected by not allowing one state toreach out and tax property in another. And these considerations do not apply to the Philippines. Our status rests upon a wholly distinct basis and no analogy, however remote, can be suggested in the relation of one state of the Union with another or with the United States. The status of the Philippines has been aptly defined as one which, though a part of the United States in the international sense, is, nevertheless, foreign thereto in a domestic sense. (Downea vs. Bidwell, 182 U. S., 244, 341.) At any rate, we see nothing of consequence in drawing any distinction between the operation and effect of the due-process clause as it applies to the individual states and to the national government of the United States. The question here involved is essentially not one of dueprocess, but of the power of the Philippine Government to tax. If that power be conceded, the guaranty of due process cannot certainly be invoked to frustrate it, unless the law involved is challenged, which is not, on considerations repugnant to such guaranty of due process or that of the equal protection of the laws, as, when the law is alleged to be arbitrary, oppressive or

discriminatory. Originally, the settled law in the United States.is that intangibles have only one situs for the purpose of inheritance tax, and that such situs is in the domicile of the decedent at the time of his death. But this rule has, of late, been relaxed. The maxim mobttia sequuntur pcrsonam, upon which the rule rests, has been decried as a mere "fiction of law having its origin in considerations of general convenience and public policy, and cannot be applied to limit or control the right of the state to tax property within its jurisdiction" (State Board of Assessors vs. Comptoir National D'Escompte, 191 U. S., 388, 403, 404), and must "yield to established fact of legal ownership, actual presence and control elsewhere, and cannot be applied if to do so would result in inescapable and patent injustice." (Safe Deposit & Trust Co. vs. Virginia, 280 LJ. S., 83, 91-92.) There is thus a marked shift from artificial postulates of law, formulated for reasons of con/enience, to the actualities of each case. An examination of the adjudged cases will disclose that ;he relaxation of the original rule rests on either of two !undamental considerations: (1) upon the recognition of ;he inherent power of each government to tax persons, )roperties and rights within its jurisdiction and enjoying, hus, the protection of its laws; and (2) upon the principle hat as to intangibles, a single location in space is hardly )ossible, considering , the multiple, distinct relationships vhich may be entered into with respect thereto. It is on he basis of the first consideration that the case of Burnet is. Brooks, supra, was decided by the Federal Supreme ^ourt, sustaining the power of the

Government to impose in inheritance tax upon transmission, by death of a nonesident, of shares of stock in a domestic (American) cor>oration, regardless of the situs of their corresponding certificates; and on the basis of the second consideration, the case of Cury vs. McCanless, supra. In Burnet vs. Brooks, the court, in disposing of the argument that the imposition of the federal estate tax is precluded by the due-process clause of the Fifth Amendment, held: "The point, being solely one of jurisdiction to tax, involves none of the other considerations raised by confiscatory or arbitrary legislation inconsistent with the fundamental conceptions of justice which are embodied in the due-process clause for the protection of life, liberty, and property of all personscitizens and friendly aliens alike. Russian Volunteer Fleet vs. United States, 282 U. S., 481, 489? 75,Law ed., 473, 476; 41 S. Ct, 229; Nichols vs. Coolidge, 274 U. S., 531; 542, 71 Law ed., 1184, 1192; 47 S. Ct, 710; 52 A. L. R., 1081; Heiner vs. Donnon, 285 U. S., 312, 326; 76 Law. ed., 772, 779; 52 S. Ct., 358. in the instant case the Federal Government had jurisdiction to impose the tati, there is manifestly no ground for assailing it. Knowlton vs. Moore, 178 U. S., 41,109; 44 Law. ed., 969, 996; 20 S. Ct, 747; McGray vs. United States, 195 U. S., 27, 61; 49 Law. ed., 78, 97; 24 S. Ct., 769; 1 Ann. Cas., 561; Flint vs. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U. S., 107, 153, 154; 55 Law. ed., 389, 414, 415; 31 S. Ct, 342; Ann. Cas., 1912B, 1312; Brushaber vs. Union P. R. Co., 240 U. S., 1, 24; 60 Law. ed., 493, 504; 36 S. Ct, 236; L. R. A., 1917 D; 414, Ann. Cas., 1917B, 713; United States vs. Doremus, 249 U. S., 86, 93; 63 Law. ed., 493, 496; 39 S. Ct., 214." Italics ours.)

And, in sustaining the power of the Federal Government to tax properties within its borders, wherever its owner may have been domiciled at the time of his death, the court ruled: "* * * There does not appear, a priori, to be anything contrary to the principles of international law, or hurtful to the polity of nations, in a State's taxing property physically situated within its borders, wherever its owner may have been domiciled at the time of his death." * * * "As jurisdiction may exist in more than one government, that is, jurisdiction based on distinct groundsthe citizenship of the owner, his domicile, the source of income, the situs of the propertyefforts have been made to preclude multiple taxation through the negotiation of appropriate international conventions. These endeavors, however, have proceeded upon express or implied recognition, and not in denial, of the soverign taxing power as exerted by governments in the exercise of jurisdiction upon any one of these grounds." * * * (See pages 396-397; 399.) In Curry vs. McCanless, supra, the court, in deciding the question of whether the States of Alabama and Tennessee may each constitutionally impose death taxes upon the transfer of an interest in intangibles held in trust by an Alabama trustee but passing under the will of a beneficiary decedent domiciles in Tennessee, sustained the power of each State to impose the tax. In arriving at this conclusion, the court made the following observations: "In cases where the owner of intangibles confines his activity to the place of his

domicile it has been found convenient to substitute a rule for a reason, cf. New York ex rel, Cohn vs. Graves, 300 U. S., 308, 313; 81 Law. ed., 666, 670; 57 S. Ct, 466; 108 A. L. R., 721; First Bank Stock Corp. vs. Minnesota, 301 U. S., 234, 241; 81 Law. ed., 1061, 1065; 57 S. Ct., 677; 113 A. L. R., 228, by saying that his intangibles are taxed at their situs and not elsewhere, or, perhaps less artificially, by invoking the maxim mobilia sequuntur personam, Blodgett vs. Silberman, 277 U. S., 1; 72 Law. ed., 749; 48 S. Ct., 410, supra; Baldwin vs. Missouri, 281 U. S., 586; 74 Law. ed., 1056; 50 S. Ct., 436; 12 A. L. R., 1303, supra, which means only that it is the dentity or association of intangibles with the person of heir owner at his domicile which gives jurisdiction to tax. iut when the taxpayer extends his activities with respect o his intangibles, so as to avail himself of the protection md benefit of the laws of another state, in such a way as o bring his person or property within the reach of the tax :atherer there, the reason for a single place of taxation no longer obtains, and the rule is not even workable substitute for the reasons which may exist in any particular case to support the constitutional power of each state concerned to tax. Whether we regard the right of a state to tax as founded on power over the object taxed, as declared by Chief Justice Marshall in McCulloch vs. Maryland, 4 Wheat, 316; 4 Law. ed., 579, supra, through dominion over tangibles or over persons whose relationships are the source of intangible rights, or on the benefit and protection conferred by the taxing sovereignty, or both, it is undeniable that the state of domicile is not deprived, by the taxpayer's activities elsewhere, of its constitutional jurisdiction to tax, and consequently that there are many circumstances in

which more than one state may have jurisdiction to impose a tax and measure it by some or all of the taxpayer's intangibles. Shares of corporate stock may be taxed at the domicile of the shareholder and also at that of the corporation which the taxing state has created and controls; and income may be taxed both by the state where it is earned and by the state of the recipient's domicile. Protection, benefit, and power over the subject matter are not confined to either state." * * * (Pp. 1347-1349.) "* * * we find it impossible to say that taxation of intangibles can be reduced in every case to the mere mechanical operation of locating at a single place, and there taxing, every legal interest growing out of all the complex legal relationships whyh may be entered into between persons. This is the case because in point of actuality those interests may be too diverse in their relationships to various taxing jurisdictions to admit of unitary treatment without discarding modes of taxation long accepted and applied before the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, and still recognized by this Court as valid." (P. 1351.) We need not belabor the doctrines of the foregoing cases. We believe, and so hold, that the issue here involved is controlled by those doctrines. In the instant case, the actual situs of the shares of stock is in the Philippines, the corporation being domiciled therein. And besides, the certificates of stock have remained in this country up to the time when the deceased died in California, and they were in possession of one Syrena McKee, secretary of the Benguet Consolidated Mining Company, to whom they have been delivered and indorsed in blank. This indorsement gave

Syrena McKee the right to vote the certificates at the general meetings of the stockholders, to collect dividends thereon, and dispose of the shares in the manner she may deem fit, without projudice to her liability to the owner for violation of instructions. For all practical purposes, then, Syrena McKee had the legal title to the certificates of stock held in trust for the true owner thereof. In other words, the owner residing in California has extended here her activities with respect to her intangibles so as to avail herself of the protection and benefit of the Philippine laws. Accordingly, the jurisdiction of the Philippine Government to tax must be upheld. Judgment is affirmed, with costs against petitioner appellant.

G.R. No. 143867 March 25, 2003 PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC., petitioner, vs. CITY OF DAVAO and ADELAIDA B. BARCELONA, in her capacity as the City Treasurer of Davao, respondents. RESOLUTION MENDOZA, J.: Petitioner seeks a reconsideration of the decision of the Second Division in this case. Because the decision bears directly on issues involved in other cases brought by petitioner before other Divisions of the Court, the motion for reconsideration was referred to the Court en banc for resolution.1 The parties were heard in oral arguments by the Court en banc on January 21, 2003 and were later granted time to submit their memoranda. Upon the filing of the last memorandum by the City of Davao on February 10, 2003, the motion was deemed submitted for resolution. To provide perspective, it will be helpful to restate the basic facts. Petitioner PLDT paid a franchise tax equal to three percent (3%) of its gross receipts. The franchise tax was paid "in lieu of all taxes on this franchise or earnings thereof" pursuant to R.A. No. 7082 amending its charter, Act. No. 3436. The exemption from "all taxes on this franchise or earnings thereof" was subsequently withdrawn by R.A. No. 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991), which at the same time gave local government units the power to tax businesses enjoying a franchise on the basis of income received or earned by them within their territorial jurisdiction.

The Local Government Code (LGC) took effect on January 1, 1992. The pertinent provisions of the LGC state: Sec. 137. Franchise Tax. Notwithstanding any exemption granted by any law or other special law, the province may impose a tax on businesses enjoying a franchise, at a rate not exceeding fifty percent (50%) of one percent (1%) of the gross annual receipts for the preceding calendar year based on the incoming receipt, or realized, within its territorial jurisdiction. . . . Sec. 193. Withdrawal of Tax Exemption Privileges. Unless otherwise provided in this Code, tax exemptions or incentives granted to, or presently enjoyed by all persons, whether natural or juridical, including government-owned or -controlled corporations, except local water districts, cooperatives duly registered under R.A. No. 6938, non-stock and non-profit hospitals and educational institutions, are hereby withdrawn upon the effectivity of this Code. Pursuant to these provisions, the City of Davao enacted Ordinance No. 519, Series of 1992, which in pertinent part provides: Notwithstanding any exemption granted by any law or other special law, there is hereby imposed a tax on businesses enjoying a franchise, at a rate of Seventy-five percent (75%) of one percent (1%) of the gross annual receipts for the preceding calendar year based on the income or receipts realized within the territorial jurisdiction of Davao City. Subsequently, Congress granted in favor of Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Corp. (Globe)2 and

Smart Information Technologies, Inc. (Smart)3 franchises which contained "in lieu of all taxes" provisos. In 1995, it enacted R.A. No. 7925 (Public Telecommunications Policy of the Philippines), 23 of which provides that "Any advantage, favor, privilege, exemption, or immunity granted under existing franchises, or may hereafter be granted, shall ipso facto become part of previously granted telecommunications franchises and shall be accorded immediately and unconditionally to the grantees of such franchises." The law took effect on March 16, 1995. In January 1999, when PLDT applied for a mayors permit to operate its Davao Metro Exchange, it was required to pay the local franchise tax for the first to the fourth quarter of 1999 which then had amounted to P3,681,985.72. PLDT challenged the power of the city government to collect the local franchise tax and demanded a refund of what it had paid as local franchise tax for the year 1997 and for the first to the third quarters of 1998. For this reason, it filed a petition in the Regional Trial Court of Davao. However, its petition was dismissed and its claim for exemption under R.A. No. 7925 was denied. The trial court ruled that the LGC had withdrawn tax exemptions previously enjoyed by persons and entities and authorized local government units to impose a tax on businesses enjoying franchises within their territorial jurisdictions, notwithstanding the grant of tax exemption to them. Petitioner, therefore, brought this appeal. In its decision of August 22, 2001, this Court, through its Second Division, held that R.A. No. 7925, 23 cannot be so interpreted as granting petitioner exemption from local taxes because the word "exemption," taking into consideration the context of the law, does not mean "tax exemption." Hence this motion for reconsideration.

The question is whether, by virtue of R.A. No. 7925, 23, PLDT is again entitled to exemption from the payment of local franchise tax in view of the grant of tax exemption to Globe and Smart. Petitioner contends that because their existing franchises contain "in lieu of all taxes" clauses, the same grant of tax exemption must be deemed to have become ipso facto part of its previously granted telecommunications franchise. But the rule is that tax exemptions should be granted only by clear and unequivocal provision of law "expressed in a language too plain to be mistaken."4 If, as PLDT contends, the word "exemption" in R.A. No. 7925 means "tax exemption" and assuming for the nonce that the charters of Globe and of Smart grant tax exemptions, then this runabout way of granting tax exemption to PLDT is not a direct, "clear and unequivocal" way of communicating the legislative intent. But the best refutation of PLDTs claim that R.A. No. 7925, 23 grants tax exemption is the fact that after its enactment on March 16, 1995, Congress granted several franchises containing both an "equality clause" similar to 23 and an "in lieu of all taxes" clause. If the equality clause automatically extends the tax exemption of franchises with "in lieu of all taxes" clauses, there would be no need in the same statute for the "in lieu of all taxes" clause in order to extend its tax exemption to other franchises not containing such clause. For example, the franchise of Island Country Telecommunications, Inc., granted under R.A. No. 7939 and which took effect on March 22, 1995, contains the following provisions: Sec. 8. Equality Clause. If any subsequent franchise for telecommunications service is

awarded or granted by the Congress of the Philippines with terms, privileges and conditions more favorable and beneficial than those contained in this Act, then the same privileges or advantages shall ipso facto accrue to the herein grantee and be deemed part of this Act. Sec. 10. Tax Provisions. The grantee shall be liable to pay the same taxes on their real estate, buildings and personal property exclusive of this franchise, as other persons or telecommunications entities are now or hereafter may be required by law to pay. In addition hereto, the grantee, its successors or assigns, shall pay a franchise tax equivalent to three percent (3%) of all gross receipts transacted under this franchise, and the said percentage shall be in lieu of all taxes on this franchise or earnings thereof; Provided, That the grantee shall continue to be liable for income taxes payable under Title II of the National Internal Revenue Code. The grantee shall file the return with and pay the taxes due thereon to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue or his duly authorized representatives in accordance with the National Revenue Code and the return shall be subject to audit by the Bureau of Internal Revenue. (Emphasis added) Similar provisions ("in lieu of all taxes" and equality clauses) are also found in the franchises of Cruz Telephone Company, Inc.,5 Isla Cellular Communications, Inc.,6 and Islatel Corporation.7 We shall now turn to the other points raised in the motion for reconsideration of PLDT. First. Petitioner contends that the legislative intent to promote the development of the telecommunications industry is evident in the use of words as "development," "growth," and "financial viability," and that the way to achieve this purpose is to grant tax exemption or

exclusion to franchises belonging in this industry. Furthermore, by using the words "advantage," "favor," "privilege," "exemption," and "immunity" and the terms "ipso facto," "immediately," and "unconditionally," Congress intended to automatically extend whatever tax exemption or tax exclusion has been granted to the holder of a franchise enacted after the LGC to the holder of a franchise enacted prior thereto, such as PLDT. The contention is untenable. The thrust of the law is to promote the gradual deregulation of entry, pricing, and operations of all public telecommunications entities and thus to level the playing field in the telecommunications industry. An intent to grant tax exemption cannot even be discerned from the law. The records of Congress are bereft of any discussion or even mention of tax exemption. To the contrary, what the Chairman of the Committee on Transportation, Rep. Jerome V. Paras, mentioned in his sponsorship of H.B. No. 14028, which became R.A. No. 7925, were "equal access clauses" in interconnection agreements, not tax exemptions. He said: There is also a need to promote a level playing field in the telecommunications industry. New entities must be granted protection against dominant carriers through the encouragement of equitable access charges and equal access clauses in interconnection agreements and the strict policing of predatory pricing by dominant carriers. Equal access should be granted to all operators connecting into the interexchange network. There should be no discrimination against any carrier in terms of priorities and/or quality of service.8 Nor does the term "exemption" in 23 of R.A. No. 7925 mean tax exemption. The term refers to exemption from certain regulations and requirements imposed by the National

Telecommunications Commission (NTC). For instance, R.A. No. 7925, 17 provides: "The Commission shall exempt any specific telecommunications service from its rate or tariff regulations if the service has sufficient competition to ensure fair and reasonable rates or tariffs." Another exemption granted by the law in line with its policy of deregulation is the exemption from the requirement of securing permits from the NTC every time a telecommunications company imports equipment.9 Second. PLDT says that the policy of the law is to promote healthy competition in the telecommunications industry.10 According to PLDT, the LGC did not repeal the "in lieu of all taxes" provision in its franchise but only excluded from it local taxes, such as the local franchise tax. However, some franchises, like those of Globe and Smart, which contain "in lieu of all taxes" provisions were subsequently granted by Congress, with the result that the holders of franchises granted prior to January 1, 1992, when the LGC took effect, had to pay local franchise tax in view of the withdrawal of their local tax exemption. It is argued that it is this disparate situation which R.A. No. 7925, 23 seeks to rectify. One can speak of healthy competition only between equals. For this reason, the law seeks to break up monopoly in the telecommunications industry by gradually dismantling the barriers to entry and granting to new telecommunications entities protection against dominant carriers through equitable access charges and equal access clauses in interconnection agreements and through the strict policing of predatory pricing by dominant carriers.11 Interconnection among carriers is made mandatory to prevent a dominant carrier from delaying the establishment of connection with a new entrant and to deter the former from imposing excessive access

charges.12 That is also the reason there are franchises13 granted by Congress after the effectivity of R.A. No. 7925 which do not contain the "in lieu of all taxes" clause, just as there are franchises, also granted after March 16, 1995, which contain such exemption from other taxes.14 If, by virtue of 23, the tax exemption granted under existing franchises or thereafter granted is deemed applicable to previously granted franchises (i.e., franchises granted before the effectivity of R.A. No. 7925 on March 16, 1995), then those franchises granted after March 16, 1995, which do not contain the "in lieu of all taxes" clause, are not entitled to tax exemption. The "in lieu of all taxes" provision in the franchises of Globe and Smart, which are relatively new entrants in the telecommunications industry, cannot thus be deemed applicable to PLDT, which had virtual monopoly in the telephone service in the country for a long time,15 without defeating the very policy of leveling the playing field of which PLDT speaks. Third. Petitioner argues that the rule of strict construction of tax exemptions does not apply to this case because the "in lieu of all taxes" provision in its franchise is more a tax exclusion than a tax exemption. Rather, the applicable rule should be that tax laws are to be construed most strongly against the government and in favor of the taxpayer. This is contrary to the uniform course of decisions16 of this Court which consider "in lieu of all taxes" provisions as granting tax exemptions. As such, it is a privilege to which the rule that tax exemptions must be interpreted strictly against the taxpayer and in favor of the taxing authority applies. Along with the police power and eminent domain, taxation is one of the three necessary

attributes of sovereignty. Consequently, statutes in derogation of sovereignty, such as those containing exemption from taxation, should be strictly construed in favor of the state. A state cannot be stripped of this most essential power by doubtful words and of this highest attribute of sovereignty by ambiguous language.17 Indeed, both in their nature and in their effect there is no difference between tax exemption and tax exclusion. Exemption is an immunity or privilege; it is freedom from a charge or burden to which others are subjected.18 Exclusion, on the other hand, is the removal of otherwise taxable items from the reach of taxation, e.g., exclusions from gross income and allowable deductions.19 Exclusion is thus also an immunity or privilege which frees a taxpayer from a charge to which others are subjected. Consequently, the rule that tax exemption should be applied in strictissimi juris against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the government applies equally to tax exclusions. To construe otherwise the "in lieu of all taxes" provision invoked is to be inconsistent with the theory that R.A. No. 7925, 23 grants tax exemption because of a similar grant to Globe and Smart. Petitioner cites Cagayan Electric Power & Light Co., Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue20 in support of its argument that a "tax exemption" is restored by a subsequent law reenacting the "tax exemption." It contends that by virtue of R.A. No. 7925, its tax exemption or exclusion was restored by the grant of tax exemptions to Globe and Smart. Cagayan Electric Power & Light Co., Inc., however, is not in point. For there, the re-enactment of the exemption was made in an amendment to the charter of Cagayan Electric Power and Light Co.

Indeed, petitioners justification for its claim of tax exemption rests on a strained interpretation of R.A. No. 7925, 23. For petitioners claim for exemption is not based on an ame ndment to its charter but on a circuitous reasoning involving inquiry into the grant of tax exemption to other telecommunications companies and the lack of such grant to others,21 when Congress could more clearly and directly have granted tax exemption to all franchise holders or amend the charter of PLDT to again exempt it from tax if this had been its purpose. The fact is that after petitioners tax exemption by R.A. No. 7082 had been withdrawn by the LGC,22 no amendment to re-enact its previous tax exemption has been made by Congress. Considering that the taxing power of local government units under R.A. No. 7160 is clear and is ordained by the Constitution, petitioner has the heavy burden of justifying its claim by a clear grant of exemption.23 Tax exemptions should be granted only by clear and unequivocal provision of law on the basis of language too plain to be mistaken.24 They cannot be extended by mere implication or inference. Thus, it was held in Home Insurance & Trust Co. v. Tennessee25 that a law giving a corporation all the "powers, rights reservations, restrictions, and liabilities" of another company does not give an exemption from taxation which the latter may possess. In Rochester R. Co. v. Rochester,26 the U.S. Supreme Court, after reviewing cases involving the effect of the transfer to one company of the powers and privileges of another in conferring a tax exemption possessed by the latter, held that a statute authorizing or directing the grant or transfer of the "privileges" of a corporation which enjoys immunity from taxation or regulation should not be interpreted as including that immunity. Thus:

We think it is now the rule, notwithstanding earlier decisions and dicta to the contrary, that a statute authorizing or directing the grant or transfer of the "privileges" of a corporation which enjoys immunity from taxation or regulation should not be interpreted as including that immunity. We, therefore, conclude that the words "the estate, property, rights, privileges, and franchises" did not embrace within their meaning the immunity from the burden of paving enjoyed by the Brighton Railroad Company. Nor is there anything in this, or any other statute, which tends to show that the legislature used the words with any larger meaning than they would have standing alone. The meaning is not enlarged, as faintly suggested, by the expression in the statute that they are to be held by the successor "fully and entirely, and without change and diminution," words of unnecessary emphasis, without which all included in "estate, property, rights, privileges, and franchises" would pass, and with which nothing more could pass. On the contrary, it appears, as clearly as it did in the Phoenix Fire Insurance Company Case, that the legislature intended to use the words "rights, franchises, and privileges" in the restricted sense. . . .27 Fourth. It is next contended that, in any event, a special law prevails over a general law and that the franchise of petitioner giving it tax exemption, being a special law, should prevail over the LGC, giving local governments taxing power, as the latter is a general law. Petitioner further argues that as between two laws on the same subject matter which are irreconcilably inconsistent, that which is passed later prevails as it is the latest expression of legislative will. This proposition flies in the face of settled jurisprudence. In City Government of San Pablo, Laguna v. Reyes,28 this Court held that the phrase "in lieu of all taxes" found in special

franchises should give way to the peremptory language of 193 of the LGC specifically providing for the withdrawal of such exemption privileges. Thus, the rule that a special law must prevail over the provisions of a later general law does not apply as the legislative purpose to withdraw tax privileges enjoyed under existing laws or charters is apparent from the express provisions of 137 and 193 of the LGC. As to the alleged inconsistency between the LGC and R.A. No. 7925, this Court has already explained in the decision under reconsideration that no inconsistency exists and that the rule that the later law is the latest expression of the legislature does not apply. The matter need not be further discussed. In any case, it is contended, the ruling of the Bureau of Local Government Finance (BLGF) that petitioners exemption from local taxes has been restored is a contemporaneous construction of 23 and, as such, it is entitled to great weight. The ruling of the BLGF has been considered in this case. But unlike the Court of Tax Appeals, which is a special court created for the purpose of reviewing tax cases, the BLGF was created merely to provide consultative services and technical assistance to local governments and the general public on local taxation and other related matters.29 Thus, the rule that the "Court will not set aside conclusions rendered by the CTA, which is, by the very nature of its function, dedicated exclusively to the study and consideration of tax problems and has necessarily developed an expertise on the subject, unless there has been an abuse or improvident exercise of authority"30 cannot apply in the case of BLGF.

WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED and this denial is final. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 143867 August 22, 2001 PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC., petitioner, vs. CITY OF DAVAO and ADELAIDA B. BARCELONA, in her capacity as the City Treasurer of Davao, respondents. MENDOZA, J.: This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure of the resolution, 1 dated June 23, 2000, of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 13, Davao City, affirming the tax assessment of petitioner and the denial of its claim for tax refund by the City Treasurer of Davao. The facts are as follows: On January 1999, petitioner Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co., Inc. (PLDT) applied for a Mayor's Permit to operate its Davao Metro Exchange. Respondent City of Davao withheld action on the application pending payment by petitioner of the local franchise tax in the amount of P3,681,985.72 for the first to the fourth quarter of 1999. 2 In a letter dated May 31, 1999, 3 petitioner protested the assessment of the local franchise tax and requested a refund of the franchise tax paid by it for the year 1997 and the first to the third quarters of 1998. Petitioner contended that it was exempt from the payment of franchise tax based on an opinion of the Bureau of Local Government Finance (BLGF), dated June 2, 1998, which reads as follows: PLDT:

Section 12 of RA 7082 provides as follows: "SECTION 12. The grantee, its successors or assigns shall be liable to pay the same taxes on their real estate, buildings, and personal property, exclusive of this franchise, as other persons or corporations are now or hereafter may be required by law to pay. In addition thereto, the grantee, its successors or assigns shall pay a franchise tax equivalent to three percent (3%) of all gross receipts of the telephone or other telecommunications businesses transacted under this franchise by the grantee, its successors or assigns, and the said percentage shall be in lieu of all taxes on this franchise or earnings thereof . . ." It appears that RA 7082 further amending Act No. 3436 which granted to PLDT a franchise to install, operate and maintain a telephone system throughout the Philippine Islands was approved on August 3, 1991. Section 12 of said franchise, likewise, contains the "in lieu of all taxes" proviso. In this connection, Section 23 of RA 7925, quoted hereunder, which was approved on March 1, 1995, provides for the equality of treatment in the telecommunications industry: "SECTION 23. Equality of Treatment in the Telecommunications Industry. Any advantage, favor, privilege, exemption, or immunity granted under existing franchises, or may hereafter be granted, shall ipso facto become part of previously granted telecommunications franchise and shall be accorded immediately and unconditionally to the grantees of such franchises: Provided, however, That the foregoing shall neither

apply to nor affect provisions of telecommunications franchises concerning territory covered by the franchise, the life span of the franchise, or the type of service authorized by the franchise." (Italics supplied.) On the basis of the aforequoted Section 23 of RA 7925, PLDT as a telecommunications franchise holder becomes automatically covered by the tax exemption provisions of RA 7925, which took effect on March 16, 1995. Accordingly, PLDT shall be exempt from the payment of franchise and business taxes imposable by LGUs under Sections 137 and 143 (sic), respectively, of the LGC, upon the effectivity of RA 7925 on March 16, 1995. However, PLDT shall be liable to pay the franchise and business taxes on its gross receipts realized from January 1, 1992 up to March 15, 1995, during which period PLDT was not enjoying the "most favored clause" proviso of RA 7025 (sic).4 In a letter dated September 27, 1999, respondent Adelaida B. Barcelona, City Treasurer of Davao, denied the protest and claim for tax refund of petitioner,5 citing the legal opinion of the City Legal Officer of Davao and Art. 10, 1 of Ordinance No. 230, Series of 1991, as amended by Ordinance No. 519, Series of 1992, which provides: Notwithstanding any exemption granted by any law or other special law, there is hereby imposed a tax on businesses enjoying a franchise, at a rate of Seventy-five percent (75%) of one percent (1%) of the gross annual receipts for the preceding calendar year based on the income or receipts realized within the territorial jurisdiction of Davao City.6

Petitioner received respondent City Treasurer's order of denial on October 1, 1999. On November 3, 1999, it filed a petition in the Regional Trial Court of Davao seeking a reversal of respondent City Treasurer's denial of petitioner's protest and the refund of the franchise tax paid by it for the year 1998 in the amount of P2,580,829.23. The petition was filed pursuant to 195 and 196 of the Local Government Code (R.A. No. 7160). No claim for refund of franchise taxes paid in 1997 was made as the same had already prescribed under 196 of the LGC, which provides that claims for the refund of taxes paid under it must be made within two (2) years from the date of payment of such taxes.7 The trial court denied petitioner's appeal and affirmed the City Treasurer's decision. It ruled that the LGC withdrew all tax exemptions previously enjoyed by all persons and authorized local government units to impose a tax on businesses enjoying a franchise notwithstanding the grant of tax exemption to them. The trial court likewise denied petitioner's claim for exemption under R.A. No. 7925 for the following reasons: (1) it is clear from the wording of 193 of the Local Government Code that Congress did not intend to exempt any franchise holder from the payment of local franchise and business taxes; (2) the opinion of the Executive Director of the Bureau of Local Government Finance to the contrary is not binding on respondents; and (3) petitioner failed to present any proof that Globe and Smart were enjoying local franchise and business tax exemptions. Hence, this petition for review based on the following grounds: I. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN APPLYING SECTION 137 OF THE LOCAL

GOVERNMENT CODE, WHICH ALLOWS A CITY TO IMPOSE A FRANCHISE TAX, AND SECTION 193 THEREOF, WHICH PROVIDES FOR WITHDRAWAL OF TAX EXEMPTION PRIVILEGES. II. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT UNDER PETITIONER'S FRANCHISE, AS IMPLICITLY AMENDED AND EXPANDED BY SECTION 23 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7925 (PUBLIC TELECOMMUNICATIONS POLICY ACT), TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE FRANCHISES OF GLOBE TELECOM, INC. AND SMART COMMUNICATIONS, INC., WHICH WERE ENACTED SUBSEQUENT TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, NO FRANCHISE AND BUSINESS TAXES MAY BE IMPOSED ON PETITIONER BY RESPONDENT CITY. III. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT GIVING WEIGHT TO THE RULING OF THE BUREAU OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE THAT PETITIONER IS EXEMPT FROM THE PAYMENT OF FRANCHISE AND BUSINESS TAXES, AMONG OTHERS, IMPOSABLE BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS UNDER THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. First. The LGC, which took effect on January 1, 1992, provides: SECTION 137. Franchise Tax. Notwithstanding any exemption granted by any law or other special law, the province may impose a tax on businesses enjoying a franchise, at a rate not exceeding fifty percent (50%) of one percent (1%) of the gross annual receipts for the preceding calendar year based on the incoming receipt, or realized, within its territorial

jurisdiction. In the case of a newly started business, the tax shall not exceed one-twentieth (1/20) of one percent (1%) of the capital investment. In the succeeding calendar year, regardless of when the business started to operate, the tax shall be based on the gross receipts for the preceding calendar year, or any fraction thereof, as provided herein.8 SECTION 193. Withdrawal of Tax Exemption Privileges. Unless otherwise provided in this Code, tax exemptions or incentives granted to, or presently enjoyed by all persons, whether natural or juridical, including government-owned or -controlled corporations, except local water districts, cooperatives duly registered under R.A. 6938, non-stock and non-profit hospitals and educational institutions, are hereby withdrawn upon the effectivity of this Code. The trial court held that, under these provisions, all exemptions granted to all persons, whether natural and juridical, including those which in the future might be granted, are withdrawn unless the law granting the exemption expressly states that the exemption also applies to local taxes. We disagree. Sec. 137 does not state that it covers future exemptions. In Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Edu,9 where a provision of the Tax Code enacted on June 27, 1968 (R.A. 5431) withdrew the exemption enjoyed by PAL, it was held that a subsequent amendment of PAL's franchise, exempting it from all other taxes except that imposed by its franchise, again entitled PAL to exemption from the date of the enactment of such amendment. The Tax Code provision withdrawing the tax exemption was not construed as prohibiting future grants of exemptions

from all taxes. Indeed, the grant of taxing powers to local government units under the Constitution and the LGC does not affect the power of Congress to grant exemptions to certain persons, pursuant to a declared national policy. The legal effect of the constitutional grant to local governments simply means that in interpreting statutory provisions on municipal taxing powers, doubts must be resolved in favor of municipal corporations.10 The question, therefore, is whether, after the withdrawal of its exemption by virtue of 137 of the LGC, petitioner has again become entitled to exemption from local franchise tax. Petitioner answers in the affirmative and points to 23 of R.A. No. 7925, in relation to the franchises of Globe Telecom (Globe) and Smart Communications, Inc. (Smart), which allegedly grant the latter exemption from local franchise taxes. To begin with, tax exemptions are highly disfavored. The reason for this was explained by this Court in Asiatic Petroleum Co. v. Llanes,11 in which it was held: . . . Exemptions from taxation are highly disfavored, so much so that they may almost be said to be odious to the law. He who claims an exemption must be able to point to some positive provision of law creating the right. . . As was said by the Supreme Court of Tennessee in Memphis vs. U. & P. Bank (91 Tenn., 546, 550), "The right of taxation is inherent in the State. It is a prerogative essential to the perpetuity of the government; and he who claims an exemption from the common burden must justify his claim by the clearest grant of organic or statute law." Other utterances equally or more emphatic come readily to

hand from the highest authority. In Ohio Life Ins. and Trust Co. vs. Debolt (16 Howard, 416), it was said by Chief Justice Taney, that the right of taxation will not be held to have been surrendered, "unless the intention to surrender is manifested by words too plain to be mistaken." In the case of the Delaware Railroad Tax (18 Wallace, 206, 226), the Supreme Court of the United States said that the surrender, when claimed, must be shown by clear, unambiguous language, which will admit of no reasonable construction consistent with the reservation of the power. If a doubt arises as to the intent of the legislature, that doubt must be solved in favor of the State. In Erie Railway Company vs. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (21 Wallace, 492, 499), Mr. Justice Hunt, speaking of exemptions, observed that a State cannot strip itself of the most essential power of taxation by doubtful words. "It cannot, by ambiguous language, be deprived of this highest attribute of sovereignty." In Tennessee vs. Whitworth (117 U.S., 129, 136), it was said: "In all cases of this kind the question is as to the intent of the legislature, the presumption always being against any surrender of the taxing power." In Farrington vs. Tennessee and County of Shelby (95 U.S., 679, 686), Mr. Justice Swayne said: ". . . When exemption is claimed, it must be shown indubitably to exist. At the outset, every presumption is against it. A well-founded doubt is fatal to the claim. It is only when the terms of the concession are too explicit to admit fairly of any other construction that the proposition can be supported." The tax exemption must be expressed in the statute in clear language that leaves no doubt of the intention of the legislature to grant such exemption. And, even if it is granted, the exemption must be interpreted in strictissimi juris against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing

authority.12 In the present case, petitioner justifies its claim of tax exemption by strained inferences. First, it cites R.A. No. 7925, otherwise known as the Public Telecommunications Policy Act of the Philippines, 23 of which reads: SECTION 23. Equality of Treatment in the Telecommunications Industry. Any advantage, favor, privilege, exemption, or immunity granted under existing franchises, or may hereafter be granted, shall ipso facto become part of previously granted telecommunications franchises and shall be accorded immediately and unconditionally to the grantees of such franchises: Provided, however, That the foregoing shall neither apply to nor affect provisions of telecommunications franchises concerning territory covered by the franchise, the life span of the franchise, or the type of service authorized by the franchise. Petitioner then claims that Smart and Globe enjoy exemption from the payment of the franchise tax by virtue of their legislative franchises per opinion of the Bureau of Local Government Finance of the Department of Finance. Finally, it argues that because Smart and Globe are exempt from the franchise tax, it follows that it must likewise be exempt from the tax being collected by the City of Davao because the grant of tax exemption to Smart and Globe ipso facto extended the same exemption to it. The acceptance of petitioner's theory would result in absurd consequences. To illustrate: In its franchise, Globe is required to pay a franchise tax of only one and one-half percentum (1%) of

all gross receipts from its transactions while Smart is required to pay a tax of three percent (3%) on all gross receipts from business transacted. Petitioner's theory would require that, to level the playing field, any "advantage, favor, privilege, exemption, or immunity" granted to Globe must be extended to all telecommunications companies, including Smart. If, later, Congress again grants a franchise to another telecommunications company imposing, say, one percent (1%) franchise tax, then all other telecommunications franchises will have to be adjusted to "level the playing field" so to speak. This could not have been the intent of Congress in enacting 23 of Rep. Act 7925. Petitioner's theory will leave the Government with the burden of having to keep track of all granted telecommunications franchises, lest some companies be treated unequally. It is different if Congress enacts a law specifically granting uniform advantages, favor, privilege, exemption, or immunity to all telecommunications entities. The fact is that the term "exemption" in 23 is too general. A cardinal rule in statutory construction is that legislative intent must be ascertained from a consideration of the statute as a whole and not merely of a particular provision. For, taken in the abstract, a word or phrase might easily convey a meaning which is different from the one actually intended. A general provision may actually have a limited application if read together with other provisions.13 Hence, a consideration of the law itself in its entirety and the proceedings of both Houses of Congress is in order.14 Art. I of Rep. Act No. 7925 contains the general provisions, stating that the Act shall be known as the Public Telecommunications Policy Act of the Philippines, and a definition of terms.15 Art. II provides for its policies and objectives, which is to foster the improvement and expansion of

telecommunications services in the country through: (1) the construction of telecommunications infrastructure and interconnection facilities, having in mind the efficient use of the radio frequency spectrum and extension of basic services to areas not yet served; (2) fair, just, and reasonable rates and tariff charges; (3) stable, transparent, and fair administrative processes; (4) reliance on private enterprise for direct provision of telecommunications services; (5) dispersal of ownership of telecommunications entities in compliance with the constitutional mandate to democratize the ownership of public utilities; (6) encouragement of the establishment of interconnection with other countries to provide access to international communications highways and development of a competitive export-oriented domestic telecommunications manufacturing industry; and (7) development of human resources skills and capabilities to sustain the growth and development of telecommunications.16 Art. III provides for its administration. The operational and administrative functions are delegated to the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC), while policy-making, research, and negotiations in international telecommunications matters are left with the Department of Transportation and Communications.17 Art. IV classifies the categories of telecommunications entities as: Local Exchange Operator, Inter-Exchange Carrier, International Carrier, Value-Added Service Provider, Mobile Radio Services, and Radio Paging Services.18 Art. V provides for the use of other services and facilities, such as customer premises equipment, which may be used within the premises of telecommunications subscribers subject only to the requirement that it is type-approved by the NTC, and radio frequency spectrum, the assignment of which shall be subject to periodic

review.19 Art. VI, entitled Franchise, Rates and Revenue Determination, provides for the requirement to obtain a franchise from Congress and a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity from the NTC before a telecommunications entity can begin its operations. It also provides for the NTC's residual power to regulate the rates or tariffs when ruinous competition results or when a monopoly or a cartel or combination in restraint of free competition exists and the rates or tariffs are distorted or unable to function freely and the public is adversely affected. There is also a provision relating to revenue sharing arrangements between inter-connecting carriers.20 Art. VII provides for the rights of telecommunications users.21 Art. VIII, entitled Telecommunications Development, where 23 is found, provides for public ownership of telecommunications entities, privatization of existing facilities, and the equality of treatment provision.22 Art. IX contains the Final Provisions.23 R.A. No. 7925 is thus a legislative enactment designed to set the national policy on telecommunications and provide the structures to implement it to keep up with the technological advances in the industry and the needs of the public. The thrust of the law is to promote gradually the deregulation of the entry, pricing, and operations of all public telecommunications entities and thus promote a level playing field in the telecommunications industry.24 There is nothing in the language of 23 nor in the proceedings of both the House of Representatives and the Senate in enacting R.A. No. 7925 which shows that it contemplates the grant of tax

exemptions to all telecommunications entities, including those whose exemptions had been withdrawn by the LGC. What this Court said in Asiatic Petroleum Co. v. Llanes25 applies mutatis mutandis to this case: "When exemption is claimed, it must be shown indubitably to exist. At the outset, every presumption is against it. A well-founded doubt is fatal to the claim. It is only when the terms of the concession are too explicit to admit fairly of any other construction that the proposition can be supported." In this case, the word "exemption" in 23 of R.A. No. 7925 could contemplate exemption from certain regulatory or reporting requirements, bearing in mind the policy of the law. It is noteworthy that, in holding Smart and Globe exempt from local taxes, the BLGF did not base its opinion on 23 but on the fact that the franchises granted to them after the effectivity of the LGC exempted them from the payment of local franchise and business taxes. Second. In the case of petitioner, the BLGF opined that 23 of R.A. No. 7925 amended the franchise of petitioner and in effect restored its exemptions from local taxes. Petitioner contends that courts should not set aside conclusions reached by the BLGF because its function is precisely the study of local tax problems and it has necessarily developed an expertise on the subject. To be sure, the BLGF is not an administrative agency whose findings on questions of fact are given weight and deference in the courts. The authorities cited by petitioner pertain to the Court of Tax Appeals,26 a highly specialized court which performs judicial functions as it was created for the review of tax cases.27 In contrast, the BLGF was created merely to provide consultative

services and technical assistance to local governments and the general public on local taxation, real property assessment, and other related matters, among others.28 The question raised by petitioner is a legal question, to wit, the interpretation of 23 of R.A. No. 7925. There is, therefore, no basis for claiming expertise for the BLGF that administrative agencies are said to possess in their respective fields. Petitioner likewise argues that the BLGF enjoys the presumption of regularity in the performance of its duty. It does enjoy this presumption, but this has nothing to do with the question in this case. This case does not concern the regularity of performance of the BLGF in the exercise of its duties, but the correctness of its interpretation of a provision of law. In sum, it does not appear that, in approving 23 of R.A. No. 7925, Congress intended it to operate as a blanket tax exemption to all telecommunications entities. Applying the rule of strict construction of laws granting tax exemptions and the rule that doubts should be resolved in favor of municipal corporations in interpreting statutory provisions on municipal taxing powers, we hold that 23 of R.A. No. 7925 cannot be considered as having amended petitioner's franchise so as to entitle it to exemption from the imposition of local franchise taxes. Consequently, we hold that petitioner is liable to pay local franchise taxes in the amount of P3,681,985.72 for the period covering the first to the fourth quarter of 1999 and that it is not entitled to a refund of taxes paid by it for the period covering the first to the third quarter of 1998. WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is DENIED and the decision of the Regional

Trial Court, Branch 13, Davao City is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 188497 April 25, 2012 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, vs. PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, Respondent. DECISION VILLARAMA, JR., J.: Petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue appeals the Decision1 dated March 25, 2009 and Resolution2 dated June 24, 2009 of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) En Banc in CTA EB No. 415. The CTA dismissed the petition for review filed by petitioner assailing the CTA First Divisions Decision3 dated April 25, 2008 and Resolution4 dated July 10, 2008 which ordered petitioner to refund the excise taxes paid by respondent Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation on petroleum products it sold to international carriers. The facts are not disputed. Respondent is engaged in the business of processing, treating and refining petroleum for the purpose of producing marketable products and the subsequent sale thereof.5 On July 18, 2002, respondent filed with the Large Taxpayers Audit & Investigation Division II of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) a formal claim for refund or tax credit in the total amount of P28,064,925.15, representing excise taxes it allegedly paid on sales and deliveries of gas and fuel oils to various international carriers during the period October to December 2001.

Subsequently, on October 21, 2002, a similar claim for refund or tax credit was filed by respondent with the BIR covering the period January to March 2002 in the amount of P41,614,827.99. Again, on July 3, 2003, respondent filed another formal claim for refund or tax credit in the amount of P30,652,890.55 covering deliveries from April to June 2002.6 Since no action was taken by the petitioner on its claims, respondent filed petitions for review before the CTA on September 19, 2003 and December 23, 2003, docketed as CTA Case Nos. 6775 and 6839, respectively. In its decision on the consolidated cases, the CTAs First Division ruled that respondent is entitled to the refund of excise taxes in the reduced amount of P95,014,283.00. The CTA First Division relied on a previous ruling rendered by the CTA En Banc in the case of "Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue"7 where the CTA also granted respondents claim for refund on the basis of excise tax exemption for petroleum products sold to international carriers of foreign registry for their use or consumption outside the Philippines. Petitioners motion for reconsideration was denied by the CTA First Division. Petitioner elevated the case to the CTA En Banc which upheld the ruling of the First Division. The CTA pointed out the specific exemption mentioned under Section 135 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997 (NIRC) of petroleum products sold to international carriers such as respondents clients. It said that this Courts ruling in Maceda v. Macaraig, Jr.8 is inapplicable because said case only put to rest the issue of whether or not the National Power Corporation (NPC) is subject to tax considering that NPC is a tax-exempt entity mentioned in Sec. 135 (c) of

the NIRC (1997), whereas the present case involves the tax exemption of the sale of petroleum under Sec. 135 (a) of the same Code. Further, the CTA said that the ruling in Philippine Acetylene Co., Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue9 likewise finds no application because the party asking for the refund in said case was the seller-producer based on the exemption granted under the law to the tax-exempt buyers, NPC and Voice of America (VOA), whereas in this case it is the article or product which is exempt from tax and not the international carrier. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which the CTA likewise denied. Hence, this petition anchored on the following grounds: I SECTION 148 OF THE NATIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE CODE EXPRESSLY SUBJECTS THE PETROLEUM PRODUCTS TO AN EXCISE TAX BEFORE THEY ARE REMOVED FROM THE PLACE OF PRODUCTION. II THE ONLY SPECIFIC PROVISION OF THE LAW WHICH GRANTS TAX CREDIT OR TAX REFUND OF THE EXCISE TAXES PAID REFERS TO THOSE CASES WHERE GOODS LOCALLY PRODUCED OR MANUFACTURED ARE ACTUALLY EXPORTED WHICH IS NOT SO IN THIS CASE. III

THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN MACEDA VS. MACARAIG, JR. AND PHILIPPINE ACETYLENE CO. VS. CIR ARE APPLICABLE TO THIS CASE.10 The Solicitor General argues that the obvious intent of the law is to grant excise tax exemption to international carriers and exempt entities as buyers of petroleum products and not to the manufacturers or producers of said goods. Since the excise taxes are collected from manufacturers or producers before removal of the domestic products from the place of production, respondent paid the subject excise taxes as manufacturer or producer of the petroleum products pursuant to Sec. 148 of the NIRC. Thus, regardless of who the buyer/purchaser is, the excise tax on petroleum products attached to the said goods before their sale or delivery to international carriers, as in fact respondent averred that it paid the excise tax on its petroleum products when it "withdrew petroleum products from its place of production for eventual sale and delivery to various international carriers as well as to other customers."11 Sec. 135 (a) and (c) granting exemption from the payment of excise tax on petroleum products can only be interpreted to mean that the respondent cannot pass on to international carriers and exempt agencies the excise taxes it paid as a manufacturer or producer. As to whether respondent has the right to file a claim for refund or tax credit for the excise taxes it paid for the petroleum products sold to international carriers, the Solicitor General contends that Sec. 130 (D) is explicit on the circumstances under which a taxpayer may claim for a refund of excise taxes paid on manufactured products, which express enumeration did not include those excise taxes paid on petroleum products which were eventually sold to international carriers

(expressio unius est exclusio alterius). Further, the Solicitor General asserts that contrary to the conclusion made by the CTA, the principles laid down by this Court in Maceda v. Macaraig, Jr.12 and Philippine Acetylene Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue13 are applicable to this case. Respondent must shoulder the excise taxes it previously paid on petroleum products which it later sold to international carriers because it cannot pass on the tax burden to the said international carriers which have been granted exemption under Sec. 135 (a) of the NIRC. Considering that respondent failed to prove an express grant of a right to a tax refund, such claim cannot be implied; hence, it must be denied. On the other hand, respondent maintains that since petroleum products sold to qualified international carriers are exempt from excise tax, no taxes should be imposed on the article, to which goods the tax attaches, whether in the hands of the said international carriers or the petroleum manufacturer or producer. As these excise taxes have been erroneously paid taxes, they can be recovered under Sec. 229 of the NIRC. Respondent contends that contrary to petitioners assertion, Sections 204 and 229 authorizes respondent to maintain a suit or proceeding to recover such erroneously paid taxes on the petroleum products sold to tax-exempt international carriers. As to the jurisprudence cited by the petitioner, respondent argues that they are not applicable to the case at bar. It points out that Maceda v. Macaraig, Jr. is an adjudication on the issue of tax exemption of NPC from direct and indirect taxes given the passage of various laws relating thereto. What was put in issue in said case was NPCs right to claim for refund of indirect taxes. Here, respondents claim for refund is not anchored on the exemption of the buyer from direct

and indirect taxes but on the tax exemption of the goods themselves under Sec. 135. Respondent further stressed that in Maceda v. Macaraig, Jr., this Court recognized that if NPC purchases oil from oil companies, NPC is entitled to claim reimbursement from the BIR for that part of the purchase price that represents excise taxes paid by the oil company to the BIR. Philippine Acetylene Co. v. CIR, on the other hand, involved sales tax, which is a tax on the transaction, which this Court held as due from the seller even if such tax cannot be passed on to the buyers who are tax-exempt entities. In this case, the excise tax is a tax on the goods themselves. While indeed it is the manufacturer who has the duty to pay the said tax, by specific provision of law, Sec. 135, the goods are stripped of such tax under the circumstances provided therein. Philippine Acetylene Co., Inc. v. CIR was thus not anchored on an exempting provision of law but merely on the argument that the tax burden cannot be passed on to someone. Respondent further contends that requiring it to shoulder the burden of excise taxes on petroleum products sold to international carriers would effectively defeat the principle of international comity upon which the grant of tax exemption on aviation fuel used in international flights was founded. If the excise taxes paid by respondent are not allowed to be refunded or credited based on the exemption provided in Sec. 135 (a), respondent avers that the manufacturers or oil companies would then be constrained to shift the tax burden to international carriers in the form of addition to the selling price. Respondent cites as an analogous case Commissioner of International Revenue v. Tours Specialists, Inc.14 which involved the inclusion of hotel room charges remitted by partner foreign tour agents in respondent TSIs gross receipts for purposes of computing the 3%

contractors tax. TSI opposed the deficiency assessment invoking, among others, Presidential Decree No. 31, which exempts foreign tourists from paying hotel room tax. This Court upheld the CTA in ruling that while CIR may claim that the 3% contractors tax is imposed upon a different incidence, i.e., the gross receipts of the tourist agency which he asserts includes the hotel room charges entrusted to it, the effect would be to impose a tax, and though different, it nonetheless imposes a tax actually on room charges. One way or the other, said the CTA, it would not have the effect of promoting tourism in the Philippines as that would increase the costs or expenses by the addition of a hotel room tax in the overall expenses of said tourists. The instant petition squarely raised the issue of whether respondent as manufacturer or producer of petroleum products is exempt from the payment of excise tax on such petroleum products it sold to international carriers. In the previous cases15 decided by this Court involving excise taxes on petroleum products sold to international carriers, what was only resolved is the question of who is the proper party to claim the refund of excise taxes paid on petroleum products if such tax was either paid by the international carriers themselves or incorporated into the selling price of the petroleum products sold to them. We have ruled in the said cases that the statutory taxpayer, the local manufacturer of the petroleum products who is directly liable for the payment of excise tax on the said goods, is the proper party to seek a tax refund. Thus, a foreign airline company who purchased locally manufactured petroleum products for use in its international flights, as well as a foreign oil company who likewise bought petroleum products from local manufacturers and later sold these to international carriers, have no legal personality to file a claim for tax refund or credit of

excise taxes previously paid by the local manufacturers even if the latter passed on to the said buyers the tax burden in the form of additional amount in the price. Excise taxes, as the term is used in the NIRC, refer to taxes applicable to certain specified goods or articles manufactured or produced in the Philippines for domestic sales or consumption or for any other disposition and to things imported into the Philippines. These taxes are imposed in addition to the value-added tax (VAT).16 As to petroleum products, Sec. 148 provides that excise taxes attach to the following refined and manufactured mineral oils and motor fuels as soon as they are in existence as such: (a) Lubricating oils and greases; (b) Processed gas; (c) Waxes and petrolatum; (d) Denatured alcohol to be used for motive power; (e) Naphtha, regular gasoline and other similar products of distillation; (f) Leaded premium gasoline; (g) Aviation turbo jet fuel; (h) Kerosene; (i) Diesel fuel oil, and similar fuel oils having more or less the same generating power; (j) Liquefied petroleum gas;

(k) Asphalts; and (l) Bunker fuel oil and similar fuel oils having more or less the same generating capacity. Beginning January 1, 1999, excise taxes levied on locally manufactured petroleum products and indigenous petroleum are required to be paid before their removal from the place of production.17 However, Sec. 135 provides: SEC. 135. Petroleum Products Sold to International Carriers and Exempt Entities or Agencies. Petroleum products sold to the following are exempt from excise tax: (a) International carriers of Philippine or foreign registry on their use or consumption outside the Philippines: Provided, That the petroleum products sold to these international carriers shall be stored in a bonded storage tank and may be disposed of only in accordance with the rules and regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of Finance, upon recommendation of the Commissioner; (b) Exempt entities or agencies covered by tax treaties, conventions and other international agreements for their use or consumption: Provided, however, That the country of said foreign international carrier or exempt entities or agencies exempts from similar taxes petroleum products sold to Philippine carriers, entities or agencies; and (c) Entities which are by law exempt from direct and indirect taxes. Respondent claims it is entitled to a tax refund because those petroleum products it sold to international carriers are not subject to excise tax, hence the excise taxes it paid upon withdrawal

of those products were erroneously or illegally collected and should not have been paid in the first place. Since the excise tax exemption attached to the petroleum products themselves, the manufacturer or producer is under no duty to pay the excise tax thereon. We disagree. Under Chapter II "Exemption or Conditional Tax-Free Removal of Certain Goods" of Title VI, Sections 133, 137, 138, 139 and 140 cover conditional tax-free removal of specified goods or articles, whereas Sections 134 and 135 provide for tax exemptions. While the exemption found in Sec. 134 makes reference to the nature and quality of the goods manufactured (domestic denatured alcohol) without regard to the tax status of the buyer of the said goods, Sec. 135 deals with the tax treatment of a specified article (petroleum products) in relation to its buyer or consumer. Respondents failure to make this important distinction apparently led it to mistakenly assume that the tax exemption under Sec. 135 (a) "attaches to the goods themselves" such that the excise tax should not have been paid in the first place. On July 26, 1996, petitioner Commissioner issued Revenue Regulations 8-9618 ("Excise Taxation of Petroleum Products") which provides: SEC. 4. Time and Manner of Payment of Excise Tax on Petroleum Products, Non-Metallic Minerals and Indigenous Petroleum I. Petroleum Products xxxx

a) On locally manufactured petroleum products The specific tax on petroleum products locally manufactured or produced in the Philippines shall be paid by the manufacturer, producer, owner or person having possession of the same, and such tax shall be paid within fifteen (15) days from date of removal from the place of production. (Underscoring supplied.) Thus, if an airline company purchased jet fuel from an unregistered supplier who could not present proof of payment of specific tax, the company is liable to pay the specific tax on the date of purchase.19 Since the excise tax must be paid upon withdrawal from the place of production, respondent cannot anchor its claim for refund on the theory that the excise taxes due thereon should not have been collected or paid in the first place. Sec. 229 of the NIRC allows the recovery of taxes erroneously or illegally collected. An "erroneous or illegal tax" is defined as one levied without statutory authority, or upon property not subject to taxation or by some officer having no authority to levy the tax, or one which is some other similar respect is illegal.20 Respondents locally manufactured petroleum products are clearly subject to excise tax under Sec. 148. Hence, its claim for tax refund may not be predicated on Sec. 229 of the NIRC allowing a refund of erroneous or excess payment of tax. Respondents claim is premised on what it determined as a tax exemption "attaching to the goods themselves," which must be based on a statute granting tax exemption, or "the result of legislative grace." Such a claim is to be construed strictissimi juris against the taxpayer, meaning that the claim cannot be made to rest

on vague inference. Where the rule of strict interpretation against the taxpayer is applicable as the claim for refund partakes of the nature of an exemption, the claimant must show that he clearly falls under the exempting statute.21 The exemption from excise tax payment on petroleum products under Sec. 135 (a) is conferred on international carriers who purchased the same for their use or consumption outside the Philippines. The only condition set by law is for these petroleum products to be stored in a bonded storage tank and may be disposed of only in accordance with the rules and regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of Finance, upon recommendation of the Commissioner. On January 22, 2008, or five years after the sale by respondent of the subject petroleum products, then Secretary of Finance Margarito B. Teves issued Revenue Regulations No. 3-2008 "Amending Certain Provisions of Existing Revenue Regulations on the Granting of Outright Excise Tax Exemption on Removal of Excisable Articles Intended for Export or Sale/Delivery to International Carriers or to Tax-Exempt Entities/Agencies and Prescribing the Provisions for Availing Claims for Product Replenishment." Said issuance recognized the "tax relief to which the taxpayers are entitled" by availing of the following remedies: (a) a claim for excise tax exemption pursuant to Sections 204 and 229 of the NIRC; or (2) a product replenishment. SEC. 2. IMPOSITION OF EXCISE TAX ON REMOVAL OF EXCISABLE ARTICLES FOR EXPORT OR SALE/DELIVERY TO INTERNATIONAL CARRIERS AND OTHER TAXEXEMPT ENTITIES/AGENCIES. Subject to the subsequent filing of a claim for excise tax credit/refund or product replenishment, all manufacturers of articles subject to excise tax under

Title VI of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, shall pay the excise tax that is otherwise due on every removal thereof from the place of production that is intended for exportation or sale/delivery to international carriers or to tax-exempt entities/agencies: Provided, That in case the said articles are likewise being sold in the domestic market, the applicable excise tax rate shall be the same as the excise tax rate imposed on the domestically sold articles. In the absence of a similar article that is being sold in the domestic market, the applicable excise tax shall be computed based on the value appearing in the manufacturers sworn statement converted to Philippine currency, as may be applicable. x x x x (Emphasis supplied.) In this case, however, the Solicitor General has adopted a position contrary to existing BIR regulations and rulings recognizing the right of oil companies to seek a refund of excise taxes paid on petroleum products they sold to international carriers. It is argued that there is nothing in Sec. 135 (a) which explicitly grants exemption from the payment of excise tax in favor of oil companies selling their petroleum products to international carriers and that the only claim for refund of excise taxes authorized by the NIRC is the payment of excise tax on exported goods, as explicitly provided in Sec. 130 (D), Chapter I under the same Title VI: (D) Credit for Excise Tax on Goods Actually Exported. -- When goods locally produced or manufactured are removed and actually exported without returning to the Philippines, whether so exported in their original state or as ingredients or parts of any manufactured goods or products, any excise tax paid thereon shall be credited or refunded upon submission of the proof

of actual exportation and upon receipt of the corresponding foreign exchange payment: Provided, That the excise tax on mineral products, except coal and coke, imposed under Section 151 shall not be creditable or refundable even if the mineral products are actually exported. According to the Solicitor General, Sec. 135 (a) in relation to the other provisions on excise tax and from the nature of indirect taxation, may only be construed as prohibiting the manufacturers-sellers of petroleum products from passing on the tax to international carriers by incorporating previously paid excise taxes into the selling price. In other words, respondent cannot shift the tax burden to international carriers who are allowed to purchase its petroleum products without having to pay the added cost of the excise tax. We agree with the Solicitor General. In Philippine Acetylene Co., Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue22 this Court held that petitioner manufacturer who sold its oxygen and acetylene gases to NPC, a tax-exempt entity, cannot claim exemption from the payment of sales tax simply because its buyer NPC is exempt from taxation. The Court explained that the percentage tax on sales of merchandise imposed by the Tax Code is due from the manufacturer and not from the buyer. Respondent attempts to distinguish this case from Philippine Acetylene Co., Inc. on grounds that what was involved in the latter is a tax on the transaction (sales) and not excise tax which is a tax on the goods themselves, and that the exemption sought therein was anchored merely on the tax-exempt status of the buyer and not a specific provision of law exempting the goods sold from the excise tax. But as already stated, the language of Sec. 135 indicates that the tax

exemption mentioned therein is conferred on specified buyers or consumers of the excisable articles or goods (petroleum products). Unlike Sec. 134 which explicitly exempted the article or goods itself (domestic denatured alcohol) without due regard to the tax status of the buyer or purchaser, Sec. 135 exempts from excise tax petroleum products which were sold to international carriers and other tax-exempt agencies and entities. Considering that the excise taxes attaches to petroleum products "as soon as they are in existence as such,"23 there can be no outright exemption from the payment of excise tax on petroleum products sold to international carriers. The sole basis then of respondents claim for refund is the express grant of excise tax exemption in favor of international carriers under Sec. 135 (a) for their purchases of locally manufactured petroleum products. Pursuant to our ruling in Philippine Acetylene, a tax exemption being enjoyed by the buyer cannot be the basis of a claim for tax exemption by the manufacturer or seller of the goods for any tax due to it as the manufacturer or seller. The excise tax imposed on petroleum products under Sec. 148 is the direct liability of the manufacturer who cannot thus invoke the excise tax exemption granted to its buyers who are international carriers. In Maceda v. Macaraig, Jr.,24 the Court specifically mentioned excise tax as an example of an indirect tax where the tax burden can be shifted to the buyer: On the other hand, "indirect taxes are taxes primarily paid by persons who can shift the burden upon someone else". For example, the excise and ad valorem taxes that the oil companies pay to the Bureau of Internal Revenue upon removal of petroleum products from its refinery can be

shifted to its buyer, like the NPC, by adding them to the "cash" and/or "selling price." An excise tax is basically an indirect tax. Indirect taxes are those that are demanded, in the first instance, from, or are paid by, one person in the expectation and intention that he can shift the burden to someone else. Stated elsewise, indirect taxes are taxes wherein the liability for the payment of the tax falls on one person but the burden thereof can be shifted or passed on to another person, such as when the tax is imposed upon goods before reaching the consumer who ultimately pays for it. When the seller passes on the tax to his buyer, he, in effect, shifts the tax burden, not the liability to pay it, to the purchaser as part of the price of goods sold or services rendered.25 Further, in Maceda v. Macaraig, Jr., the Court ruled that because of the tax exemptions privileges being enjoyed by NPC under existing laws, the tax burden may not be shifted to it by the oil companies who shall pay for fuel oil taxes on oil they supplied to NPC. Thus: In view of all the foregoing, the Court rules and declares that the oil companies which supply bunker fuel oil to NPC have to pay the taxes imposed upon said bunker fuel oil sold to NPC. By the very nature of indirect taxation, the economic burden of such taxation is expected to be passed on through the channels of commerce to the user or consumer of the goods sold. Because, however, the NPC has been exempted from both direct and indirect taxation, the NPC must be held exempted from absorbing the economic burden of indirect taxation. This means, on the one hand, that the oil companies which wish to sell to NPC absorb all or part of the economic burden of the taxes previously paid to BIR, which they could shift to NPC if NPC did not enjoy

exemption from indirect taxes. This means also, on the other hand, that the NPC may refuse to pay that part of the "normal" purchase price of bunker fuel oil which represents all or part of the taxes previously paid by the oil companies to BIR. If NPC nonetheless purchases such oil from the oil companies because to do so may be more convenient and ultimately less costly for NPC than NPC itself importing and hauling and storing the oil from overseas NPC is entitled to be reimbursed by the BIR for that part of the buying price of NPC which verifiably represents the tax already paid by the oil company-vendor to the BIR.26 (Emphasis supplied.) In the case of international air carriers, the tax exemption granted under Sec. 135 (a) is based on "a long-standing international consensus that fuel used for international air services should be tax-exempt." The provisions of the 1944 Convention of International Civil Aviation or the "Chicago Convention", which form binding international law, requires the contracting parties not to charge duty on aviation fuel already on board any aircraft that has arrived in their territory from another contracting state. Between individual countries, the exemption of airlines from national taxes and customs duties on a range of aviation-related goods, including parts, stores and fuel is a standard element of the network of bilateral "Air Service Agreements."27 Later, a Resolution issued by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) expanded the provision as to similarly exempt from taxes all kinds of fuel taken on board for consumption by an aircraft from a contracting state in the territory of another contracting State departing for the territory of any other State.28 Though initially aimed at establishing uniformity of taxation among parties to the treaty to prevent double taxation, the tax exemption now generally applies to fuel used in international travel by both domestic and foreign carriers.

On April 21, 1978, then President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1359: PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 1359 AMENDING SECTION 134 OF THE NATIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1977. WHEREAS, under the present law oil products sold to international carriers are subject to the specific tax; WHEREAS, some countries allow the sale of petroleum products to Philippine Carriers without payment of taxes thereon; WHEREAS, to foster goodwill and better relationship with foreign countries, there is a need to grant similar tax exemption in favor of foreign international carriers; NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution, do hereby order and decree the following: Section 1. Section 134 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1977 is hereby amended to read as follows:

"Sec. 134. Articles subject to specific tax. Specific internal revenue taxes apply to things manufactured or produced in the Philippines for domestic sale or consumption and to things imported, but not to anything produced or manufactured here which shall be removed for exportation and is actually exported without returning to the Philippines, whether so exported in its original state or as an ingredient or part of any manufactured article or product. "HOWEVER, PETROLEUM PRODUCTS SOLD TO AN INTERNATIONAL CARRIER FOR ITS USE OR CONSUMPTION OUTSIDE OF THE PHILIPPINES SHALL NOT BE SUBJECT TO SPECIFIC TAX, PROVIDED, THAT THE COUNTRY OF SAID CARRIER EXEMPTS FROM TAX PETROLEUM PRODUCTS SOLD TO PHILIPPINE CARRIERS. "In case of importations the internal revenue tax shall be in addition to the customs duties, if any." Section 2. This Decree shall take effect immediately. Contrary to respondents assertion that the above amendment to the former provision of the 1977 Tax Code supports its position that it was not liable for excise tax on the petroleum products sold to international carriers, we find that no such inference can be drawn from the words used in the amended provision or its introductory part. Founded on the principles of international comity and reciprocity, P.D. No. 1359 granted exemption from payment of excise

tax but only to foreign international carriers who are allowed to purchase petroleum products free of specific tax provided the country of said carrier also grants tax exemption to Philippine carriers. Both the earlier amendment in the 1977 Tax Code and the present Sec. 135 of the 1997 NIRC did not exempt the oil companies from the payment of excise tax on petroleum products manufactured and sold by them to international carriers. Because an excise tax is a tax on the manufacturer and not on the purchaser, and there being no express grant under the NIRC of exemption from payment of excise tax to local manufacturers of petroleum products sold to international carriers, and absent any provision in the Code authorizing the refund or crediting of such excise taxes paid, the Court holds that Sec. 135 (a) should be construed as prohibiting the shifting of the burden of the excise tax to the international carriers who buys petroleum products from the local manufacturers. Said provision thus merely allows the international carriers to purchase petroleum products without the excise tax component as an added cost in the price fixed by the manufacturers or distributors/sellers. Consequently, the oil companies which sold such petroleum products to international carriers are not entitled to a refund of excise taxes previously paid on the goods.1wphi1 Time and again, we have held that tax refunds are in the nature of tax exemptions which result to loss of revenue for the government. Upon the person claiming an exemption from tax payments rests the burden of justifying the exemption by words too plain to be mistaken and too categorical to be misinterpreted,29 it is never presumed30 nor be allowed solely on the ground of equity.31 These exemptions, therefore, must not rest on vague, uncertain or indefinite inference, but should be granted only by a clear and unequivocal provision of law on the basis of language

too plain to be mistaken. Such exemptions must be strictly construed against the taxpayer, as taxes are the lifeblood of the government.32 WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED. The Decision dated March 25, 2009 and Resolution dated June 24, 2009 of the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc in CTA EB No. 415 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The claims for tax refund or credit filed by respondent Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation are DENIED for lack of basis. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.

G.R. Nos. L-22805 & L-27858 June 30, 1975 WONDER MECHANICAL ENGINEERING CORPORATION represented by Mr. LUCIO QUIJANO, President & General Manager, petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF TAX APPEALS and THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE BEING REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, respondents. L-22805 Sarte and Espinosa for petitioner. Office of the Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz, Solicitor Alejandro B. Afurong and Special Attorney Augusto A. Lim for respondents. L-27858 Jose Sarte for petitioner. Office of the Solicitor General Antonio P. Barredo, Assistant Solicitor General Felicisimo R. Rosete, Solicitor Lolita O. Gal-lang and Special Attorney Elpidio C. Cid for respondents. ESGUERRA, J.:

Two petitions for review of the decisions of the respondent Court of Tax Appeals in G.R. Nos. L-22805 and L-27858. The first decision (L-22805) dismissed the appeal of petitioner Wonder Mechanical Engineering Corporation in C.T.A. Case No. 1036, "for lack of jurisdiction, the same having been filed beyond the 30 day period prescribed in Section 11 of Republic Act No. 1125", and confirmed the decision of respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue which "assessed against petitioner the total amount of P69,699.56 as fixed taxes and sales and percentage taxes, inclusive of the 25% surcharge for the years 1953-54". The second decision (L-27858) ordered the same petitioner to pay, respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue the amount of "P25,080.91 as deficiency sales and percentage taxes from 1957 to June 30, 1960, inclusive of the 25% surcharge, plus costs", based on the common principal issue of "whether or not the manufacture and sale of steel chairs, jeepney parts and other articles which are not machines for making other products, and job orders done by petitioner come within the purview of the tax exemption granted it under Republic Act Nos. 35 and 901." Petitioner is a corporation which was granted tax exemption privilege under Republic Act 35 in respect to the "manufacture of machines for making cigarette paper, pails, lead washers, rivets, nails, candies. chairs, etc.". The tax exemption expired on May 30, 1951. On September 14, 1953, petitioner applied with the Secretary of Finance for reinstatement of the exemption privilege under the provisions of R.A. 901 approved July 7, 1954, the reinstatement to commence on June 20, 1953, the date Republic Act

901 took effect. In G.R. No. L-22805, respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue, sometime in 1955, caused the investigation of petitioner for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not it had any tax liability. The findings of Revenue Examiner Alfonso B. Camillo on September 30, 1955, stated "that during the years 1953 and 1954 the petitioner was engaged in the business of manufacturing various articles, namely, auto spare parts, flourescent lamp shades, rice threshers, post clips, radio screws, washers, electric irons, kerosene stoves and other articles; that it also engaged in business of electroplating and in repair of machines; that although it was engaged in said business, it did not provide itself with the proper privilege tax receipts as required by Section 182 of the Tax Code and did not pay the sales tax on its gross sales of articles manufactured by it and the percentage tax due on the gross receipts of its electroplating and repair business pursuant to Sections 183, 185, 186 and 191 of the same Code". Based on the foregoing, respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue assessed against petitioner on November 29, 1955, the total amount of P69,699.56 as fixed taxes and sales and percentage taxes, inclusive of the 25% surcharge, as follows:
Sales and percentage taxes for 1953 and 1954 P55,719.65 25% surcharge 13,929.91

C-14 fixed tax (1953-1954) 20.00 C-4 (27) fixed tax (1954) 10.00 C-4 (37) fixed tax (1953-1954) 20.00 TOTAL P69.699.56

Respondent also suggested the payment of the amount of P3,300.00 as penalties in extrajudicial settlement of petitioner's violations of Sections 182, 183, 185, 186 and 191 of the Tax Code and of the Bookkeeping Regulations (p. 25, B.I.R. rec.). In G.R. No. L-27858, respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue caused the investigation of petitioner for the purpose of ascertaining its tax liability on August 10, 1960, as a result of which on December 7, 1960, Revenue Examiner Pedro Cabigao reported that "petitioner had manufactured and sold steel chairs without paying the 30% sales tax imposed by Section 185(c) of the Tax Code; accepted job orders without paying the 3% tax in gross receipts imposed by Section 191 of the same Code; manufactured and sold other articles subject to 7% sales tax under Section 186 of the same Code but not covered by the tax exemption privilege; failed to register with the Bureau of Internal Revenue books of accounts and sales invoices as required by the Bookkeeping Regulations; failed to indicate in the sales invoices the Residence Certificate number of customers who purchased articles worth P50.00 or over, in violation of the Bookkeeping Regulation; and failed to produce its books of accounts and business records for inspection and examination when required to do so by the

revenue examiner in violation of the Bookkeeping Regulations (pp. 17-18 B.I.R. rec.)". Based on the foregoing, the respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue on October 6, 1961, assessed against the petitioner "the payment of P25,080.91 as deficiency percentage taxes and 25% surcharge for 1957 to 1960 and suggested the payment of P5,020.00 as total compromise penalty in extrajudicial settlement of the various violations of the Tax Code and Bookkeeping Regulation (pp. 28-29 B.I.R. rec.).1wph1.t " Regarding the compromise penalty suggested by respondent Bureau of Internal Revenue in both G.R. L-22805 and L-27858, it does not appear that petitioner accepted the imposition of the compromise amounts. Hence We find no compelling reasons to alter the decision of respondent Court of Tax Appeals in L-27858 that
With respect to the compromise penalty in the total amount of P5,020.00 suggested by respondent to be paid by petitioner, it is now a well settled doctrine that compromise penalty cannot be imposed or collected without the agreement or conformity of the tax payer (Collector of Internal Revenue vs. University of Santo Tomas, et al., G.R. Nos. L11274 & L-11280, November 28, 1958; the Collector of Internal Revenue v. Bautista, et al., G.R. Nos. L-12250 & 12259, May 27, 1959; the Philippines International Fair, Inc. v. Collector of Internal Revenue, G.R. Nos. L-12928 & L-12932, March 31, 1962). (Emphasis for emphasis)

Inasmuch as the figures appearing in the Bureau of Internal Revenue's tax delinquency assessments in both cases (L-22805 and L-27858) are not in dispute, and the

respondent Court of Tax Appeals ruled in its decision in G.R. No. L-27858 on the lone issue presented in both cases that the tax assessment of "P25,080.91 as deficiency sales and percentage taxes from 1957 to June 30, 1960" must be paid by petitioner as the sale of other manufactured items did not come within the purview, of the tax exemption granted petitioner. We find it no longer necessary to make a definite stand on the question raised in L-22805 as to the alleged error committed by respondent Court of Tax Appeals in dismissing the appeal in C.T.A. 1036 (subject matter of L22805) for lack of jurisdiction, the same having been filed beyond the 30-day period prescribed in Section 11 of Republic Act 1126. Suffice it to say on that issue that appellants must perfect their appeal from the decision of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to the Court of Tax Appeals within the statutory period of 30 days, otherwise said Court acquires no jurisdiction. We turn Our attention on the vital issue of tax exemption claimed by petitioner as basis for questioning the tax assessments made by respondent Bureau of Internal Revenue in both cases (G.R. L-22805 and 27858). There is no doubt that petitioner was given a Certificate of Tax Exemption By the Secretary of Finance on July 7,1954, as follows:
Be it known that upon application filed by Wonder Mechanical Engineering Corporation, 1310 M. Hizon, Sta. Cruz, Manila, in respect to the manufacture of machines for making cigarette paper, pails, lead washers, nails, rivets, candies, etc., the said industry/industries have been determined to be new and necessary under the provisions of Republic Act No. 901 (or of Republic Act No. 35), in view of which this Certificate of

Tax Exemption has been issued entitling the abovenamed firm/person to tax exemption from the payment of taxes directly payable by it/him in respect to the said industry/industries until December 31, 1958, and thereafter to a diminishing exemption until June 20, 1959, as provided in section 1 of Republic Act No. 901, except the exemption from the income tax which will wholly terminate on June 20, 1955 (B.I.R. rec., page 13). (Emphasis for emphasis)

Republic Act 35, approved on September 30, 1946, grants to persons "who or which shall engage in a new and necessary industry", for a period of four years from the date of the organization of such industry, exemption "from the payment of all internal revenue taxes directly payable by such person". Republic Act 901, approved on June 20, 1953, which amended Republic Act 35 by extending the period of tax exemption, elaborated on the meaning of "new and necessary industry" as follows:
Sec. 2. For the purposes of this Act, a "new industry is one not existing or operating on a commercial scale prior to January first, nineteen hundred and forty-five. Where several applications for exemption are filed in connection with the same kind of industry, the Secretary of Finance shall approve them in the order in which they have been filed until the total output or production of those already granted exemption for that particular kind of industry is sufficient to meet local demand or consumption: Provided, That the limitation shall not apply to products intended for export. (Emphasis for emphasis) Sec. 3. For the purposes of this Act, a "necessary" industry is one complying with the following requirements: (1) Where the establishment of the industry will contribute to the attainment of

a stable and balanced national economy. (2) Where the industry will operate on a commercial scale in conformity with up-to-date practices and will make its products available to the general public in quantities and at prices which justify its operation with a reasonable degree of permanency. (3) Where the imported raw materials represent a value not exceeding sixty percentum of the manufacturing cost plus reasonable selling price and administrative expenses: Provided, That a grantee of tax exemption shall use materials of domestic origin, growth, or manufacture wherever the same are available or could be made available in reasonable quantity and quality and at reasonable prices. ... (Emphasis for emphasis) .

From the above-quoted provisions of the law, it is clear that an industry to be entitled to tax exemption must be "new and necessary" and that the tax exemption was granted to new and necessary industries as an incentive to greater and adequate production of products made scarce by the second world war which wrought havoc on our national economy, a production "sufficient to meet local demand or consumption"; that will contribute "to the attainment of a stable and balanced national economy"; an industry that "will make its products available to the general public in quantities and at prices which will justify its operation." Viewed in the light of the foregoing reasons for the State grant of tax exemption, We are firmly convinced that petitioner was granted tax exemption in the manufacture and

sale "of machines for making cigarette paper, pails, lead washers, nails, rivets, candies, etc.", as explicitly stated in the Certificate of Exemption (Annex A of the petition in G.R. No. L-22805), but certainly not for the manufacture and sale of the articles produced by those machines. That such was the intention of the State when it granted tax exemption to the petitioner in the manufacture of machines for making certain products could be deduced from the following:
Before the approval of the original grant of tax exemption to Petitioner for engaging in a new and necessary industry under Republic Act No. 35, the then Secretary of Finance submitted a memorandum to the Cabinet, dated March 3, 1949, the pertinent portions of which read as follows: "... If (petitioner) turns out machines whenever orders therefore are received. Among its products are a medicine tablet wrapping machine for Dr. Agustin Liboro, photographs of which are attached, a loud speaker for the Manila Supply, and a "Lompia wrapping" machine for a certain Chinese. ... The manufacture of the above-mentioned machines can be considered a new and necessary industry for the purpose of Republic Act No. 35. It is recommended that the benefits of said Act be extended to this corporation in respect to said industry. Respectfully submitted: (SGD.) PIO PEDROSA

Secretary" The letter of the Executive Secretary to the petitioner dated May 30, 1949, reads as follows: "Sirs: I have the honor to advise you that His Excellency, the President, has today, upon recommendation of the Honorable, the Secretary of Finance, approved your application for exemption from the payment of internal revenue taxes on your business of manufacturing machines for making a number of products, such as cigarette paper, pails, lead washers, rivets, nails, candies, chairs, etc., under the provisions of Section 2 of Republic Act No. 35. Very respectfully, (SGD.) TEODORO EVANGELISTA Executive Secretary" (Emphasis for emphasis)

Aside from the clarity of the State's intention in granting tax exemption to petitioner in so far as it manufactures machines for making certain products, as manifested in the acts of its duly authorized representatives in the Executive branch of the government, it is quite difficult for Us to believe that the manufacture of steel chairs, jeep parts, and other articles not constituting machines for making certain products would fall under the classification of "new and necessary" industries envisioned in Republic Acts 35 and 901 as to entitle the petitioner to tax exemption.

There is no way to dispute the "cardinal rule in taxation that exemptions therefrom are highly disfavored in law and he who claims tax exemption must be able to justify his claim or right thereto by the dearest grant of organic or statute law" as succinctly stated in the decision of the respondent Court of Tax Appeals in C.T.A. No. 1265 (L27858).1wph1.t Tax exemption must be clearly expressed and cannot be established by implication. Exemption from a common burden cannot be permitted to exist upon vague implication. (Asiatic Petroleum Co. vs. Llanes, 49 Phil. 466; House vs. Posadas, 53 Phil. 338; Collector of Internal Revenue vs. Manila Jockey Club, Inc., G.R. No. L-8755, March 23, 1956, 98 Phil. 676). WHEREFORE, the decisions of respondent Court of Tax Appeals in these two cases are affirmed. Costs against the petitioner in both cases.

G.R. No. 180043 July 14, 2009 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., Respondent. DECISION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: In this Petition for Review on Certiorari, under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue assails the Decision1 of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) En Banc dated 9 August 2007 in CTA EB No. 221, affirming the Decision2 dated 14 June 2006 of the CTA First Division in CTA Case No. 6735, which granted the claim of respondent Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL) for the refund of its Overseas Communications Tax (OCT) for the period April to December 2001. Petitioner, as the Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), is responsible for the assessment and collection of all national internal revenue taxes, fees, and charges, including the 10% Overseas Communications Tax (OCT), imposed by Section 120 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, which reads: SEC. 120. Tax on Overseas Dispatch, Message or Conversation Originating from the Philippines. (A) Persons LiableThere shall be collected upon every overseas dispatch, message or

conversation transmitted from the Philippines by telephone, telegraph, telewriter exchange, wireless and other communication equipment service, a tax of ten percent (10%) on the amount paid of [the transaction involving overseas dispatch, message or conversation] such services. The tax imposed in this Section shall be payable by the person paying for the services rendered and shall be paid to the person rendering the services who is required to collect and pay the tax within twenty (20) days after the end of each quarter. On the other hand, respondent is a domestic corporation organized under the corporate laws of the Republic of the Philippines; declared the national flag carrier of the country; and the grantee under Presidential Decree No. 15903 of a franchise to establish, operate, and maintain transport services for the carriage of passengers, mail, and property by air, in and between any and all points and places throughout the Philippines, and between the Philippines and other countries.41avvphi1 For the period January to December 2001, the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) collected from respondent the 10% OCT on the amount paid by the latter for overseas telephone calls it had made through the former. In all, PLDT collected from respondent the amount of P202,471.18 as OCT for 2001, summarized as follows5: PERIOD AMOUNT January to March P 2001 75,332.26

April to June 2001

50,271.43

July to September 43,313.96 2001 October to December 2001 Total 33,553.53

P 202,471.18 On 8 April 2003, respondent filed with the BIR an administrative claim for refund of the P202,471.18 OCT it alleged to have erroneously paid in 2001. In a letter6 dated 4 April 2003, addressed to petitioner, Ma. Stella L. Diaz (Diaz), the Assistant Vice-President for Financial Planning & Analysis of respondent, explained that the claim for refund of respondent was based on its franchise, Section 13 of Presidential Decree No. 1590, which granted it (1) the option to pay either the basic corporate income tax on its annual net taxable income or the two percent franchise tax on its gross revenues, whichever was lower; and (2) the exemption from all other taxes, duties, royalties, registration, license and other fees and charges imposed by any municipal, city, provincial or national authority or government agency, now or in the future, except only real property tax. Also invoking BIR Ruling No. 97-947 dated 13 April 1994, Diaz maintained that, other than being liable for basic corporate income tax or the franchise tax, whichever was lower, respondent was clearly exempted from all other taxes, including OCT, by

virtue of the "in lieu of all taxes" clause in Section 13 of Presidential Decree No. 1590. Petitioner failed to act on the request for refund of respondent, which prompted respondent to file on 4 June 2003, with the CTA in Division, a Petition for Review, docketed as CTA Case No. 6735. Respondent sought the refund of the amount P127,138.92, representing OCT, which PLDT erroneously collected from respondent for the second, third and fourth quarters of 2001.8 The claim of respondent for the refund of the OCT for the first quarter of 2001, amounting to P75,323.26, had already prescribed after the passing of more than two years since said amount was paid. Respondent alleged in its Petition that per its computation, reflected in its annual income tax return, it incurred a net loss in 2001 resulting in zero basic corporate income tax liability, which was necessarily lower than the franchise tax due on its gross revenues. Respondent argued that in opting for the basic corporate income tax, regardless of whether or not it actually paid any amount as tax, it was already entitled to the exemption from all other taxes granted to it by Section 13 of Presidential Decree No. 1590. 9 After a hearing on the merits, the CTA First Division rendered a Decision10 dated 14 June 2006, the dispositive part of which reads: WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review is hereby GRANTED. Respondent is ORDERED to refund to the petitioner the substantiated amount of P126,243.80 representing the erroneously collected 10% Overseas Communications Tax for the period April to December 2001. The CTA First Division reasoned that under Section 13 of Presidential Decree No. 1590,

respondent had the option to choose between two alternatives: the basic corporate income tax and the franchise tax, whichever would result in a lower amount of tax, and this would be in lieu of all other taxes, with the exception only of tax on real property. In the event that respondent incurred a net loss for the taxable year resulting in zero basic corporate income tax liability, respondent could not be required to pay the franchise tax before it could avail itself of the exemption from all other taxes under Section 13 of Presidential Decree No. 1590. The possibility that respondent would incur a net loss for a given taxable period and, thus, have zero liability for basic corporate income tax, was already anticipated by Section 13 of Presidential Decree No. 1590, the very same section granting respondent tax exemption, since it authorized respondent to carry over its excess net loss as a deduction for the next five taxable years. However, the CTA First Division held that out of the total amount of P127,138.92 respondent sought to refund, only the amount of P126,243.80 was supported by either original or photocopied PLDT billing statements, original office receipts, and original copies of check vouchers of respondent. Respondent was also able to prove, through testimonial evidence, that the OCT collected by PLDT from it was included in the quarterly percentage tax returns of PLDT for the second, third, and fourth quarters of 2001, which were submitted to and received by an authorized agent bank of the BIR.11 Not satisfied with the foregoing Decision dated 14 June 2006, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied by the CTA First Division in a Resolution dated 17 October 2006. 12

Petitioner filed an appeal with the CTA en banc, docketed as CTA EB No. 221. The latter promulgated its Decision13 on 9 August 2007 denying petitioners appeal. The CTA En Banc found that Presidential Decree No. 1590 does not provide that only the actual payment of basic corporate income tax or franchise tax by respondent would entitle it to the tax exemption provided under Section 13 of the latters franchise. Like the CTA First Division, the CTA en banc ruled that by providing for net loss carry-over, Presidential Decree No. 1590 recognized the possibility that respondent would end up with a net loss in the computation of its taxable income, which would mean zero liability for basic corporate income tax. The CTA En Banc further cited Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Philippine Airlines, Inc.14 (PAL case) to support its conclusions. In the said case, this Court declared that despite the fact that respondent did not pay any basic corporate income tax, given its net loss position for the taxable years concerned, it was still exempted from paying all other taxes, including final withholding tax on interest income, pursuant to Section 13 of Presidential Decree No. 1590. Lastly, the CTA en banc sustained the finding of the CTA First Division that respondent was only able to establish its claim for OCT refund in the amount of P126,243.80. The CTA En Banc denied petitioners Motion for Reconsideration in a Resolution dated 11 October 2007.15 Hence, the present Petition for Review where the petitioner raises the following issues: I THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS EN BANC ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE

PHRASE "IN LIEU OF ALL OTHER TAXES" IN SECTIONS 13 AND 14 OF PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1590 DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE THE FULFILLMENT OF A CONDITION BEFORE THE EXEMPTION FROM ALL OTHER TAXES MAY BE APPLIED; AND II TAX REFUNDS ARE IN THE NATURE OF TAX EXEMPTIONS. AS SUCH, THEY SHOULD BE CONSTRUED STRICTISSIMI JURIS AGAINST THE PERSON OR ENTITY CLAIMING THE EXEMPTION.16 The present Petition is without merit. Petitioner argues that the PAL case is not applicable to the case at bar, since the former involves final withholding tax on interest income, while the latter concerns another type of tax, the OCT.17 Petitioners argument is untenable. Pertinent portions of Section 13 of Presidential Decree No. 1590 are quoted hereunder: Section 13. In consideration of the franchise and rights hereby granted, the grantee shall pay to the Philippine Government during the life of this franchise, whichever of subsections (a) and (b) hereunder will result in a lower tax: (a) The basic corporate income tax based on the grantees annual net taxable income

computed in accordance with the provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code; or (b) A franchise tax of two per cent (2%) of the gross revenues, derived by the grantee from all sources, without distinction as to transport or non-transport operations; provided, that with respect to international air-transport service, only the gross passenger, mail and freight revenues from its outgoing flights shall be subject to this tax. The tax paid by grantee under either of the above alternatives shall be in lieu of all other taxes, duties, royalties, registration, license, and other fees and charges of any kind, nature, or description imposed, levied, established, assessed or collected by any municipal, city, provincial, or national authority or government agency, now or in the future x x x xxxx The grantee, shall, however, pay the tax on its real property in conformity with existing law. The language used in Section 13 of Presidential Decree No. 1590, granting respondent tax exemption, is clearly all-inclusive. The basic corporate income tax or franchise tax paid by respondent shall be "in lieu of all other taxes, duties, royalties, registration, license, and other fees and charges of any kind, nature, or description imposed, levied, established, assessed or collected by any municipal, city, provincial, or national authority or government agency, now or in the future x x x," except only real property tax. Even a meticulous examination of Presidential Decree No. 1590 will not reveal any provision therein limiting the tax exemption of respondent to final withholding tax on interest income or excluding from said exemption the OCT. Moreover, although the PAL case may involve a different type of tax, certain pronouncements

made by the Court therein are still significant in the instant case. In the PAL case, petitioner likewise opposed the claim for refund of respondent based on the argument that the latter was not exempted from final withholding tax on interest income, because said tax should be deemed part of the basic corporate income tax, which respondent had opted to pay. This Court was unconvinced by petitioners argument, ratiocinating that "basic corporate income tax," under Section 13(a) of Presidential Decree No. 1590, relates to the general rate of 35% (reduced to 32% by the year 2000) imposed on taxable income by Section 27(A) of the NIRC. Although the definition of "gross income" is broad enough to include all passive incomes, the passive incomes already subjected to different rates of final tax to be withheld at source shall no longer be included in the computation of gross income, which shall be used in the determination of taxable income. The interest income of respondent is already subject to final withholding tax of 20%, and no longer to the basic corporate income tax of 35%. Having established that final tax on interest income is not part of the basic corporate income tax, then the former is considered as among "all other taxes" from which respondent is exempted under Section 13 of Presidential Decree No. 1590. It is true that the discussion in the PAL case on "gross income" is immaterial to the case at bar. OCT is not even an income tax. It is a business tax, which the government imposes on the gross annual sales of operators of communication equipment sending overseas dispatches, messages or conversations from the Philippines. According to Section 120 of the NIRC, the person paying for the services rendered (respondent, in this case) shall pay the OCT to the person rendering the service (PLDT); the latter, in turn, shall remit the amount to the BIR. If this Court deems that

final tax on interest income which is also an income tax, but distinct from basic corporate income tax is included among "all other taxes" from which respondent is exempt, then with all the more reason should the Court consider OCT, which is altogether a different type of tax, as also covered by the said exemption. Petitioner further avers that respondent cannot avail itself of the benefit of the "in lieu of all other taxes" proviso in Section 13 of Presidential Decree No. 1590 when it made no actual payment of either the basic corporate income tax or the franchise tax. Petitioner made the same averment in the PAL case, which the Court rejected for the following reasons: A careful reading of Section 13 rebuts the argument of the CIR that the "in lieu of all other taxes" proviso is a mere incentive that applies only when PAL actually pays something. It is clear that PD 1590 intended to give respondent the option to avail itself of Subsection (a) or (b) as consideration for its franchise. Either option excludes the payment of other taxes and dues imposed or collected by the national or the local government. PAL has the option to choose the alternative that results in lower taxes. It is not the fact of tax payment that exempts it, but the exercise of its option. Under Subsection (a), the basis for the tax rate is respondents annual net taxable income, which (as earlier discussed) is computed by subtracting allowable deductions and exemptions from gross income. By basing the tax rate on the annual net taxable income, PD 1590 necessarily recognized the situation in which taxable income may result in a negative amount and thus

translate into a zero tax liability. xxxx The fallacy of the CIRs argument is evident from the fact that the payment of a measly sum of one peso would suffice to exempt PAL from other taxes, whereas a zero liability arising from its losses would not. There is no substantial distinction between a zero tax and a one-peso tax liability.18 (Emphases ours.) In insisting that respondent needs to actually pay a certain amount as basic corporate income tax or franchise tax, before it can enjoy the tax exemption granted to it, petitioner places too much reliance on the use of the word "pay" in the first line of Section 13 of Presidential Decree No. 1590. It must do well for petitioner to remember that a statutes clauses and phrases should not be taken as detached and isolated expressions, but the whole and every part thereof must be considered in fixing the meaning of any of its parts.19 A strict interpretation of the word "pay" in Section 13 of Presidential Decree No. 1590 would effectively render nugatory the other rights categorically conferred upon the respondent by its franchise. Section 13 of Presidential Decree No. 1590 clearly gives respondent the option to "pay" either basic corporate income tax on its net taxable income or franchise tax on its gross revenues, whichever would result in lower tax. The rationale for giving respondent such an option is explained in the PAL case, to wit: Notably, PAL was owned and operated by the government at the time the franchise was last

amended. It can reasonably be contemplated that PD 1590 sought to assist the finances of the government corporation in the form of lower taxes. When the respondent operates at a loss (as in the instant case), no taxes are due; in this [sic] instances, it has a lower tax liability than that provided by Subsection (b).20 In the event that respondent incurs a net loss, it shall have zero liability for basic corporate income tax, the lowest possible tax liability. There being no qualification to the exercise of its options under Section 13 of Presidential Decree No. 1590, then respondent is free to choose basic corporate income tax, even if it would have zero liability for the same in light of its net loss position for the taxable year. Additionally, a ruling by this Court compelling respondent to pay a franchise tax when it incurs a net loss and is, thus, not liable for any basic corporate income tax would be contrary to the evident intent of the law to give respondent options and to make the latter liable for the least amount of tax. Moreover, then President Ferdinand E. Marcos, the author of Presidential Decree No. 1590, was mindful of the possibility that respondent would incur a net loss for a taxable year, resulting in zero tax liability for basic corporate income tax, when he included in the franchise of respondent the following provisions: For the purposes of computing the basic corporate income tax as provided herein, the grantee is authorized: xxxx (2) To carry over as a deduction from taxable income any net loss incurred in any year up to five

years following the year of such loss. In allowing respondent to carry over its net loss for five consecutive years following the year said loss was incurred, Presidential Decree No. 1590 takes into account the possibility that respondent shall be in a net loss position for six years straight, during which it shall have zero basic corporate income tax liability. The Court also notes that net loss carry-over may only be used in the computation of basic corporate income tax. Hence, if respondent is required to pay a franchise tax every time it has zero basic corporate income tax liability due to net loss, then it shall never have the opportunity to avail itself of the benefit of net loss carry-over. Finally, petitioner contends that according to well-established doctrine, a tax refund, which is in the nature of a tax exemption, should be construed strictissimi juris against the taxpayer.21 However, when the claim for refund has clear legal basis and is sufficiently supported by evidence, as in the present case, then the Court shall not hesitate to grant the same. In its previous discussion, the Court has already established that by merely exercising its option to pay for basic corporate income tax even if it had zero liability for the same due to its net loss position in 2001 respondent was already exempted from all other taxes, including the OCT. Therefore, respondent is entitled to recover the amount of OCT erroneously collected from it in 2001. Also, the CTA, both in Division and en banc, found that respondent submitted ample evidence to prove its payment of OCT to PLDT during the second, third, and fourth quarters of 2001, in the total amount of P126,243.80, which, in turn, was paid by PLDT to the BIR. Said finding by the CTA, being factual in nature, is already conclusively binding upon this

Court. Under our tax system, the CTA acts as a highly specialized body specifically created for the purpose of reviewing tax cases. Accordingly, its findings of fact are generally regarded as final, binding, and conclusive on this Court, and will not ordinarily be reviewed or disturbed on appeal when supported by substantial evidence, in the absence of gross error or abuse on its part.22 WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for Review is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc dated 9 August 2007 in CTA EB No. 221, affirming the Decision dated 14 June 2006 of the CTA First Division in CTA Case No. 6735, which granted the claim of Philippine Airlines, Inc. for a refund of Overseas Communications Tax erroneously collected from it for the period April to December 2001, in the amount of P126,243.80, is AFFIRMED. No costs. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 72477 October 16, 1990 NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. HON. PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, 10TH JUDICIAL REGION BRANCH XXV, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, PROVINCE OF MISAMIS ORIENTAL, MUNICIPALITY OF JASAAN, MISAMIS ORIENTAL AND BARANGAY APLAYA, JASAAN, MISAMIS ORIENTAL, respondents. Pantaleon Z. Salcedo for respondent Barangay Aplaya. The Provincial Attorney for respondent Misamis Oriental and Municipality of Jasaan. FERNAN, C.J.: In this Special Civil Action for Certiorari, petitioner National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR for brevity) questions the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City, Branch XXV to hear Civil Case No. 9901 filed by respondents Province of Misamis Oriental and Municipality of Jasaan for the collection of real property tax and special education fund tax from petitioner covering the years 1978 to 1984. The antecedent facts are as follows: On October 10, 1984, the Province of Misamis Oriental filed a complaint 1 with the Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City, Branch XXV against NAPOCOR for the

collection of real property tax and special education fund tax in the amounts of P11,105,008.10 and P11,104,658.10, respectively, covering the period 1978 to 1984. Petitioner NAPOCOR then defendant therein, filed a motion to dismiss 2 dated January 12, 1985 on the grounds that the court has no jurisdiction over the action or suit and that it is not the proper forum for the adjudication of the case. In support of this motion NAPOCOR cited Presidential Decree No. 242 dated July 9, 1973 which provides that disputes between agencies of the government including govemment-owned or controlled corporations shall be administratively settled or adjudicated by the Secretary of Justice. The court through Judge Pablito C. Pielago issued an order 3 dated January 28, 1985 denying the motion to dismiss. NAPOCOR filed a supplemental motion to dismiss 4 on February 22, 1985 citing a resolution of the Fiscal Incentive Review Board, No. 10-85 effective January 11, 1984, restoring the tax and duty exemption privileges of petitioner. On March 27, 1985, NAPOCOR filed its answer to the complaint with counterclaim. Treating the same as a second motion to dismiss and finding the affirmative defenses therein stated to be unmeritorious, the court a quo issued an order on June 27, 1985, denying the second motion to dismiss and requiring both parties to appear before the court for the purpose of submitting a stipulation of facts. On July 23, 1985, Barangay Aplaya, Municipality of Jasaan, Misamis Oriental filed a complaint in intervention 5 contending that non-payment by NAPOCOR of real property

taxes would adversely affect its interest since under the law, ten percent (10%) of the real property tax collected on properties within its jurisdiction shall accrue to the general fund of the barangay. Thereafter, the case was set for trial pursuant to the court's order dated August 20, 1985. 6 On October 30, 1985, petitioner NAPOCOR filed before this Court the present special civil action for certiorari 7 setting forth the following issues, to wit:
1) Respondent Court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion when it issued the orders dated January 28, 1985, June 27, 1985 and August 20, 1985, denying petitioner's motions to have Civil Case No. 9901 dismissed on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and/or improper venue. 2) Petitioner is exempt from payment of real property taxes.

Relied upon by NAPOCOR in assailing the jurisdiction of the lower court and/or the venue of the action are Sections 2 and 3 of Presidential Decree No. 242, entitled "PRESCRIBING THE PROCEDURE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE SETTLEMENT OR ADJUDICATION OF DISPUTES, CLAIMS AND CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN OR AMONG GOVERNMENT OFFICES, AGENCIES AND INSTRUMENTALITIES, INCLUDING GOVERNMENT-OWNED OR CONTROLLED CORPORATIONS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES" dated on July 9, 1973. Sections 2 and 3 of this Decree provide:
Section 2. In all cases involving only questions of law, the same shall be submitted to

and settled or adjudicated by the Secretary of Justice, as Attorney General and ex officio legal adviser of all government-owned or controlled corporations and entities, in consonance with section 83 of the Revised Administrative Code. His ruling or determination of the question in each case shall be conclusive and binding upon all the parties concerned. Section 3. Cases involving mixed questions of law and of fact or only factual issues shall be submitted to and settled or adjudicated by: (a) The Solicitor General, with respect to disputes or claims or controversies between or among the departments, bureaus, offices and other agencies of the National Government; (b) The Govermnent Corporate Counsel, with respect to disputes or claims or controversies between or among the government-owned or controlled corporations or entities being served by the office of the Government Corporate Counsel and (c) The Secretary of Justice, with respect to all other disputes or claims or controversies which do not fall under the categories mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b). (Emphasis supplied)

In upholding the lower court's jurisdiction, respondent municipal corporations, on the other hand, rely on Presidential Decree No. 464, entitled "THE REAL PROPERTY TAX CODE" enacted on July 1, 1974, specifically Section 82 thereof which provides:
Section 82. Collection of real property tax through the courts. The delinquent real property tax shall constitute a lawful indebtedness of the taxpayer to the province or city and collection of the tax may be enforced by civil action in any court of competent

jurisdiction. The civil action shall be filed by the Provincial or City Fiscal within fifteen days after receipt of the statement of delinquency certified to by the provincial or city treasurer. This remedy shall be in addition to all other remedies provided by law.

It is indeed desirable and beneficial to the Judiciary's ongoing program of decongesting court dockets that intra-governmental disputes such as this be settled administratively. Unfortunately, our consideration of the legal provisions involved leads us to a different conclusion. In reconciling these two conflicting provisions of P.D. 242 and P.D. 464 on the matter of jurisdiction, we are guided by the basic rules on statutory construction. An examination of these two decrees shows that P.D. 242 is a general law which deals with administrative settlement or adjudication of disputes, claims and controversies between or among government offices, agencies and instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled corporations. The coverage is broad and sweeping, encompassing all disputes, claims and controversies. P.D. 464 on the other hand, governs the appraisal and assessment of real property for purposes of taxation by provinces, cities and municipalities, as wen as the levy, collection and administration of real property tax. It is a special law which deals specifically with real property taxes. It is a basic tenet in statutory construction that between a general law and a special law, the special law prevails. GENERALIA SPECIALIBUS NON DEROGANT. 8 Where a later special law on a particular subject is repugnant to, or inconsistent with, a

prior general law on the same subject, a partial repeal of the latter win be implied to the extent of the repugnancy or an exception grafted upon the general law. A special law must be intended to constitute an exception to the general law in the absence of special circumstances forcing a contrary conclusion. 9 The conflict in the provisions on jurisdiction between P.D. 242 and P.D. 464 should be resolved in favor of the latter law, since it is a special law and of later enactment. P.D. 242 must yield to P.D. 464 on the matter of who or which tribunal or agency has jurisdiction over the enforcement and collection of real property taxes. Therefore, respondent court has jurisdiction to hear and decide Civil Case No. 9901. On the question of whether or not NAPOCOR is liable to pay real property taxes and special education fund taxes for the years 1978 to 1984, we rule in the affirmative. Presidential Decree No. 1177, entitled "REVISING THE BUDGET PROCESS IN ORDER TO INSTITUTIONALIZE THE BUDGETARY INNOVATIONS OF THE NEW SOCIETY" was passed on July 30, 1977. Section 23 thereof provides:
Section 23. Tax and Duty Exemptions. All units of govemment, including governmentowned or controlled corporations, shall pay income taxes, customs duties and other taxes and fees as are imposed under revenue laws; provided, that organizations otherwise exempted by law from the payment of such taxes/duties may ask for a subsidy from the General Fund in the exact amount of taxes/duties due; provided, further, that a procedure shag be established by the Secretary of Finance and the Commissioner of the Budget, whereby such subsidies shall automatically be considered as both revenue

and expenditure of the General Fund. (Emphasis supplied)

Petitioner alleges that what has been withdrawn is its exemption from taxes, duties, and fees which are payable to the national government while its exemption from taxes, duties and fees payable to government branches, agencies and instrumentalities remains unaffected. Considering that real property taxes are payable to the local government, NAPOCOR maintains that it is exempt therefrom. We find the above argument untenable. It reads into the law a distinction that is not there. It is contrary to the clear intent of the law to withdraw from all units of government, including government-owned or controlled corporations their exemptions from all kinds of taxes. Had it been otherwise, then the law would have said so. Not having distinguished as to the kinds of tax exemptions withdrawn, the plain meaning is that all tax exemptions are covered. There the law does not distinguish, neither must we. Moreover, Presidential Decree No. 1931 entitled "DIRECTING THE RATIONALIZATION OF DUTY AND TAX EXEMPTION PRIVILEGES GRANTED TO GOVERNMENT-OWNED OR CONTROLLED CORPORATIONS AND ALL OTHER UNITS OF GOVERNMENT" which was passed on June 11, 1984, categorically states:
WHEREAS, Presidential Decree No. 1177 has already expressly repealed the grunt of tax privileges to any government-owned or controlled corporation and all other units of government. (Emphasis supplied )

Thus, any dubiety on NAPOCOR'S liability to pay taxes, duties and fees should be

considered unequivocably resolved by the above provision. In the case of National Power Corporation vs. The Province of Albay, et. al., 10 herein petitioner was held liable for real property taxes to the provincial government of Albay for the period June 11, 1984 to March 10, 1987, when it claims to have been enjoying tax exemptions under Resolutions Nos. 10-85, 1-86 and 17-87 of the Fiscal Incentives Review Board (FIRB). It must be noted that Resolution 10-85 was the same resolution cited by petitioner in its supplemental motion to dismiss 11 inCivil Case No. 9901. If the attempt (found ineffective for lack of authority in the above-cited case of NPC vs. The Province of Albay) to restore petitioner's tax exemptions began only in 1985 with the issuance of FIRB Resolution No. 10-85, it stands to reason that prior thereto, i.e., from 1977 when P.D. 1177 was promulgated up to 1984, petitioner did not enjoy any tax privilege as would exempt it from the payment of the taxes under consideration. In the same case of NPC vs. The Province of Albay, 12 this Court had occasion to state:
Actually, the State has no reason to decry the taxation of NAPOCOR's properties, as and by way of real property taxes. Real property taxes, after all, form part and parcel of the financing apparatus of the Government in development and nation-building, particularly in the local government level. xxx xxx xxx To all intents and purposes, real property taxes are funds taken by the State with one hand and given to the other. In no measure can the Government be said to have lost

anything.

The proceeds of the real property tax are divided among the province, city or municipality where the property subject to the tax is situated and shall be applied by the respective local government unit for its own use and benefit. Even the barrio where the property is situated shares in the real property tax collections. Likewise, the entire proceeds of the additional one per cent (1%) real property tax levied for the Special Education Fund created under R.A. 5447, are divided among the province, city and municipalities where the property is situated. WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. Petitioner having been found liable for the taxes being collected in Civil Case No. 9901, the respondent court is hereby directed to proceed with deliberate dispatch in hearing the case for the purpose of determining the exact liability of petitioner. No Costs. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. L-28739 and L-28902 March 29, 1972 DAVAO LIGHT and POWER CO., INC., petitioner-appellant, vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS and COURT OF TAX APPEALS, respondentsappellees. Abelardo P. Cecilio for petitioner-appellant. Office of the Solicitor General Antonio P. Barredo, Assistant Solicitor General Isidro C. Borromeo and Solicitor Sumilang V. Bernardo for respondents-appellees. REYES, J.B.L., J.:p These are appeals from the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals in CTA Cases Nos. 1337 and 1551, denying the claim of Davao Light & Power Co., Inc., for refund of the amount paid by said company as customs duties, special import taxes, compensating taxes and wharfage fees on the importations of electrical supplies and materials for installation and use at its power plant. The Davao Light & Power Co., Inc., hereafter referred to as Davao Light, is the grantee of a legislative franchise to install, operate and maintain an electric light, heat and power plant in the city (then Municipality) of Davao, for a period of 50 years. On two different occasions in 1962, it imported electrical supplies, materials and equipment for

installation in its power plant. The importations arrived in the port of Cebu City, on which the Collector of Customs imposed, and Davao light paid under protest, customs duties and taxes in the total amount of P9,928.00. As the Collector of Customs later ruled unfavorably on the protests (Nos. 267, 268, 269 and 278) and denied its claim for refund of the taxes and duties paid on the imported articles, Davao Light appealed to the Commissioner of Customs. And when said official sued the action of the Collector, Davao Light went to the Court of Tax Appeals, maintaining its claim to exemption from the taxes and duties imposable on the aforementioned motions. In the Court of Tax Appeals, the parties entered into a stipulation of facts, the pertinent provisions of which read as follows:
6. That the petitioner (Davao Light) is a grantee of a legislative franchise under Philippine Legislature Act No. 3760, ...; 7. That the petitioner was granted by the Public Service Commission its Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity in 1931 and by virtue of said franchise has established and has been maintaining and operating a power plant generating electric light, heat and power and distributing the same for sale within the municipality (now City) of Davao; 8. That the National Power Corporation was created by virtue of Commonwealth Act No. 120, and under Section 2, par. (g) it was empowered and granted authority: "To construct, operate and maintain power plants, auxiliary plants, dams, reservoirs, pipes, mains, transmission lines, power stations and substations and other works, for the

purpose of developing hydraulic power from any river, creek, lake, spring and waterfalls in the Philippines and supplying such power to the inhabitants thereof; to acquire, construct, install, maintain and operate and improve gas, oil or steam engines and/or other prime movers, generators and other machinery in plants and/or auxiliary plants for the production of electric power; to establish, develop, operate and maintain and administer power and lighting systems for the use of the Government and the general public; to sell electric power and to fix the rates and provide for the collection of the charges for any service rendered: Provided, that the rates of charges shall not be subject to revision by the Public Service Commission." 9. That by virtue of this authority given the National Power Corporation, it established and constructed a power plant, power stations and transmission lines in Davao City, for the purpose of generating electric light, heat and power for the inhabitants of Davao City and its surrounding areas and that it is presently operating and maintaining said power plant, power station and transmission lines and selling electric power, heat and light in the City of Davao; 10. That Section 17 of (pre-Commonwealth) Act No. 3636 (Standard Electric Power & Light Franchises Law) provides: "In the event of any competing individual, association of persons or corporation receiving either a franchise or permission from the Government of the Philippine Islands, or from any province, city or municipality thereof, to conduct a similar business in all or any substantial portion of the territory covered by this franchise to that of the grantee, in which franchise or permission there shall be any term or terms more favorable than those herein granted or tending to place the herein grantee at any disadvantage, then

such term or terms shall ipso facto become a part of the terms hereof and shall operate equally in favor of the grantee as in the case of said competing individual asssociation of persons or corporations." xxx xxx xxx 12 That under Section 2 of Republic Act No. 358, as amended by Republic Act No. 937, it is provided that "to facilitate payment of its indebtedness, the National Power Corporation shall exempt from all taxes, except real property tax, and from all duties, fees, imposts, charges and restrictions of the Republic of the Philippines, its provinces, cities and municipalities."

It was therein petitioner's contention that pursuant to Section 17 of Act 3636, the provision of Republic Act 987 granting tax exemption privileges to the National Power Corporation ipso facto became part of its franchise; hence, its claim to exemption from taxes and customs duties on the importations in question. In its decision of 15 December 1967, the Court of Tax Appeals affirmed the ruling of the Customs Commissioner, the Court holding that the tax exemption privileges granted to the National Power Corporation were intended to benefit only said government corporation and did not extend to other bodies or entities. Davao Light thus brought the present petition for review in this Court, raising the same issue of the correctness of the imposition of taxes and customs duties on its importations of electrical supplies and materials for use in its electric plant. Petitioner in this instance reiterates the contention that is legislative franchise to

construct, maintain and operate an electric light, heat and power system (granted by Act 3760) was specifically made subject to Act 3636, which Act, in its Section 17, provides that any favorable terms granted to any "competing individual, association of persons or corporation" shall ipso facto become part of a franchise earlier issued. As the National Power Corporation (NPC) is actually operating a power plant, power stations and transmission lines in Davao City and selling electric power, heat and light in said locality, and said corporation is enjoying exemption from all taxes, duties, fees, imposts and charges collectible by the government, it is argued that such tax exemption benefits ipso facto became part of its franchise and are not available to petitioner. There is no merit in petitioner's contention. Firstly, the aforecited provision of Section 17 of Act 3636 makes mention of franchise or permit issued to "competing" individuals, associations or corporations. In short, by express provision of law favorable terms contained in a subsequent franchise issued to an individual, association, etc. shall automatically be considered incorporated in the franchise or permit earlier issued to another individual, association, etc. engaged in the same business. The idea is to place both competing groups or entities on equal footing and not to give one an advantage over the other. This principle of fair play, which is the basic idea behind the provision, does not find operation in the present case. It is undeniable that petitioner's purpose in securing a franchise to establish and operate an electric plant and power stations was to engage in a business or profitmaking venture. The NPC, on the other hand, was specifically created to undertake the

development of hydraulic power throughout the country and the production of power from other sources, for use of the government and the general public. 1 As envisioned by the law creating it, the activity to be pursued by the NPC can hardly be motivated by profit or income. In operating and maintaining a power plant, power stations and transmission lines in Davao City, as duly authorized in its charter, the NPC can not be considered as posing competition to petitioner's business. In fact, there is evidence on record that the NPC does not sell electric lower directly to the general public; instead, it did sell lower to petitioner for resale to the latter's customers. 2 In other words, the NPC is even the source of petitioner's merchandise; it is aiding petitioner in its business operations, not competing with it. Nor would the fact that the NPC supplies electric power to the National Development Company (NDC) plant in Davao justify the claim that the NPC is a competitor to petitioner's business, because Section 10 of Commonwealth Act 120 (NPC charter) made it NPC's duty to supply power to the NDC.
Sec. 10. At any time that the Board certifies that the Corporation is able to furnish electric power for lighting an other purposes to any office, shop, or establishment operated and/or owned or controlled by the National Government or by any city, province, municipality or other political subdivision of the Commonwealth of the Philippines, the National Government and the government of said city, province, municipality or other political subdivision shall be compelled to secure from the

Corporation as soon as practicable such electric power as it may need for lighting and the operation of its offices, shops or establishments or for any work undertaken by it. The provisions of this section shall also apply to firms or business owned or controlled by the National Government or by the government of any city, province, municipality or other political subdivisions.

Be that as it may, such an isolated case of sale of electric power to one governmentowned plant would not be enough to classify the NPC as a "competing" concern to petitioner's enterprise, which must be assumed to be catering to the general public to which the NPC has no dealing. Secondly, petitioner can not rely on the provisions of Republic Act 358, as amended by Republic Act 987 3, to support its claim for tax exemption. Section 1 of Republic Act 358, approved on 4 June 1949, amended Section 2 (k) of Commonwealth Act 120, which authorized the NPC to "contract indebtedness and issue bonds subject to the approval of the President of the Philippines, upon recommendation of the Secretary of Finance" in an amount not to exceed one hundred seventy million five hundred pesos. Then in its Section 2, the same law provided:
SEC 2. To facilitate payment of its indebtedness, the National Power Corporation shall be exempt from all taxes, duties, fees, imposts, charges, and restrictions of the Republic of the Philippines, its provinces, cities, and municipalities." (emphasis supplied).

On the same day, 4 June 1949, Republic Act 357 was approved, authorizing the

President of the Philippines to negotiate and contract loans from time to time from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, on behalf of the NPC, and to guarantee, absolutely and unconditionally, as primary obligator and not merely as surety, the payment of loans therefore contracted. 4 The provisions of Section 2 of Republic Act 358 granting tax exemption to the NPC, taken in the light of the existing legislation affecting the NPC, notably Republic Act 357, must be construed as intended to benefit only the NPC, the lawmakers expecting (as so unequivocally expressed in the law) that by relieving said corporation of tax obligations, the NPC would be enabled to pay easily its indebtedness or whatever indebtedness it is certain to incur. In granting such tax exemption, the government actually waived its right to collect taxes from the NPC in order to facilitate the liquidation by said corporation of its liabilities, and the consequential release by the government itself from its obligation (as principal obligor) in the transactions entered into by the President on behalf of the NPC. Such condition, peculiar only to the NPC, cannot be said to exist in petitioner's case; hence, the absolute lack of basis for awarding of equal privileges (granted to the NPC) to said petitioner. Similarly, petitioner can not lay claim to the enjoyment of the tax exemption benefits given to NPC because said corporation happened to be operating a power plant in the same locality where petitioner has a franchise. The legal principle on the matter is firmly established and well-observed: exemption from taxation is never presumed; 5 for tax exemption to be recognized, the grant must be clear and expressed; it cannot be made

to rest on vague implications. 6 The possession by petitioner of a permit to operate an electric plant in Davao City does not entitle it to the same exemption privileges enjoyed by another operator without an express provision of the law to that effect. FOR THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals is hereby affirmed, with costs against the petitioner.

G.R. No. L-18080 April 22, 1963 TAN KIM KEE, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL., respondents. Rafael A. Lim, Oscar V. Breva and Benjamin V. Guiang for petitioner. Office of the Solicitor General for respondents. REYES, J.B.L., J.: Appeal from the majority decision of the Court of Tax Appeals affirming the denial of a claim for refund of the fixed and sales taxes. The case was submitted before the tax court under a stipulation of facts, as follows: 1. The petitioner is a producer of copra exporters in Davao City. 2. Petitioner produces copra in two ways, namely, the sun-dried method and the kiln-dried method. 3. Under the sun-dried method employed by petitioner, the nuts are first split into halves and are dried under the sun to partly loosen the meat from the shell. After one or two days of drying in that state, the meat is removed from the shell with an instrument designed for the purpose. To facilitate drying and handling, the meat so removed is chopped into small pieces and the same is dried under the sun for at least three days or until its moisture content is reduced to a minimum acceptable in the market.

4. The processes involved in copra-making under the kiln-dried method employed by the petitioner are the same as the sun-dried method described above except that in the latter method, the nuts are first unhusked before being split into halves and the meat is dried in a kiln or oven heated with fuel. Further, the drying process (18-23 hours) under the kiln-dried method is shorter than the sun-dried method. 5. For the period from August 24, 1956 to December 31, 1956, petitioner's gross sales of copra produced by him amounted to P17,917.53 on which he paid to the treasurer of Davao City, on January 10, 1957, the sum of P1,254.24 as the 7% sales tax imposed by section 186 of the National Internal Revenue Code as amended by Republic Act No. 1612. 6. Petitioner paid also to the same official on the same date, fixed taxes(c-14) of P40.00 for the years 1956 and 1957, pursuant to section 182 of the said code. 7. For the payment of the above-mentioned sales and fixed taxes, BIR official receipts Nos. C-146545, respectively, were issued to the petitioner. 8. On September 6, 1957, petitioner filed with respondent a claim for the aforesaid taxes which claim was denied by the latter on November 22, 1957. 9. On February 7, 1958, petitioner filed with respondent a request for reconsideration of the denial of his claim for refund but said request was denied on February 13, 1958. Wherefore, the parties respectfully pray that the foregoing stipulation of facts be admitted and approved by this Honorable Court, without prejudice to the parties adducing other evidence to prove their case not covered by this stipulation of facts. 1wph1.t

10. Petitioner filed on April 30, 1958 his second request for reconsideration which was denied on July 1, 1958. 11. On August 12, 1958 petitioner filed with his Honorable Court the present petition for review which was answered by respondent on September 26, 1958. Not stipulated but nevertheless admitted in the pleadings is the additional fact that the petitioner is a producer of copra out of his coconut plantation in Sta. Cruz, Davao. The petitioner ascribes the following errors against the lower court: I. The Tax Appeals Court erred in holding that the mere drying out process by which the coconuts produced from petitioner's plantation are converted into copra (dried coconut), constitutes manufacturing as defined in section 194(x) of the Tax Code. II. The Tax Appeals Court erred in failing to consider the absurd, illogical and mischievous results that would necessarily follow from its interpretation of section 194(x) of said code, contrary to the consistent legislative policy of encouraging farmers by exempting their products from taxation. This case involves an interpretation of Section 188(b) of the Tax Code, as amended by the shortlived revenue statute, Republic Act No. 1612, when applied to copra making. Said Act took effect on 24 August 1956 until it was superseded by Republic Act 1856 on 22 June 1957. This section, as it stood before and during the effectivity of Republic Act No. 1612, and after subsequent amendment by Republic Act 1856, provides (all emphasis supplied):

Before effectivity of RA No. 1612 (b) Agricultural products and the ordinary salt when sold, bartered, or exchanged in this country by the producers or owner of the land where produced, as well as fish and its byproducts when sold, bartered, or exchanged by the fisherman or fishing operator, whether in their original state or not. During the eleven-month effectivity of RA No. 1612 (b) Agricultural products and the ordinary salt in their original form when sold, bartered, or exchanged by the producer or owner of the land where produced. The term "agricultural products" as used herein shall not include cultured fish and other products raised or produced in fishponds, and those which have undergone the process of manufacturing as defined in section one hundred ninety-four (x) of this Code. After repeal of RA No. 1612 by RA No. 1856 (b) Agricultural products and the ordinary salt whether in their original form or not when sold, bartered, or exchanged in this country by the producer or owner of the land where produced, as well as all kinds of fish and its by-products when sold, bartered or exchanged by the fisherman or fishing operator whether in their original state or not. The majority of the Tax Court was of the view that before the passage of Republic Act No. 1612, copra making was not taxable because the law then exempted agricultural products "whether in their original state or not" but that it became taxable during the effectivity of the Republic Act No. 1612 because the agricultural products that were exempted under it were those "in their

original form", and said law excluded from the exemption "those which have undergone the process of manufacturing as defined in section one hundred ninety-four (x) of this Code", that provides: (x) "Manufacturer" includes every person (1) who by physical or chemical process alters the exterior texture or form of inner substance of any raw material or manufactured or partially manufactured product in such a manner as to prepare it for a special use or uses to which it could not have been put in its original condition, or (2) who by any such process alters the quality of any such raw material or manufactured or partially manufactured product so as to reduce it to marketable shape or prepare it for any of the uses of industry, or (3) who by any such process combines any such raw material or manufactured or partially manufactured products with other materials or products of the same or of different kinds and in such manner that the finished products of such process of manufacture can be put to a special use or uses to which such raw material or manufactured or partially manufactured products in their original condition could not have been put and who in addition alters such raw material or manufactured or partially manufactured products, or combines the same to produce such finished products for the purpose of their sale or distribution to others and for his own use or consumption. The majority of the Tax Court further held that because of the unhusking and halving of the coconut fruit, removal and cutting into several pieces of its meat, and dehydrating by sun or kiln, the fruit in its original form underwent a process of manufacturing, and, therefore, became taxable; but after the repeal of Republic Act 1612 by Republic Act 1856, the exempt agricultural

products included once more those products "whether in their original state or not". It decided, therefore, that the taxability of copra making under Republic Act No. 1612 is in accordance with the legislative intent to increase revenue by imposing taxes on "greater coverage of subjects of taxation", as expressed in the explanatory note of the House Bill 5809, the source of Republic Act 1612; and that the said section being an exempting provision, the same should be construed strictissimi juris against the party claiming exemption. Contrary to the above views of the respondents, the petitioner would consider copra as the agricultural product in its original form and the coconut fruit merely the crop of the producer and because copra is the only product that may be produced from coconut lands while the process of manufacture involved in the conversion of the coconut fruit to copra is a part of the genuine agricultural labor of the farmer. The petitioner adopted the dissenting opinion that the enactment of Republic Act 1612 did not change anything; because the processes that constitute manufacturing under Section 194 (x)have not been enlarged or extended, and that the ruling of the respondents would be a radical departure from the time-honored policy of Congress to give preferential treatment to farmers; furthermore, the respondents' interpretation would lead to absurd, illogical, and mischievous results, like the following: coconut planters, abaca planters and rice farmers would be liable for 7% tax while operators of coconut oil mills and dessicated coconut factories, rope factories, and rice mill operators are taxable only at 2% under Section 189 of the Code; likewise, the coconut planter is not taxable for producing coconuts, but the moment he unhusks them he is obliged to pay 7% on sales tax. The petitioner insists that the legislative intent in enacting Republic Act 1612 was to exclude copra making, as shown in the

explanatory note of House Bill 6094, a bill intended to amend Republic Act 1612, and that this intention to exclude copra making is also reflected in the speeches and debates delivered in the floor of Congress in its session on 30 January 1957 (Congressional Records, Vol. IV, No. 3). The flaw in petitioner-appellant's argument is that it ignores the legislative change in the phraseology of the exemption of agricultural products. The original statute excepted from the tax "Agricultural products xxx whether in their original state or not", but under the shortlived R.A. No. 1612 it was altered and reduced to "agricultural products in their original form" exclusively. The change in scope was further emphasized by the qualification in the same Act that "agricultural products xxx shall not include cultured fish . . . and those which have undergone the process of manufacturing . . . ." Plainly, R.A. No. 1612 was intended to restrict the exemption and broaden the subject of taxation, in order to increase the state revenues; and this purpose becomes indubitable when we consider that ordinary salt and fish were also originally exempt, but the exemption was not restated in R.A. No. 1612. If, as contended by the petitioner, there was no intention to limit the exemption of agricultural products, then it may well be wondered why the Legislature found it necessary to change at all the terms of the exemption; and even further, it may be asked why, barely a year later, it was found proper to restore (by R.A. No. 1856) the primitive terms of the exemption of agricultural products "whether in their original form or not". It is not to be presumed that the Legislature, in making such changes, was indulging in mere semantic exercise. There must have been some purpose in making them, and the rational explantion is that the coverage of the exemption was being broadened by R.A. No. 1612, as expressly stated in the original House Bill No. 5819 that

later became said Act; and that the policy change was later found inadvisable, so that the statute was reworded by R.A. 1856 to corresponded to the original terminology so as to restore the original exemption.. Stress is laid on the explanatory note to House Bill No. 6094 that it was "never the intention of Congress to impose such heavy burden upon our agricultural producers"; but these statements did not go beyond a personal opinion of the proponents of House Bill No. 6094, since the true source of Republic Act 1856 (repealing R.A. No. 1612)was not Bill No. 6094, but House Bill No. 5819. We find no weight in the argument that under the interpretation given to Republic Act 1612 the planters and farmers would pay a higher tax than rice mills and coconut factories. The rule of uniform taxation does not deprive Congress of the power to classify subjects of taxation, and only demands uniformity within the particular class. The legislative intent to increase revenue by widening the coverage of taxable subjects is evident under Republic Act 1612, and by it the exempt agricultural products were only those that remain in their original form, and have not undergone the process of manufacture. This Court has had occasion to observe that By the very nature of the changes made in the original statute, it is clear that the amendment is intended, not to clarify the doubtful meaning of the former law, xxx, but to withdraw from the scope of the former exemption the agricultural products that are no longer in their original form because they have undergone the process of manufacture."

(Philippine Packing Corporation vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, L-9040, Res. of Jan. 22, 1957). WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs against petitioner-appellant.

G.R. No. 117359 July 23, 1998 DAVAO GULF LUMBER CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE and COURT OF APPEALS, respondents. PANGANIBAN, J.: Because taxes are the lifeblood of the nation, statutes that allow exemptions are construed strictly against the grantee and liberally in favor of the government. Otherwise stated, any exemption from the payment of a tax must be clearly stated in the language of the law; it cannot be merely implied therefrom. Statement of the Case This principium is applied by the Court in resolving this petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Decision 1 of Respondent Court of Appeals 2 in CA-GR SP No. 34581 dated September 26, 1994, which affirmed the June 21, 1994 Decision 3 of the Court of Tax Appeals 4 in CTA Case No. 3574. The dispositive portion of the CTA Decision affirmed by Respondent Court reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the respondent to refund to the petitioner the amount of P2,923.15 representing the partial refund of specific taxes paid on manufactured oils and fuels. 5

The Antecedent Facts The facts are undisputed. 6 Petitioner is a licensed forest concessionaire possessing a Timber License Agreement granted by the Ministry of Natural Resources (now Department of Environment and Natural Resources). From July 1, 1980 to January 31, 1982 petitioner purchased, from various oil companies, refined and manufactured mineral oils as well as motor and diesel fuels, which it used exclusively for the exploitation and operation of its forest concession. Said oil companies paid the specific taxes imposed, under Sections 153 and 156 7 of the 1977 National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), on the sale of said products. Being included in the purchase price of the oil products, the specific taxes paid by the oil companies were eventually passed on to the user, the petitioner in this case. On December 13, 1982, petitioner filed before Respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) a claim for refund in the amount of P120,825.11, representing 25% of the specific taxes actually paid on the above-mentioned fuels and oils that were used by petitioner in its operations as forest concessionaire. The claim was based on Insular Lumber Co. vs. Court of Tax Appeals 8 and Section 5 of RA 1435 which reads:
Sec. 5. The proceeds of the additional tax on manufactured oils shall accrue to the road and bridge funds of the political subdivision for whose benefit the tax is collected: Provided, however, That whenever any oils mentioned above are used by miners or forest concessionaires in their operations, twenty-five per centum of the specific tax paid thereon shall be refunded by the Collector of Internal Revenue upon submission of proof

of actual use of oils and under similar conditions enumerated in subparagraphs one and two of section one hereof, amending section one hundred forty-two of the Internal Revenue Code: Provided, further, That no new road shall be constructed unless the routes or location thereof shall have been approved by the Commissioner of Public Highways after a determination that such road can be made part of an integral and articulated route in the Philippine Highway System, as required in section twenty-six of the Philippine Highway Act of 1953.

It is an unquestioned fact that petitioner complied with the procedure for refund, including the submission of proof of the actual use of the aforementioned oils in its forest concession as required by the above-quoted law. Petitioner, in support of its claim for refund, submitted to the CIR the affidavits of its general manager, the president of the Philippine Wood Products Association, and three disinterested persons, all attesting that the said manufactured diesel and fuel oils were actually used in the exploitation and operation of its forest concession. On January 20, 1983, petitioner filed at the CTA a petition for review docketed as CTA Case No. 3574. On June 21, 1994, the CTA rendered its decision finding petitioner entitled to a partial refund of specific taxes the latter had paid in the reduced amount of P2,923.15. The CTA ruled that the claim on purchases of lubricating oil (from July 1, 1980 to January 19, 1981) and on manufactured oils other than lubricating oils (from July 1, 1980 to January 4, 1981) had prescribed. Disallowed on the ground that they were not included in the original claim filed before the CIR were the claims for refund on purchases of manufactured oils from January 1, 1980 to June 30, 1980 and from

February 1, 1982 to June 30, 1982. In regard to the other purchases, the CTA granted the claim, but it computed the refund based on rates deemed paid under RA 1435, and not on the higher rates actualhy paid by petitioner under the NIRC. Insisting that the basis for computing the refund should be the increased rates prescribed by Sections 153 and 156 of the NIRC, petitioner elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals. As noted earlier, the Court of Appeals affirmed the CTA Decision. Hence, this petition for review. 9 Public Respondent's Ruling In its petition before the Court of Appeals, petitioner raised the following arguments:
I. The respondent Court of Tax Appeals failed to apply the Supreme Court's Decision in Insular Lumber Co. v. Court of Tax Appeals which granted the claim for partial refund of specific taxes paid by the claimant, without qualification or limitation. II. The respondent Court of Tax Appeals ignored the increase in rates imposed by succeeding amendatory laws,under which the petitioner paid the specific taxes on manufactured and diesel fuels. III. In its decision, the respondent Court of Tax Appeals ruled contrary to established tenets of law when it lent itself to interpreting Section 5 of R.A. 1435, when the construction of said law is not necessary. IV. Sections 1 and 2 of R.A. 1435 are not the operative provisions to be applied but rather, Sections 153 and 156 of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended.

V. To rule that the basis for computation of the refunded taxes should be Sections 1 and 2 of R.A. 1435 rather than Section 153 and 156 of the National Internal Revenue Code is unfair, erroneous, arbitrary, inequitable and oppressive. 10

The Court of Appeals held that the claim for refund should indeed be computed on the basis of the amounts deemed paid under Sections 1 and 2 of RA 1435. In so ruling, it cited our pronouncement in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Rio Tuba Nickel Mining Corporation 11 and subsequent Resolution dated June 15, 1992 clarifying the said Decision. Respondent Court further ruled that the claims for refund which prescribed and those which were not filed at the administrative level must be excluded. The Issue In its Memorandum, petitioner raises one critical issue:
Whether or not petitioner is entitled under Republic Act No. 1435 to the refund of 25% of the amount of specific taxes it actually paid on various refined and manufactured mineral oils and other oil products taxed under Sec. 153 and Sec. 156 of the 1977 (Sec. 142 and Sec. 145 of the 1939) National Internal Revenue Code. 12

In the main, the question before us pertains only to the computation of the tax refund. Petitioner argues that the refund should be based on the increased rates of specific taxes which it actually paid, as prescribed in Sections 153 and 156 of the NIRC. Public respondent, on the other hand, contends that it should be based on specific taxes deemed paid under Sections 1 and 2 of RA 1435.

The Court's Ruling The petition is not meritorious. Petitioner Entitled to Refund Under Sec. 5 of RA 1435 At the outset, it must be stressed that petitioner is entitled to a partial refund under Section 5 of RA 1435, which was enacted to provide means for increasing the Highway Special Fund. The rationale for this grant of partial refund of specific taxes paid on purchases of manufactured diesel and fuel oils rests on the character of the Highway Special Fund. The specific taxes collected on gasoline and fuel accrue to the Fund, which is to be used for the construction and maintenance of the highway system. But because the gasoline and fuel purchased by mining and lumber concessionaires are used within their own compounds and roads, and their vehicles seldom use the national highways, they do not directly benefit from the Fund and its use. Hence, the tax refund gives the mining and the logging companies a measure of relief in light of their peculiar situation. 13 When the Highway Special Fund was abolished in 1985, the reason for the refund likewise ceased to exist. 14 Since petitioner purchased the subject manufactured diesel and fuel oils from July 1, 1980 to January 31, 1982 and submitted the required proof that these were actually used in operating its forest concession, it is entitled to claim the refund under Section 5 of RA 1435.

Tax Refund Strictly Constrtued Against the Grantee Petitioner submits that it is entitled to the refund of 25 percent of the specific taxes it had actually paid for the petroleum products used in its operations. In other words, it claims a refund based on the increased rates under Sections 153 and 156 of the NIRC. 15 Petitioner argues that the statutory grant of the refund privilege, specifically the phrase "twenty-five per centum of the specific tax paid thereon shall be refunded by the Collector of Internal Revenue," is "clear and unambiguous" enough to require construction or qualification thereof. 16 In addition, it cites our pronouncement in Insular Lumber vs. Court of Tax Appeals: 17
. . . Sec. 5 [of RA 1435] makes reference to subparagraphs 1 and 2 of Section 1 only for the purpose of prescribing the procedure for refund. This express reference cannot be expanded in scope to include the limitation of the period of refund. If the limitation of the period of refund of specific taxes paid on oils used in aviation and agriculture is intended to cover similar taxes paid on oil used by miners and forest concessionaires, there would have been no need of dealing with oil used by miners and forest concessions separately and Section 5 would very well have been included in Section 1 of Republic Act No. 1435, notwithstanding the different rate of exemption.

Petitioner then reasons that "the express mention of Section 1 of RA 1435 in Section 5 cannot be expanded to include a limitation on the tax rates to be applied . . . [otherwise,] Section 5 should very well have been included in Section 1 . . . ." 18

The Court is nor persuaded. The relevant statutory provisions do not clearly support petitioner's claim for refund. RA 1435 provides:
Sec. 1 Section one hundred and forty-two of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended, is further amended to read as follows: Sec. 142. Specific tax on manufactured oils and other fuels. On refined and manufactured mineral oils and motor fuels, there shall be collected the following taxes: (a) Kerosene or petroleum, per liter of volume capacity, two and one-half centavos; (b) Lubricating oils, per liter of volume capacity, seven centavos; (c) Naptha, gasoline, and all other similar products of distillation, per liter of volume capacity, eight centavos; and (d) On denatured alcohol to be used for motive power, per liter of volume capacity, one centavo: Provided, That if the denatured alcohol is mixed with gasoline, the specific tax on which has already been paid, only the alcohol content shall be subject to the tax herein prescribed. For the purpose of this subsection, the removal of denatured alcohol of not less than one hundred eighty degrees proof (ninety per centum absolute alcohol) shall be deemed to have been removed for motive power, unless shown to the contrary. Whenever any of the oils mentioned above are, during the five years from June eighteen, nineteen hundred and fifty two, used in agriculture and aviation, fifty per centum of the specific tax paid thereon shall be refunded by the Collector of Internal Revenue upon the submission of the following: (1) A sworn affidavit of the producer and two disinterested persons proving that the said

oils were actually used in agriculture, or in lieu thereof. (2) Should the producer belong to any producers' association or federation, duly registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the affidavit of the president of the association or federation, attesting to the fact that the oils were actually used in agriculture. (3) In the case of aviation oils, a sworn certificate satisfactory to the Collector proving that the said oils were actually used in aviation: Provided, That no such refunds shall be granted in respect to the oils used in aviation by citizens and corporations of foreign countries which do not grant equivalent refunds or exemptions in respect to similar oils used in aviation by citizens and corporations of the Philippines. Sec. 2 Section one hundred and forty-five of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended, is further amended to read as follows: Sec. 145. Specific Tax on Diesel fuel oil. On fuel oil, commercially known as diesel fuel oil, and on all similar fuel oils, having more or less the same generating power, there shall be collected, per metric ton, one peso. xxx xxx xxx Sec. 5. The proceeds of the additional tax on manufactured oils shall accrue to the road and bridge funds of the political subdivision for whose benefit the tax is collected: Provided, however, That whenever any oils mentioned above are used by miners or forest concessionaires in their operations, twenty-five per centum of the specific tax paid thereon shall be refunded by the Collector of Internal Revenue upon submission of proof of actual use of oils and under similar conditions enumerated in subparagraphs one and

two of section one hereof, amending section one hundred forty-two of the Internal Revenue Code: Provided, further, That no new road shall be constructed unless the route or location thereof shall have been approved by the Commissioner of Public Highways after a determination that such road can be made part of an integral and articulated route in the Philippine Highway System, as required in section twenty-six of the Philippine Highway Act of 1953.

Subsequently the 1977 NIRC, PD 1672 and EO 672 amended the first two provisions, renumbering them and prescribing higher rates. Accordingly, petitioner paid specific taxes on petroleum products purchased from July 1, 1980 to January 31, 1982 under the following statutory provisions. From February 8, 1980 to March 20, 1981, Sections 153 and 156 provided as follows:
Sec. 153. Specific tax on manufactured oils and other fuels. On refined and manufactured mineral oils and motor fuels, there shall be collected the following taxes which shall attach to the articles hereunder enumerated as soon as they are in existence as such: (a) Kerosene, per liter of volume capacity, seven centavos; (b) Lubricating oils, per liter of volume capacity, eighty centavos; (c) Naphtha, gasoline and all other similar products of distillation, per liter of volume capacity, ninety-one centavos: Provided, That on premium and aviation gasoline, the tax shall be one peso per liter of volume capacity; (d) On denatured alcohol to be used for motive power, per liter of volume capacity, one

centavo: Provided, That unless otherwise provided for by special laws, if the denatured alcohol is mixed with gasoline, the specific tax on which has already been paid, only the alcohol content shall be subject to the tax herein prescribed. For the purposes of this subsection, the removal of denatured alcohol of not less than one hundred eighty degrees proof (ninety per centum absolute alcohol) shall be deemed to have been removed for motive power, unless shown to the contrary; (e) Processed gas, per liter of volume capacity, three centavos; (f) Thinners and solvents, per liter of volume capacity, fifty-seven centavos; (g) Liquefied petroleum gas, per kilogram, fourteen centavos: Provided, That liquefied petroleum gas used for motive power shall be taxed at the equivalent rate as the specific tax on diesel fuel oil; (h) Asphalts, per kilogram, eight centavos; (i) Greases, waxes and petrolatum, per kilogram, fifty centavos; (j) Aviation turbo jet fuel, per liter of volume capacity, fifty-five centavos. (As amended by Sec. 1, P.D. No. 1672.) xxx xxx xxx Sec. 156. Specific tax on diesel fuel oil. On fuel oil, commercially known as diesel fuel oil, and on all similar fuel oils, having more or less the same generating power, per liter of volume capacity, seventeen and one-half centavos, which tax shall attach to this fuel oil as soon as it is in existence as such.

Then on March 21, 1981, these provisions were amended by EO 672 to read:

Sec. 153. Specific tax on manufactured oils and other fuels. On refined and manufactured mineral oils and motor fuels, there shall be collected the following taxes which shall attach to the articles hereunder enumerated as soon as they are in existence as such: (a) Kerosene, per liter of volume capacity, nine centavos; (b) Lubricating oils, per liter of volume capacity, eighty centavos; (c) Naphtha, gasoline and all other similar products of distillation, per liter of volume capacity, one peso and six centavos: Provided, That on premium and aviation gasoline, the tax shall be one peso and ten centavos and one peso, respectively, per liter of volume capacity; (d) On denatured alcohol to be used for motive power, per liter of volume capacity, one centavo; Provided, That unless otherwise provided for by special laws, if the denatured alcohol is mixed with gasoline, the specific tax on which has already been paid, only the alcohol content shall be subject to the tax herein prescribed. For the purpose of this subsection, the removal of denatured alcohol of not less than one hundred eighty degrees proof (ninety per centum absolute alcohol) shall be deemed to have been removed for motive power, unless shown to the contrary; (e) Processed gas, per liter of volume capacity, three centavos; (f) Thinners and solvents, per liter of volume capacity, sixty-one centavos; (g) Liquefied petroleum gas, per kilogram, twenty-one centavos: Provided, That, liquified petroleum gas used for motive power shall be taxed at the equivalent rate as the specific tax on diesel fuel oil;

(h) Asphalts, per kilogram, twelve centavos; (i) Greases, waxes and petrolatum, per kilogram, fifty centavos; (j) Aviation turbo-jet fuel, per liter of volume capacity, sixty-four centavos. xxx xxx xxx Sec. 156. Specific tax on diesel fuel oil. On fuel oil, commercially known as diesel fuel oil, and all similar fuel oils, having more or less the same generating power, per liter of volume capacity, twenty-five and one-half centavos, which tax shall attach to this fuel oil as soon as it is in existence as such.

A tax cannot be imposed unless it is supported by the clear and express language of a statute; 19 on the other hand, once the tax is unquestionably imposed, "[a] claim of exemption from tax payments must be clearly shown and based on language in the law too plain to be mistaken." 20 Since the partial refund authorized under Section 5, RA 1435, is in the nature of a tax exemption, 21 it must be construed strictissimi Juris against the grantee. Hence, petitioner's claim of refund on the basis of the specific taxes it actually paid must expressly be granted in a statute stated in a language too clear to be mistaken. We have carefully scrutinized RA 1435 and the subsequent pertinent statutes and found no expression of a legislative will authorizing a refund based on the higher rates claimed by petitioner. The mere fact that the privilege of refund was included in Section 5, and not in Section 1, is insufficient to support petitioner's claim. When the law itself

does not explicitly provide that a refund under RA 1435 may be based on higher rates which were nonexistent at the time of its enactment, this Coure cannot presume otherwise. A legislative lacuna cannot be filled by judicial fiat. 22 The issue is not really novel. In Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Court of Appeals and Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation 23 (the second Atlas case), the CIR contended that the refund should be based on Sections 1 and 2 of RA 1435, not Sections 153 and 156 of the NIRC of 1977. In categorically ruling that Private Respondent Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation was entitled to a refund based on Sections 1 and 2 of RA 1435, the Court, through Mr. Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., reiterated our pronouncement in Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Rio Tuba Nickel and Mining Corporation:
Our Resolution of 25 March 1992 modifying our 30 September 1991 Decision in the Rio Tuba case sets forth the controlling doctrine. In that Resolution, we stated: Since the private respondent's claim for refund covers specific taxes paid from 1980 to July 1983 then we find that the private respondent is entitled to a refund. It should be made clear, however, that Rio Tuba is not entitled to the whole amount it claims as refund. The specific taxes on oils which Rio Tuba paid for the aforesaid period were no longer based on the rates specified by Sections 1 and 2 of R.A. No. 1435 but on the increased rates mandated under Sections 153 and 156 of the National Internal Revenue Code of

1977. We note however, that the latter law does not specifically provide for a refund to these mining and lumber companies of specific taxes paid on manufactured and diesel fuel oils. In Insular Lumber Co. v. Court of Tax Appeals, (104 SCRA 710 [1981]), the Court held that the authorized partial refund under Section 5 of R.A. No. 1435 partakes of the nature of a tax exemption and therefore cannot be allowed unless granted in the most explicit and categorical language. Since the grant of refund privileges must be strictly construed against the taxpayer, the basis for the refund shall be the amounts deemed paid under Sections 1 and 2 of R.A. No. 1435. ACCORDINGLY, the decision in G.R. Nos. 83583-84 is hereby MODIFIED. The private respondent's CLAIM for REFUND is GRANTED, computed on the basis of the amounts deemed paid under Sections 1 and 2 of R.A. No. 1435, without interest. 24 We rule, therefore, that since Atlas's claims for refund cover specific taxes paid before 1985, it should be granted the refund based on the rates specified by Sections 1 and 2 of R.A. No. 1435 and not on the increased rates under Sections 153 and 156 of the Tax Code of 1977, provided the claims are not yet barred by prescription. (Emphasis supplied.)

Insular Lumber Co. and First Atlas Case Not Inconsistent With Rio Tuba and Second Atlas Case Petitioner argues that the applicable jurisprudence in this case should be

Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Atlas Consolidated and Mining Corp. (the first Atlas case), an unsigned resolution, and Insular Lumber Co. vs. Court of Tax Appeals, an en banc decision. 25 Petitioner also asks the Court to take a "second look" at Rio Tuba and the second Atlas case, both decided by Divisions, in view of Insular which was decided en banc. Petitioner posits that "[I]n view of the similarity of the situation of herein petitioner with Insular Lumber Company (claimant in Insular Lumber) and Rio Tuba Nickel Mining Corporation (claimant in Rio Tuba), a dilemma has been created as to whether or not Insular Lumber, which has been decided by the Honorable Court en banc, or Rio Tuba, which was decided only [by] the Third Division of the Honorable Court, should apply." 26 We find no conflict between these two pairs of cases. Neither Insular Lumber Co. nor the first Atlas case ruled on the issue of whether the refund privilege under Section 5 should be computed based on the specific tax deemed paid under Sections 1 and 2 of RA 1435, regardless of what was actually paid under the increased rates. Rio Tuba and the second Atlas case did. Insular Lumber Co. decided a claim for refund on specific tax paid on petroleum products purchased in the year 1963, when the increased rates under the NIRC of 1977 were nor yet in effect. Thus, the issue now before us did not exist at the time, since the applicable rates were still those prescribed under Sections 1 and 2 of RA 1435.

On the other hand, the issue raised in the first Atlas case was whether the claimant was entitled to the refund under Section 5, notwithstanding its failure to pay any additional tax under a municipal or city ordinance. Although Atlas purchased petroleum products in the years, 1976 to 1978 when the rates had already been changed, the Court did not decide or make any pronouncement on the issue in that case. Clearly, it is impossible for these two decisions to clash with our pronouncement in Rio Tuba and second Atlas case, in which we ruled that the refund granted be computed on the basis of the amounts deemed paid under Sections 1 and 2 of RA 1435. In this light, we find no basis for petitioner's invocation of the constitutional proscription that "no doctrine or principle of law laid down by the Court in a decision rendered en banc or in division may be modified or reversed except by the Court sitting en banc. 27 Finally, petitioner asserts that "equity and justice demand that the computation of the tax refunds be based on actual amounts paid under Sections 153 and 156 of the NIRC." 28 We disagree. According to an eminent authority on taxation, "there is no tax exemption solely on the, ground of equity." 29 WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED and the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. L-20960-61 October 31, 1968 COMMlSSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE and COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, petitioners-appellants, vs. PHILIPPINE ACE LINES, INC., respondent-appellee. Office of the Solicitor General Antonio Barredo, Assistant Solicitor General Felicisimo R. Rosete and Special Attorney Francisco J. Malate, Jr. for petitioners-appellants. Dakila F. Castro & Associates for respondent-appellee. ANGELES, J.: On appeal by the Government from the decision rendered jointly in Tax Cases Nos. 964 & 984 of the Court of Tax Appeals, reversing the rulings of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue holding the Philippine Ace Lines, Inc. liable to pay the aggregate amount of P1,407,724.57 as compensating taxes on four (4) ocean-going cargo vessels acquired by said company from the Reparations Commission of the Philippines, and of the Commissioner of Customs to place the four vessels under customs custody until the aforementioned amount claimed by the Government was first paid. The antecedent facts of the case are not in dispute and may be summarized briefly as follows: Under date of January 23, 1959, the Reparations Commission agreed to sell to the Philippine Ace Lines the cargo vessel M/S YAKAL and M/S MOLAVE which were procured by the former from Japan for the end-use of the latter under the Philippine- Japanese Reparations

Agreement of May 9, 1956, at the agreed prices of P4,283,241.48 and P4,292,457.48, respectively. Similar agreements involving two (2) other ocean-going cargo vessels were subsequently entered into by and between the same parties: one, dated November 11, 1959, referring to the purchase and sale of M/S TINDALO for the price of P7,054.177.78 and, the other, concerning the purchase and sale of M/S NARRA under date of December 14, 1959, for the price of P3,599,995.44. All these agreements invariably denominated as "Contract of Conditional Purchase and Sale of Reparations Goods" stipulated, among others, that the Reparations Commission retains title and ownership of the above-described vessels until they were fully paid for and that the purchase prices of the vessels were to be paid by Philippine Ace Lines to the Reparations Commission under deferred payment plans in ten (10) equal annual installments. The four (4) vessels referred to were thereafter delivered to Philippine Ace Lines in Japan; they were taken to the Philippines where they were registered in the Bureau of Customs in the name of the Reparations Commission; and thereafter, the vessels were operated and utilized by Philippine Ace Lines in its shipping business, plying between ports of foreign countries and the Philippines. Sometime later, however, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue assessed against the Philippine Ace lines the amounts of P304,428.00, P256,275.00, P499,948.10 and P305.073.47 as compensating taxes on the M/S YAKAL, M/S NARRA, M/S TINDALO and M/S MOLAVE, respectively, and demanded payment of the said amounts. The Commisioner of Customs, joining the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, then placed the vessels under customs custody at

the different ports of the Philippines where they were found at the time, and refused to give due course to the "clearance" of said vessels as requested by their respective owner and operator Reparations Commission and Philippine Ace Lines unless the compensating taxes assessed against the latter were first paid to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Philippine Ace Lines protested said actions of the Commissioners of Internal Revenue and of Customs, alleging that the legal title and ownership of the vessels operated by it were still vested with the Reparations Commission which, under Section 14 of the Reparations Act,1 was exempt from payment of all duties, fees and taxes on all reparations goods obtained by it; but the said officials rejected the protest and ruled that the compensating taxes should first be paid, per directive to that effect by the Secretary of Finance. Subsequent protests calling the attention of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the Commissioner of Customs to the substantial loss and irreparable injury it has suffered by the tying up of the four ships in port also proved futile. Offshoots of the controversy, Philippine Ace Lines interposed two (2) separate appeals (petitions for review) from the above rulings or decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the Commissioner of Customs, to the Court of Tax Appeals where they were docketed as C.T.A. Case No. 964, involving M/S YAKAL and M/S NARRA, and C.T.A. Case No. 984, concerning M/S TINDALO and M/S MOLAVE. While the cases were pending trial, Philippine Ace Lines petitioned the court a quo to enjoin the collection of the compensating tax assessed against it and after hearing, writs of preliminary injunction were issued upon the filing of surety bonds to guarantee payment of the amounts claimed.

In the meantime, Congress enacted Republic Act No. 3079 (effective June 17, 1961) which amended Republic Act No. 1789, otherwise known as the Reparations Act, and provided as follows: SEC. 14. Exemption from tax. All reparations goods obtained by the Government shall be exempt from the payment of all duties, fees and taxes. Reparations goods obtained by private parties shall be exempt from the payment of customs duties, compensating tax, consular fees and the special import tax. xxx xxx xxx SEC. 20. This Act shall take effect upon its approval, except that the amendment contained in section seven hereof relating to the requirements for procurement orders including the requirement of downpayment by private applicant end-users shall not apply to procurement orders already duly issued and verified at the time of the passage of this amendatory Act, and except further that the amendment contained in section ten relating to the insurance of the reparations goods by the end-users upon delivery shall apply also to goods covered by contracts already entered into by the Commission and the end-user prior to the approval of this amendatory Act as well as goods already delivered to the end-user, and except further that the amendments contained in sections eleven and twelve hereof relating to the terms of the installment payments on capital goods disposed of to private parties, and the execution of a performance bond before delivery of reparations goods, shall not apply to contract for the utilization of reparations goods already entered into by the Commission and the end-

users prior to the approval of thisamendatory Act: Provided, That any end-user may apply the renovation of his utilization contract with the commission in order to avail of any provision of this amendatory Act which is more favorable to an applicant end-user than has heretofore been granted in like manner and to the same extent as an end-user filing his application after the approval of this amendatory Act, and the Commission may agree to such renovation on condition that the end-user shall voluntarily assume all the new obligations provided for in this amendatory Act. [Emphasis supplied] Invoking the favorable provisions of the new law (Republic Act No. 3079, above quote Philippine Ace Lines then entered into "Renovated Contract(s) of Conditional Purchase and Sale of Reparations Goods" with the Reparations Commission, covering the four (4) cargo vessels. It had previously acquired from the latter under the Reparations Act. Thereafter, the said company filed a "Supplement to the Petition for Review" in each of the above entitled cases before the Court of Tax Appeals, submitting therewith copies of the said renovated contracts it had entered with the Reparations Commission regarding the purchase and sale of M/S MOLAVE, M/S TINDALO, M/S YAKAL and M/S NARRA, with the allegation that "expressly implementing section 14 of Republic Act No. 3079 in the aforesaid renovated contracts," the Reparations Commission and the Philippine Ace Lines have agreed as follows: NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises above stated and of the payments to be made by the herein Conditional Vendee as stipulated in Annex "B" hereof which is made an integral part of this contract, the parties herein agree to execute this renovation of contract of Conditional Purchase and Sale and the Conditional Vendor hereby

transfers and conveys unto the herein Conditional Vendee the ocean-going vessels abovedescribed ...; subject further to the pertinent provisions of Republic Act No. 1789 as amended, including particularly the exempting provisions of Section 14 thereof relative to the exemption from payment of compensating tax which the herein Conditional Vendee, as an implemented machinery, do hereby, by these presents, implement. ... In their "Answer to Supplement to Petition for Review" filed with the court below by counsel for the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the Commissioner of Customs, the foregoing allegation was admitted. They claimed, however, that even if Philippine Ace Lines and the Reparations Commission have agreed to implement the provisions of Section 14 of Republic Act No. 1789, as amended by Republic Act No. 3079, in the "Renovated Contract of Conditional Purchase and Sale of Reparations Goods" entered into between them, such implementation did not relieve the Philippine Ace Lines from the payment of the compensating taxes in question. The parties thereafter submitted the cases for decision upon a stipulation of facts containing, substantially, the facts as above set forth. On January 25, 1963, the Court of Tax Appeals rendered a joint decision in the two cases, reversing the rulings of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the Commissioner of Customs, in the following rationale: The sole issue presented for our consideration is whether or not petitioner is liable for the compensating tax on the four ocean-going vessels in question. Petitioner claims that it is not liable on the grounds that said vessels are still owned by the Reparations Commission

and that, assuming that it was liable therefor under Section 190 of the National Internal Revenue Code, in relation to Section 14 of Republic Act 1789 before its amendment, it is now exempt from said tax by virtue of Section 20 of Republic Act No. 3079 in relation to Section 14 of Republic Act No. 1789, as amended. On the other hand, respondent claims that petitioner is liable and that the latter's liability is not affected by the exemption provision of the new law. xxx xxx xxx The Government does not deny the fact that petitioner has complied with all the requirements of law in order that it may avail itself of all the favorable provisions granted in Republic Act No. 3079. It is, however, contended that the favorable provisions mentioned in Section 20 of said Act which may be availed of by an applicant for renovation of his utilization contract with the Reparations Commission do not include exemption from compensating tax because such exemption is not expressly stated in the law. In providing that the favorable provisions of Republic Act No. 3079 shall be available to applicants for renovation of their utilization contracts, on condition that said applicants shall voluntarily assume all the new obligations provided in the new law, the law intends to place persons who acquired reparations goods before the enactment of the amendatory Act on the same footing as those who acquire reparations goods after its enactment. This is so because of the provision that once an application for renovation of a utilization contract has been approved, the favorable provisions of said Act shall be available to the applicant "in like manner and to the same extent as an end-user filing his application after the approval of this amendatory

Act." To deny exemption from compensating tax to one whose utilization contract has been renovated, while granting the exemption to one who files an application for acquisition of reparations goods after the approval of the new law, would be contrary to the express mandate of the law that they both be subject to the same obligations and they both enjoy the same privileges in like manner and to the same extent. It would be a manifest distortion of the literal meaning and purpose of the law. FOR THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, the decisions appealed from in both cases are hereby reversed. Accordingly, the surety bonds filed by petitioner to guarantee payment of the tax in question are thereby cancelled. No pronouncement as to costs. Not satisfied with the foregoing decision of the Court of Tax Appeals, the Government has interposed the instant appeal therefrom to this Court. Appellant now charges that the lower court had erred in holding that the renovation of the contracts of purchase and sale of the vessels involved in these cases, after the approval of Republic Act No. 3079, entitled Philippine Ace Lines to the exemption from payment of compensating tax under the provisions of the said law, notwithstanding the fact that the vessels referred to were acquired from the Reparations Commission long before the approval of said amendatory Act which, by the way, did not expressly authorize such exemption. It is argued that the favorable provisions of Republic Act No. 3079 invoked by Philippine Ace Lines and relied upon by the decision of the court below cannot include exemption from compensating tax, otherwise, had Congress intended so, it would have provided for such exemption in clear and

explicit terms; that the tax exemption contained in Section 14 of the amendatory Act cannot have retroactive application in the absence of any provision for retroactivity; and that to grant such exemption to end-users who have acquired reparations goods before the approval of Republic Act No. 3079 would be prejudicial to the Government. Appellant's position calls to mind Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Bothelo Shipping Corporation,2 the factual setting of which is on all fours with the case at bar, and where this Court, speaking through Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion, disposed of the same charge and contentions in clear and unequivocal terms, in the following wise: The inherent weakness of the last ground becomes manifest when we consider that, if true, there could be no tax exemption of any kind whatsoever, even if Congress should wish to create one, because every such exemption implies a waiver of the right to collect what otherwise would be due to the Government, and, in this sense, is prejudicial thereto. In fact, however, tax exemptions may and do exist, such as the one prescribed in section 14 of Republic Act No. 1789, as amended by Republic Act No. 3079, which, by the way, is "clear and explicit," thus, meeting the first ground of appellant's contention. It may not be amiss to add that no tax exemption like any other legal exemption or exception is given without any reason therefor. In much the same way as other statutory commands, its avowed purpose is some public benefit or interest, which the law-making body considers sufficient to offset the monetary loss entailed in the grant of the exemption. Indeed, section 20 of Republic Act No. 3079 exacts a valuable consideration for the retroactivity of its favorable provision, namely, the voluntary assumption, by the end-user, who bought

reparations goods prior to June 17, 1961, of "all the new obligations provided for in" said Act. The argument adduced in support of the third ground is that the view adopted by the Tax Court would operate to grant exemption to particular persons, the Buyers therein. It should be noted, however, that there is no constitutional injunction against granting tax exemptions to particular persons. In fact, it is not unusual to grant legislative franchises to specific individuals or entities, conferring tax exemptions thereto. What the fundamental law forbids is the denial of equal protection such as through unreasonable discrimination or classification. Furthermore, Section 14 of the Law on Reparations, as amended, exempts from the compensating tax, not particular persons but persons belonging to a particular class. Indeed, appellants do not assail the Constitutionality of said section 14, insofar as it grants exemptions to end-users who, after the approval of Republic Act No. 3079, on June 17, 1961, purchased reparations goods procured by the Commission. From the view point of Constitutional Law, especially the equal protection clause, there is no difference between the grant of exemption to said end-users, and the extension of the grant to those whose contracts of purchase and sale were made before said date, under Republic Act No. 1789. It is true that Republic Act No. 3079 does not explicitly declare that those who purchased reparations goods prior to June 17, 1961, are exempt from the compensating tax. It does not say so, because they do not really enjoy such exemption, unless they comply with the

proviso in Section 20 of said Act, by applying for the renovation of their respective utilization contracts, "in order to avail of any provision of the Amendatory Act which is more favorable" to the applicant. In other words, it is manifest, from the language of said section 20, that the same intended to give such buyers the opportunity to be treated "in like manner and to the same extent as an end-user filing his application after the approval of this Amendatory Act." Like the "most favored nation clause" in international agreements, the aforementioned section 20 thus seeks, not to discriminate or to create an exemption or exceptions, but to abolish the discrimination, exemption or exception that would otherwise result, in favor of the end-user who bought after June 17, 1961 and against one who bought prior thereto. Indeed, it is difficult to find substantial justification for the distinction between the one and the other. ... We find no cogent reason to modify, much less depart from the conclusion reached in Bothelo, as expressed in the above-quoted opinion of the Court there, and the same should resolve the identical problem now brought before Us in this proceeding. WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals appealed from in these cases is affirmed; no pronouncement as to costs.

G.R. No. L-26686 & L-26698 October 30, 1980 ATLAS FERTILIZER CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION OF INTERNAL REVENUE and COURT OF TAX APPEALS, respondents; COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner, vs. ATLAS FERTILIZER CORPORATION and COURT OF TAX APPEALS, respondents. DE CASTRO, J.: These two (2) cases are appeals by way of certiorari from the decision dated August 24, 1966 of the Court of Tax Appeals granting Atlas Fertilizer Corporation a tax credit in the sum of P81,899.00 which may be applied by said corporation in pay of its outstanding and/or future liability for internal revenue taxes. For the material facts, We could very well quote from the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals, the following.
Petitioner Atlas Fertilizer Corporation was formerly a department of Atlas Mining z Development Corporation. The latter was granted by the Secretary of Finance a certificate of tax exemption under Republic Act No. 901 as a new and necessary industry for engaging in the manufacture of fertilizer namely, sulphuric acid, phosphoric

acid, superphosphate, triple superphosphate and sun the tax exemption privileges of Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation were later transferred to the petitioner under the written authority of the Department of Finance dated November 27, 1957. During the period from June 26, 1961 to October 24, 1962, petitioner imported raw materials, equipment, spare parts, containers and other supplies on which it paid onehalf or 60% of the compensating taxes due thereon (Exhs. 1 and G, pp. 98-100, BIR rec.). While petitioner was still enjoying partial tax exemption of 50% as a new and necessary industry under Republic Act No. 901, Republic Act No. 3050, which took effect on June 17, 1961, granted tax exemption to any person, partnership, company or corporation engaged or which shall engage in the manufacture of of whatever nature from the payment, among others, of compensating taxes on their importation of capital goods, equipment, snare raw materials, supplies containers and fuel To implement z Republic Act No. 3050, the Department of Finance issued Department Order No. 105, dated September 15, 1961, which provides, among others, as follows: Any ... corporation ... which shall engage in the manufacture of fertilizer and desiring to enjoy the privileges grandted under the provisions of Republic Act No. 3050 may file its application therefore with the Secretary of Finance. Fertilizer manufacturer ... which are granted tax exemption under Republic Act No. should likewise file appellant com/implications for tax exemption under Republic Act No. 3050, indicating therein, among other things, that the applicant waives the benefits of tax exemption authorized under Republic Act No. 3127. In compliance with the above regulation, petitioner filed on January 25, 1962 with the

Department of Finance an application for tax exemption under the provisions of Republic Act No. 3050, which application was approved by the Secretary of Finance on February 19, 1962. The tax exemption granted by the said official to petitioner was made retroactive commencing on June 17, 1961, the date of the effectivity of Republic Act No. 3050 (pp. 93-94, BIR rec.). On the basis of the tax exemption granted by the Secretary of Finance under Republic Act No. 3050, petitioner filed with responded on June 21, 1963 a claim for tax at of the compensating taxes amounting to P 83,629.00 which petitioner allegedly paid to the Bureau of Customs on petitioner's importations of tax exempt goods, equipment, materials and supplies during the period from June 26, 1961 to October 24, 1962 (pp. 88-90, BIR rec.). On June 22, 1963, the day after petitioner had filed its for tax credit with respondent, petitioner filed a petition for review with this Court seek an order to compel respondent to issue the corresponding letter of tax credit. During the pendency of this case, petitioner's claim for tax credit of P 83,629.00 filed with respondent was referred on June 26, 1963 to the Regional Director of Manila, BIR Regional District No. 3, for investigation, report and recommendation. On July 15, 1963, the case was assigned to Revenue Examiner Benjamin Fernandez. Shortly thereafter, the Manila Regional Office (District No. 3) was divided into two (2) districts North Manila and South Manila (District Nos. 5 and 6). As a consequence thereof and the confusion which ensued as a result of the sorting and transfer of revenue dockets and records, allocation and assignment of personnel, and the division and transfer of supplies, equipment and furniture, the papers bearing on the tax credit of petitioner were misplaced. It was only on January 25, 1965 when the investigating examiner submitted

his report and recommended therein that petitioner be granted a tax credit of P76,935.00, instead of P83, 629.00 as because the importations and payment of the compensating taxes under Item Nos. 1, 17, 35, 50, 58, 61, 62, 64, 65, 67 and 68 were not supported with import entry declarations and receipts of tax payment

After hearing, the Court of Tax Appeals rendered its decision on August 24, 1966 from which both parties have appealed to this Court. In his appeal, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (Commission Commissioner for short) assigns the following errors:
I THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PETITIONER NEED NOT PROVE THAT THE RAW MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, SPARE PARTS, CONTAINERS AND OTHER SUPPLIES IT IMPORTED WERE USED BY IT IN THE MANUFACTURE OF FERTILIZER TO BE ENTITLED TO TAX EXEMPTION UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 3050. II THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT IT IS INCUMBENT UPON RESPONDENT TO PROVE THAT THE IMPORTATIONS IN QUESTION WERE NOT USED BY THE PETITIONER IN THE MANUFACTURE OF FERTILIZER NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE INTRODUCED BY PETITIONER SHOWING THAT THE SAID IMPORTATIONS WERE USED BY IT IN THE MANUFACTURE OF FERTILIZER.

III THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PETITIONER NEED NOT PROVE THAT IT HAD PREVIOUSLY SECURED A SPECIFIC AUTHORITY FROM THE SECRETARY OF FINANCE TO IMPORT THE GOODS IN QUESTION AS A PREREQUISITE FOR THE ENJOYMENT OF ITS RIGHT TO TAX EXEMPTION UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 3050. IV THE COURT OF FAX APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PETITIONER HAS IN EFFECT ABANDONED AND GIVEN UP ITS PARTIAL EXEMPTION PRIVILEGE UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 901 BY SEEKING TO APPLY ITS TAX EXEMPTION UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 3050. V THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS ERRED IN ORDERING RESPONDENT TO GRANT PETITIONER A TAX CREDIT OF P81,899.00 IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT PETITIONER IS NOT ENTITLED THERETO.

On the other hand, Atlas Fertilizer Corporation (AFC for short), as appellant has also assigned the following errors:
I THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS ERRED IN DENYING THE AWARD OF INTEREST TO THE PETITIONER ON THE AMOUNT OF P81,899.00 FOUND TO BE DUE AS TAX CREDIT IN FAVOR OF PETITIONER.

II THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS ERRED IN CONCLUDING INCLUDING THAT PETITIONER FILED ITS CLAIM FOR TAX CREDIT QUITE LATE OR ALMOST TWO YEARS FROM THE FIRST PAYMENT OF THE COMPENSATING TAX AND EIGHT MONTHS FROM THE LAST PAYMENT THEREOF. III THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS ERRED IN CONCLUDING INCLUDING THAT THE DELAY IN PROCESSING THE CLAIM FOR TAX CREDIT WAS NOT PREMEDITATED AND INTENTIONAL BUT CAUSED BY CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND THE CONTROL OF RESPONDENT. IV THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS ERRED IN APPLYING THE EXISTING DOCTRINE THAT INTEREST ON REFUND (OR TAX CREDIT) IS AWARDED ONLY WHERE COLLECTIVE TION OF THE TAXES WAS ATTENDED WITH ARBITRARINESS. V THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS ERRED IN NOT APPLYING THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE NEW CIVIL CODE, NAMELY, ARTICLES 2154, 2155 AND 2209, GOVERNMENT ING THE RETURN OF PAYMENT'S BY REASON OF MISTAKE AND THE AWARD OF INTEREST WHEN THE OBLIGOR INCURS DELAY.

Appeal by the Commissioner The pertinent section upon which AFC based its claim for exemption reads:

Sec. 1. Notwithstanding any provisions of law to the contrary, subject to the conditions hereinafter provided, any person, partnership, company or corporation engaged or which shall engage in the manufacture of fertilizer of whatever nature be entitled to exemption until December 31, 1965 from the payment of special port tax, margin fee on foreign exchange, sales and compensating taxes and customs duties payable by such person, partnership, company or corporation, in respect to the importation of capital goods, equipment, spare parts, raw materials, supplies, containers and fuel by any of those engaged in the above industry, ... 1

Anent the first and second assignment of errors, the Commission Commissioner points out that it is well settled that exemptions are strictly construed and are never presumed. And the burden of proof is on the claimant to establish clearly his right to exempt Being an essential and indispensable requisite for the enjoyment of its tax exemption, the fact that the AFC used the goods for the manufacture of fertilizer must be shown by it. In refutation to the above contention, AFC claims that since the Secretary of Finance, on February 19, 1962, approved its application for tax exemption under R.A. 3050, it may be assumed that among the matters considered by the Secretary of Finance in processing the claim for exemption was the fact of actual use for the manufacture of fertilizer by AFC of the importations made. It is, therefore, the position of AFC that the certificate of exemption granted by the Secretary of Finance was sufficient proof that it used the imported articles in the manufacture of fertilizer. That the burden of proof is on the claimant to establish his right to exemption cannot be

gainsaid. In the instant case, however, We feel that AFC need not adduce further evidence to show that it is entitled to exemption. It is to be observed that there is no dispute that AFC is engaged in the manufacturing capture of fertilizer, as the very name of AFC suggests the nature of its business. It is also pertinent to state that when R. A. 3050 took effect, AFC was already enjoying partial exemption under R.A. 901 as a new and necessary industry engaged in the manufacture of fertilizer. Furthermore, when the Secretary of Finance, on February 19, 1962, approved AFC's application for tax exemption under R. A. 3050, We believe that he already considered that the importations were needed by AFC for the manufacture of fertilizer. This may be inferred from the fact that before the Secretary of Finance approves an application, he requires applicants to submit an application which "shall be in the form prescribed by the Secretary of Finance and contain detailed and complete information caged for in such form. It shall contain a complete of raw materials, supplies, con- re/containers, and fuel needed and for the exclusive use in the manufacture of fertilizer. There shall be attached to the appellant com/implication a firm quotation of the complete machinery equipment and spare parts thereof needed by and for the exclusive use of the applicant in the manufacture of fertilizer. The appellant com/implication shall be sworn to before a notary public and filed in quadruplicate. 2 Likewise, since it is presumed that official duty has been regularly performed 3 it can be assumed that the Secretary of Finance in approving the application, was satisfied that those importations were not only needed for exclusive use in the manufacture of fertilizer but that they were actually used

therefor, for otherwise, the Secretary would have not approved the application. We, therefore, agree with the position of AFC that the certiorari certificate of exemption granted by the Secretary of Finance on February 19, 1962 was sufficient proof that it used the importations in question in the manufacture of fertilizer. This is bolstered by the fact that the certificate of exemption was granted after the imported goods have already arrived. The Commissioner also argues that AFC failed to secure first an authority from the Secretary of Finance to import the goods which AFC wanted to be exempt from tax before said goods were actually imported. According to the Commissioner, such an authority is a prerequisite for the enjoyment of tax exemption, since in the letter of the Secretary of Finance dated February 19, 1962 granting AFC tax exemption under R.A. 3050, the Secretary stated:
As a bonafide fertilizer manufacturer under the provisions of the aforesaid Act, you are entitled to exemption from the payment of the special import tax, margin fee on foreign exchange, sales and compensating taxes, and customs duties directly payable by you in respect to the importation of capital goods, equipment spare part. run materials, supplies, containers and fuel which this office may specifically authorize until December 31, 1965 unless sooner let/lat/after terminated for failure to comply with the requirements of the law and existing regulations.

Indeed, it would be illogical for the AFC to produce the acquired specific authority to import because when the tax exemption was granted on February 19, 1962, sixty-one

(61) of the imported goods have already arrived, and the AFC has paid the corresponding compensating taxes pursuant P. A. 901 granting manufacturer of fertilizer partial exemption from payment of compensating taxes. With respect to the seven (7) importation which arrived after the grant of exemption, it should be noted that AFC was able to withdraw them from customs custody. We must not lose sight of the fact that before goods may be withdrawn from customs custody, it is necessary that "a true or photostat copy of the letter-grant authorizing the tax-free importation of the articles applied to be withdrawn from customs custody" be presented, pursuant to paragraph of the implementing rules and regulations which is Department Order No. 105-A 4 issued by the Secretary of Finance. Since AFC has successfully withdrawn all the seven (7) imported articles from customs custody, after payment of the compensating taxes, it may be inferred that AFC has complied with the above provision of Department Order No. 105-A to produce AFC's authority to import. On the fourth issue, the Commissioner contends that respondent court erred in ruling that AFC, by seeking to avail of its exemption under R. A. No. 3050, has in effect abandoned and given up its partial exemption privilege under R.A. No. 901. According to the Commissioner, AFC could not have abandoned or given up its exemption under R. A. No. 901 because it has already applied the same to the importations involved herein, and that one cannot abandon or give up what he has already taken advantage of Furthermore, tax exemptions under R.A. 901 and R.A. 3050 cannot be enjoyed simultaneous simultaneously.

The Commissioner's contention is without merit. Department, Order No. 105 issued by the Secretary of Finance expressly directed fertilizer manufacturers enjoying benefits under R.A. No. 901 to likewise apply for the benefits of R.A. No. 3050. Said Department Order No. 105 provides:
Fertilizer manufacturers who or which are granted tax exempt under R. A. No. 901 should likewise file applications for tax exemption under R. A. No. 3050. ...

In compliance with said directive, AFC filed its application for total exemption under R. A. No. 3050 which was granted by the Secretary of Finance. The Commissioner's argument that AFC enjoyed simultaneous exemption under R. A. No. 901 and R. A. No. 3050, is without factual basis. R. A. No. 901 grants partial exemption while R. A. 3050 grants total exemption. Once a manufacturer of fertilizer chose to come under R. A. 3050, his partial exemption under R. A. 901 ceased. In effect, he enjoyed only one exemption benefit, the full exemption under R. A. No. 3050. As correctly ruled by the respondent court, when AFC availed of the total exemption under R. A. No. 3050, it has in effect given up the partial exemption which it was enjoying under R. A. No. 901. Appeal by AFC The assignment of errors of AFC may be synthesized to the sole issue as to whether or not the Government is liable for the payment of interest on refunds (on tax credit) of taxes erroneously or illegally paid to it on the ground that the commission Commissioner is guilty of unjust and unreasonable delay in performing an obligation of

the Government . AFC points out that the Commissioner received the claim for tax credit on June 21, 1963 but it was only on January 11, 1965 or more than eighteen (18) months later that a BIR examiner came to the premises of the taxpayer to investigate the claim. In other words, the Commissioner did not act on the claim of AFC and this inaction is the essence of the delay incur red by the Commissioner in the performance of an obligation which entitled AFC to reparation in the form of interest payment. On the alleged delay, the Commissioner in his brief explaining the following:
The records of this case show that petitioner's claim for tax credit was received by the Records Control Section of the Bureau of Internal Revenue on June 21, 1963 (Memorandum for Petitioner, STA Case No. 1410, p. 2, p. 121 STA par. 5 of Answer, CTA Case No. 1410, P. 14 STA and was received by the Appellate Division of the said Bureau which processes claims of that nature on June 25, 1963. The following day, or on June 26, 1963, the said claim was indorsed to then BIR Regional District No. 3, Manila, for investigation and report and, on the same date, petitioner was duly notified of the said indorsement. (Exh. D, p. 101, CTA rec.). However, shortly after the claim for tax credit was referred to Regional District No. 3 for investigation and report, the said district was divided into two districts to become Regional District Nos. 5 and 6. As a consequence of the division, revenue dockets and records then handled by Region No. 3 had to be sorted and apportioned between the two new districts. Office supplies,

equipment and furniture were likewise divided and transferred and personnel had to be allocated and assigned to each of the new districts. Unfortunately, in the process, the papers bearing on petitioner's claim for tax credit was misplaced. This was discovered when the report previously requested on the said claim was called up in a memorandum of the Deputy Com- Commissioner dated Nov. 23, 1964. As the fieldmen of the Bureau of In- internal Revenue are grounded during the month of December of each year, the investigation could not be immediately undertaken after the said call-up but had to wait until January. On January 27, 1965, the desired report contained in an indorsement dated January 25, 1965 was submitted (Exh. 1, supra).

Finding the above explanation meritorious, We agree with respondent court that the delay in processing the claim of AFC for tax credit was neither premeditated nor intentional. The Commissioner did not sit on the claim of AFC. If there was any delay, it was due to the splitting into two (2) districts of Regional District No. 3 where the claim was filed, as a result of which the documents requesting for refund was misplaced. But the more important consideration is the when settled rule that in the absence of a statutory provision clearly or expressly directing or authorizing payment of interest on the amount to be refunded to taxpayer, the Government cannot be acquired to pay interest. 5 Likewise, it is the rule that interest may be awarded only when the collection of tax sought to be refunded was attended with arbitrariness. 6 Such circumstance is not present in the case at bar as the payment of compensation taxes in question was made freely and voluntarily and conformably with the partial exemption granted by Republic Act No. 901.

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered affirmed the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals. Without special pro-announcement as to cost. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. L-17962 April 30, 1965 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BLAS GONZALES, defendant-appellant. Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee. Cesar C. Cruz for defendant-appellant. REGALA, J.: This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila under Civil Case No. 42912 the dispositive portion of which provided: IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant, ordering said defendant to pay plaintiff the sums of P106,226.75 and P37,849.58 as deficiency income taxes for the years 1946 and 1947, respectively, (each inclusive of the 50% surcharge) plus the 50% surcharge and 1% monthly interest on the aforesaid amount from June 15, 1957 until the whole amount is fully paid, and costs of this suit. The records of this case disclose that since 1946, the defendant-appellant, Blas Gonzales, has been a private concessionaire in the U.S. Military Base at Clark Field, Angeles City: He was engaged in the manufacture of furniture and, per agreement with base authorities, supplied them with his manufactured articles.

On March 1, 1947 and March 1, 1948, the appellant filed his income tax returns for the years 1946 and 1947, respectively, with the then Municipal Treasurer of Angeles, Pampanga. In the return for 1946, he declared a net income of P9,352.84 and income tax liability of P111.17 while for the year 1947, he declared as net income the amount of P16,829.10 and a tax liability therefor in the sum of P1,395.95. In the above two returns, he declared the sums of P80,459.75 and P1,707,355.57 as his total sales for the said two years, respectively, or an aggregate sales of P1,787,848.32 for both years. Upon investigation, however, the Bureau of Internal Revenue discovered that for the years 1946 and 1947, the appellant had been paid a total of P2,199,920.50 for furniture delivered by him to the base authorities. The appellant do not deny the above amount which, for the record, was furnished by the Purchasing Officer of the Clark Field Air Base on the Bureau of Internal Revenue's representation. Compared against the sales figure provided by the base authorities, therefore, the amount of P1,787,848.32 declared by the appellant as his total sales for the two tax years in question was short or underdeclared by some P412,072.18. Accordingly, the appellee considered this last mentioned amount as unreported item of income of the appellant for 1946. Further investigation into the appellant's 1946 profit and loss statement disclosed "local sales," that is, sales to persons other than the United States Army, in the amount of P124,510.43. As a result, the appellee likewise considered the said amount as unreported income for the said year. The full amount of P124,510.43 was considered as taxable income because the appellant could not produce the books of account on the same upon which any deduction could be based.

Adding up the above two items considered as unreported income the appellee assessed the appellant the total sum of P340,179.84, broken down as follows: Net income as per return P9,352.84 Add: Sales, US P492,531.93 Army Local Sales 124,510.43 536,582.61 Net income as per investigation 545,935.45 Less: Personal & additional 4,500.00 exemptions Net taxable income Tax due thereon Less: Tax already assessed Deficiency tax due 50% surcharge P541,435.45 P226,897.73 111.17 P226,786.56 113,393.28

P340,179.84 ========== On November 14, 1953, the Bureau of Internal Revenue sent a letter of demand to the appellant for the above amount as deficiency income tax, the sum of P300.00 as compromise for his failure to keep the required journal and ledger, and finally, the sum of P153.75 as additional residence tax, all for the year 1946. On March 31, 1954, on request of the appellant, the Bureau of Internal Revenue reinvestigated the case. At the end of this new inquest, however, the appellee, thru, the then Collector of Internal Revenue, insisted on the payment of the original assessment of P340,179.84. It suggested, though, that if the appellant disagreed with the said finding he could submit the same for study, review and decision by the Conference Staff of the Bureau of Internal Revenue. In due time, the above assessment was heard before the said body which, subsequently, recommended a reduction of the same to P249,289.26, as deficiency income tax for the year 1946. After the recommendation was approved by the Bureau, the corresponding assessment notice for the sum of P249,289.26 as deficiency income tax and 50% surcharge for the year 1946 and 1% monthly interest and penalty incident to delinquency was forthwith issued to the appellant. On May 21, 1957, the above assessment was further revised by segregating the appellant's tax liability for the two years in question. Pursuant to a memorandum of the BIR Regional Director of San Fernando, Pampanga, another demand was made upon the appellant for the payment of

TOTAL AMOUNT DUE & COLLECTIBLE

P106,226.75 and P37,849.58 as income taxes due from him for the years 1946 and 1947, respectively, or a total of P144,076.33. When the appellant failed to pay the above demand, the appellee instituted the present suit on April 7, 1960. The appellant filed his answer on July 7, 1960 and amended it on July 19, 1960. Prior to the trial of the case, the appellant filed with the court below a motion to dismiss grounded on prescription and lack of jurisdiction. The same was, however, denied by the lower court as unmeritorious. Moreover, for failure of the appellant or his counsel to appear at the scheduled hearing, the defendant-appellant was declared in default. The motion for reconsideration of this last order declaring the appellant in default for failure to appear was also denied by the trial court for lack of merit. On November 7, 1960, after the appellee had presented its documentary evidence against the appellant, the lower court rendered the decision under appeal. The appellant ascribes several errors to the decision of the court a quo, the more fundamental of which is the claim that as a concessionaire in an American Air Base, he is not subject to Philippine tax laws pursuant to the United States-Philippine Military Bases Agreement. In support of the claim, the following provision of the above Bases Agreement is invoked: ARTICLE XVIII.Sales and Services within the Bases 1. It is mutually agreed that the United States shall have the right to establish on bases, free of all license; fees; sales excise or other taxes or imposts; Government agencies including concessions, such as sales commissaries and post exchanges, messes and social clubs, for

the exclusive use of the United States military forces and authorized civilian personnel and their families. The merchandise or services sold or dispensed by such agencies shall be free of all taxes, duties and inspection by the Philippine authorities. Administrative measures shall be taken by the appropriate authorities of the United States to prevent the sale of goods which are sold under the provisions of this Article to persons not entitled to buy goods at such agencies, and, generally, to prevent abuse of the privileges granted under this Article. There shall be cooperation between such authorities and the Philippines to this end. 2. Except as may be provided in any other agreements, no persons shall habitually render any professional services in a base except to or for the United States or to or for the persons mentioned in the preceding paragraph. No business shall be established in a base, it being understood that the Government agencies mentioned in the preceding paragraph shall not be regarded as businesses for the purpose of this Article. The contention is clearly unmeritorious. The above provision of the Military Bases Agreement has already been interpreted by this Court in at least two cases, namely: Canlas v. Republic, G.R. No. 1,11035, May 31, 1958 and Naguiat v. J. A. Araneta, G.R. No. L-11594, December 22, 1958. In the latter case this Court said: The provision relied upon by the appellant plainly contemplates limiting the exemption from the licenses, fees and taxes enumerated therein to the right to establish Government agencies, including concessions, and to the merchandise or services sold or dispensed by such agencies. The income tax, which is certainly not on the right to establish agencies or

on the merchandise or services sold or dispensed thereby, but on the owner or operator of such agencies, is logically excluded. The payment by the latter of the income tax is perfectly content with and would not frustrate the obvious objective of the agreement, namely, to enable the members of the United States Military Forces and authorized civilian personnel and their families to procure merchandise or services within the bases at reduced prices. This construction is unmistakably borne out by the fact that, in dealing particularly with the matter of income tax, the Military Bases Agreement provides as follows: INTERNAL REVENUE TAX EXEMPTION 1. No member of the United States armed forces, except Filipino citizens, serving in the Philippines in connection with the bases and residing in the Philippines by reason only of such services, or his dependents, shall be liable to pay income tax in the Philippines except in respect of income derived from Philippine sources. It is urged for the applicant that no opposition has been registered against his petition on the issues above-discussed. Absence of opposition, however, does not preclude the scanning of the whole record by the appellate court, with a view to preventing the conferment of citizenship to persons not fully qualified therefor (Lee Ng Len vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-20151, March 31, 1965). The applicant's complaint of unfairness could have some weight if the objections on appeal had been on points not previously passed upon. But the deficiencies here in question are not new but well-known, having been ruled upon repeatedly by this Court, and we see no excuse for failing to take

them into account.1wph1.t 2. No national of the United State serving or employed in the Philippines in connection with the maintenance, operation or defense of the bases and residing in the Philippines by reason only of such employment, or his spouse, and minor children and dependent parents of either spouses, shall be liable to pay income tax in the Philippines except in respect of income derived from Philippine source or sources than the United States source. 3. No persons referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this article shall be liable to pay the Government or local authorities of the Philippines any poll or residence tax, or any import or export duty, or any other tax on personal property imported for his own use; provided that privately ovned vehicles shall be subject to the payment of the following only, when certified as being used for military purposes by appropriate United States authorities, the normal license plate and registration fees. 4. No national of the United States, or corporation organized under the laws of the United States, resident in the United States, shall be liable to pay income tax in the Philippines in respect to any profits derived under a contract made in the United States in connection with the construction, maintenance, operation and defense of the bases, or any tax in the nature of a license in respect of any service or work for the United States in connection with the construction, maintenance, operation and defense of the bases.

None of the above-quoted covenants shields a concessionaire, like the appellant, from the payment of the income tax. For one thing, even the exemption in favor of members of the United States Armed Forces and nationals of the United States does not include income derived from Philippine sources. The appellant cannot seek refuge in the use of "excise" or "other taxes or imposts" in paragraph 1 of Article XVIII of the Military Bases Agreement, because, as already stated, said terms are employed with specific application to the right to establish agencies and concessions within the bases and to the merchandise or services sold or dispensed by such agencies or concessions. The same conclusion was reached in the case of Canlas v. Republic, supra. The appellant maintains, however, that the rulings in the above two cases are inapplicable to the suit at bar because the said cases involved the income of public utility operators in the Air Base who were not "concessionaires" like him. The above contention is as unmeritorious as it is untrue. In the case of Araneta v. Manila Pencil Company Ins., G.R. No. L-8182, June 29, 1957, this Court already ruled that operators of freight and bus services are within the meaning of the word "concession" appearing in the Military Bases agreement. Thus, in the Canlas case above, We said: There is no dispute as to the fact that defendant Manila Pencil Company, as successor-ininterest of the Philippine Consolidated Freight Lines, Inc., was engaged in and duly licensed by the U.S. Military authorities to operate a freight and bus service within the Clark Field Air Base, a military reservation established in conformity with the agreement

concluded between the Government of the Philippines and the United States on March 14, 1947 (43 O.G. No. 3, p. 1020). And as such grantee of a franchise, which this Court was held to be embraced within the meaning of the word "concession" appearing in the treaty and was declared exempted from the payment of the contractor's tax (Araneta v. Manila Pencil Company, G.R. No. L-10507, May 30, 1958) ... . It is very clear, therefore, that the rulings of this Court in the two cases above cited are applicable to this appeal under consideration. The other point raised by the appellant on this appeal pertains to the refusal of the trial court to reconsider its order declaring him in default for the failure of his counsel to appear at the scheduled trial despite due notice. He complains that when the trial proceeded in his absence, he was denied his day in court. In the premises, his counsel insists that this absence then was for a good and reasonable cause. Suffice it to say in regard to the above that the matter complained of is beyond this Court to disturb. The matter of adjournments, postponements, continuances and reconsideration of orders of default lies within the discretion of courts and will not be interfered with either by mandamus or appeal (Samson v. Naval, 41 Phil. 838) unless a showing of grave abuse can be made against said courts. Moreover, where the absence of a party from the trial was due to his own fault, he should not be heard to complain that he was deprived of his day in court. (Sandejas v. Robles, 81 Phil. 421; Siojo v. Tecson, 88 Phil. 531) The-counsel's excuse for his absence at the trial was alleged "lack of transportation facilities in

his place of residence at Gagalangin, Tondo, Manila, on that morning of August 8, when torrential rain poured down in his locality." The lower court did not deem this as a sufficiently valid explanation because it observed that despite such torrential rain, the counsel for the plaintiff-appellee, a lady attorney who was then a resident of a usually inundated area of Sampaloc, Manila, somehow made it to the court. Under these circumstances, the trial court's ruling can hardly be considered as an abuse of his discretion. Finally, the appellant disputes the lower court's finding of fraud against him in this incident. He argues that the facts invoked by the lower court do not sufficiently establish the same. As rightly argued by the Solicitor General's office, since fraud is a state of mind, it need not be proved by direct evidence but may be inferred from the circumstances of the case. The failure of the appellant to declare for taxation purposes his true and actual income derived from his furniture business at the Clark Field Air Base for two consecutive years is an indication of his fraudulent intent to cheat the Government of its due taxes. The substantial undeclaration of income in the income tax returns of the appellant for four consecutive years, coupled with his intentional overstatement of deductions made the imposition of the fraud penalty proper. (Eugenio Perez v. Court of Tax Appeals and Collector of Internal Revenue, G. R. No. L-10507, May 30, 1958.) IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered affirming in full the decision here appealed from, with costs against the defendant-appellant. So ordered.

G.R. No. 147188 September 14, 2004 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner, vs. THE ESTATE OF BENIGNO P. TODA, JR., Represented by Special Co-administrators Lorna Kapunan and Mario Luza Bautista, respondents. DECISION DAVIDE, JR., C.J.: This Court is called upon to determine in this case whether the tax planning scheme adopted by a corporation constitutes tax evasion that would justify an assessment of deficiency income tax. The petitioner seeks the reversal of the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals of 31 January 2001 in CA-G.R. SP No. 57799 affirming the 3 January 2000 Decision2 of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) in C.T.A. Case No. 5328,3 which held that the respondent Estate of Benigno P. Toda, Jr. is not liable for the deficiency income tax of Cibeles Insurance Corporation (CIC) in the amount of P79,099,999.22 for the year 1989, and ordered the cancellation and setting aside of the assessment issued by Commissioner of Internal Revenue Liwayway Vinzons-Chato on 9 January 1995. The case at bar stemmed from a Notice of Assessment sent to CIC by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue for deficiency income tax arising from an alleged simulated sale of a 16-storey commercial building known as Cibeles Building, situated on two parcels of land on Ayala Avenue, Makati City.

On 2 March 1989, CIC authorized Benigno P. Toda, Jr., President and owner of 99.991% of its issued and outstanding capital stock, to sell the Cibeles Building and the two parcels of land on which the building stands for an amount of not less than P90 million.4 On 30 August 1989, Toda purportedly sold the property for P100 million to Rafael A. Altonaga, who, in turn, sold the same property on the same day to Royal Match Inc. (RMI) for P200 million. These two transactions were evidenced by Deeds of Absolute Sale notarized on the same day by the same notary public.5 For the sale of the property to RMI, Altonaga paid capital gains tax in the amount of P10 million.6 On 16 April 1990, CIC filed its corporate annual income tax return7 for the year 1989, declaring, among other things, its gain from the sale of real property in the amount of P75,728.021. After crediting withholding taxes of P254,497.00, it paid P26,341,2078 for its net taxable income of P75,987,725. On 12 July 1990, Toda sold his entire shares of stocks in CIC to Le Hun T. Choa for P12.5 million, as evidenced by a Deed of Sale of Shares of Stocks.9 Three and a half years later, or on 16 January 1994, Toda died. On 29 March 1994, the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) sent an assessment notice10 and demand letter to the CIC for deficiency income tax for the year 1989 in the amount of P79,099,999.22.

The new CIC asked for a reconsideration, asserting that the assessment should be directed against the old CIC, and not against the new CIC, which is owned by an entirely different set of stockholders; moreover, Toda had undertaken to hold the buyer of his stockholdings and the CIC free from all tax liabilities for the fiscal years 1987-1989.11 On 27 January 1995, the Estate of Benigno P. Toda, Jr., represented by special co-administrators Lorna Kapunan and Mario Luza Bautista, received a Notice of Assessment12 dated 9 January 1995 from the Commissioner of Internal Revenue for deficiency income tax for the year 1989 in the amount of P79,099,999.22, computed as follows: Income Tax 1989 Net Income per return P75,987,725.00

Add: Additional gain on sale of real property taxable under ordinary corporate income but were substituted with individual capital 100,000,000.00 gains(P200M 100M) Total Net Taxable Income per P175,987,725.00

investigation Tax Due thereof at P 61,595,703.75 35% Less: Payment already made 1. Per return 2. Thru Capital Gains Tax made by R.A. Altonaga P26,595,704.00

10,000,000.00 36,595,704.00 P 24,999,999.75

Balance of tax due

Add: 50% Surcharge

12,499,999.88 6,249,999.94 P 43,749,999.57

25% Surcharge Total

Add: Interest 20% from 4/16/90-4/30/94 (.808) 35,349,999.65

P 79,099,999.22 ============== The Estate thereafter filed a letter of protest.13 In the letter dated 19 October 1995,14 the Commissioner dismissed the protest, stating that a fraudulent scheme was deliberately perpetuated by the CIC wholly owned and controlled by Toda by covering up the additional gain of P100 million, which resulted in the change in the income structure of the proceeds of the sale of the two parcels of land and the building thereon to an individual capital gains, thus evading the higher corporate income tax rate of 35%. On 15 February 1996, the Estate filed a petition for review15 with the CTA alleging that the Commissioner erred in holding the Estate liable for income tax deficiency; that the inference of fraud of the sale of the properties is unreasonable and unsupported; and that the right of the Commissioner to assess CIC had already prescribed. In his Answer16 and Amended Answer,17 the Commissioner argued that the two transactions

TOTAL AMT. DUE & COLLECTIBLE

actually constituted a single sale of the property by CIC to RMI, and that Altonaga was neither the buyer of the property from CIC nor the seller of the same property to RMI. The additional gain of P100 million (the difference between the second simulated sale for P200 million and the first simulated sale for P100 million) realized by CIC was taxed at the rate of only 5% purportedly as capital gains tax of Altonaga, instead of at the rate of 35% as corporate income tax of CIC. The income tax return filed by CIC for 1989 with intent to evade payment of the tax was thus false or fraudulent. Since such falsity or fraud was discovered by the BIR only on 8 March 1991, the assessment issued on 9 January 1995 was well within the prescriptive period prescribed by Section 223 (a) of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1986, which provides that tax may be assessed within ten years from the discovery of the falsity or fraud. With the sale being tainted with fraud, the separate corporate personality of CIC should be disregarded. Toda, being the registered owner of the 99.991% shares of stock of CIC and the beneficial owner of the remaining 0.009% shares registered in the name of the individual directors of CIC, should be held liable for the deficiency income tax, especially because the gains realized from the sale were withdrawn by him as cash advances or paid to him as cash dividends. Since he is already dead, his estate shall answer for his liability. In its decision18 of 3 January 2000, the CTA held that the Commissioner failed to prove that CIC committed fraud to deprive the government of the taxes due it. It ruled that even assuming that a pre-conceived scheme was adopted by CIC, the same constituted mere tax avoidance, and not tax evasion. There being no proof of fraudulent transaction, the applicable period for the BIR to assess CIC is that prescribed in Section 203 of the NIRC of 1986, which is three years

after the last day prescribed by law for the filing of the return. Thus, the governments right to assess CIC prescribed on 15 April 1993. The assessment issued on 9 January 1995 was, therefore, no longer valid. The CTA also ruled that the mere ownership by Toda of 99.991% of the capital stock of CIC was not in itself sufficient ground for piercing the separate corporate personality of CIC. Hence, the CTA declared that the Estate is not liable for deficiency income tax of P79,099,999.22 and, accordingly, cancelled and set aside the assessment issued by the Commissioner on 9 January 1995. In its motion for reconsideration,19 the Commissioner insisted that the sale of the property owned by CIC was the result of the connivance between Toda and Altonaga. She further alleged that the latter was a representative, dummy, and a close business associate of the former, having held his office in a property owned by CIC and derived his salary from a foreign corporation (Aerobin, Inc.) duly owned by Toda for representation services rendered. The CTA denied20 the motion for reconsideration, prompting the Commissioner to file a petition for review21 with the Court of Appeals. In its challenged Decision of 31 January 2001, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the CTA, reasoning that the CTA, being more advantageously situated and having the necessary expertise in matters of taxation, is "better situated to determine the correctness, propriety, and legality of the income tax assessments assailed by the Toda Estate."22 Unsatisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeals, the Commissioner filed the present petition invoking the following grounds:

I. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT RESPONDENT COMMITTED NO FRAUD WITH INTENT TO EVADE THE TAX ON THE SALE OF THE PROPERTIES OF CIBELES INSURANCE CORPORATION. II. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT DISREGARDING THE SEPARATE CORPORATE PERSONALITY OF CIBELES INSURANCE CORPORATION. III. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE RIGHT OF PETITIONER TO ASSESS RESPONDENT FOR DEFICIENCY INCOME TAX FOR THE YEAR 1989 HAD PRESCRIBED. The Commissioner reiterates her arguments in her previous pleadings and insists that the sale by CIC of the Cibeles property was in connivance with its dummy Rafael Altonaga, who was financially incapable of purchasing it. She further points out that the documents themselves prove the fact of fraud in that (1) the two sales were done simultaneously on the same date, 30 August 1989; (2) the Deed of Absolute Sale between Altonaga and RMI was notarized ahead of the alleged sale between CIC and Altonaga, with the former registered in the Notarial Register of Jocelyn H. Arreza Pabelana as Doc. 91, Page 20, Book I, Series of 1989; and the latter, as Doc. No. 92, Page 20, Book I, Series of 1989, of the same Notary Public; (3) as early as 4 May 1989, CIC received P40 million from RMI, and not from Altonaga. The said amount was debited by RMI in its trial balance as of 30 June 1989 as investment in Cibeles Building. The substantial portion of P40 million was withdrawn by Toda through the declaration of cash dividends to all its stockholders.

For its part, respondent Estate asserts that the Commissioner failed to present the income tax return of Altonaga to prove that the latter is financially incapable of purchasing the Cibeles property. To resolve the grounds raised by the Commissioner, the following questions are pertinent: 1. Is this a case of tax evasion or tax avoidance? 2. Has the period for assessment of deficiency income tax for the year 1989 prescribed? and 3. Can respondent Estate be held liable for the deficiency income tax of CIC for the year 1989, if any? We shall discuss these questions in seriatim. Is this a case of tax evasion or tax avoidance? Tax avoidance and tax evasion are the two most common ways used by taxpayers in escaping from taxation. Tax avoidance is the tax saving device within the means sanctioned by law. This method should be used by the taxpayer in good faith and at arms length. Tax evasion, on the other hand, is a scheme used outside of those lawful means and when availed of, it usually subjects the taxpayer to further or additional civil or criminal liabilities.23 Tax evasion connotes the integration of three factors: (1) the end to be achieved, i.e., the payment of less than that known by the taxpayer to be legally due, or the non-payment of tax when it is shown that a tax is due; (2) an accompanying state of mind which is described as being "evil," in "bad faith," "willfull," or "deliberate and not accidental"; and (3) a course of

action or failure of action which is unlawful.24 All these factors are present in the instant case. It is significant to note that as early as 4 May 1989, prior to the purported sale of the Cibeles property by CIC to Altonaga on 30 August 1989, CIC received P40 million from RMI,25 and not from Altonaga. That P40 million was debited by RMI and reflected in its trial balance26 as "other inv. Cibeles Bldg." Also, as of 31 July 1989, another P40 million was debited and reflected in RMIs trial balance as "other inv. Cibeles Bldg." This would show that the real buyer of the properties was RMI, and not the intermediary Altonaga.lavvphi1.net The investigation conducted by the BIR disclosed that Altonaga was a close business associate and one of the many trusted corporate executives of Toda. This information was revealed by Mr. Boy Prieto, the assistant accountant of CIC and an old timer in the company.27 But Mr. Prieto did not testify on this matter, hence, that information remains to be hearsay and is thus inadmissible in evidence. It was not verified either, since the letter-request for investigation of Altonaga was unserved,28 Altonaga having left for the United States of America in January 1990. Nevertheless, that Altonaga was a mere conduit finds support in the admission of respondent Estate that the sale to him was part of the tax planning scheme of CIC. That admission is borne by the records. In its Memorandum, respondent Estate declared: Petitioner, however, claims there was a "change of structure" of the proceeds of sale. Admitted one hundred percent. But isnt this precisely the definition of tax planning? Change the structure of the funds and pay a lower tax. Precisely, Sec. 40 (2) of the Tax

Code exists, allowing tax free transfers of property for stock, changing the structure of the property and the tax to be paid. As long as it is done legally, changing the structure of a transaction to achieve a lower tax is not against the law. It is absolutely allowed. Tax planning is by definition to reduce, if not eliminate altogether, a tax. Surely petitioner [sic] cannot be faulted for wanting to reduce the tax from 35% to 5%.29 [Underscoring supplied]. The scheme resorted to by CIC in making it appear that there were two sales of the subject properties, i.e., from CIC to Altonaga, and then from Altonaga to RMI cannot be considered a legitimate tax planning. Such scheme is tainted with fraud. Fraud in its general sense, "is deemed to comprise anything calculated to deceive, including all acts, omissions, and concealment involving a breach of legal or equitable duty, trust or confidence justly reposed, resulting in the damage to another, or by which an undue and unconscionable advantage is taken of another."30 Here, it is obvious that the objective of the sale to Altonaga was to reduce the amount of tax to be paid especially that the transfer from him to RMI would then subject the income to only 5% individual capital gains tax, and not the 35% corporate income tax. Altonagas sole purpose of acquiring and transferring title of the subject properties on the same day was to create a tax shelter. Altonaga never controlled the property and did not enjoy the normal benefits and burdens of ownership. The sale to him was merely a tax ploy, a sham, and without business purpose and economic substance. Doubtless, the execution of the two sales was calculated to

mislead the BIR with the end in view of reducing the consequent income tax liability.lavvphi1.net In a nutshell, the intermediary transaction, i.e., the sale of Altonaga, which was prompted more on the mitigation of tax liabilities than for legitimate business purposes constitutes one of tax evasion.31 Generally, a sale or exchange of assets will have an income tax incidence only when it is consummated.32 The incidence of taxation depends upon the substance of a transaction. The tax consequences arising from gains from a sale of property are not finally to be determined solely by the means employed to transfer legal title. Rather, the transaction must be viewed as a whole, and each step from the commencement of negotiations to the consummation of the sale is relevant. A sale by one person cannot be transformed for tax purposes into a sale by another by using the latter as a conduit through which to pass title. To permit the true nature of the transaction to be disguised by mere formalisms, which exist solely to alter tax liabilities, would seriously impair the effective administration of the tax policies of Congress.33 To allow a taxpayer to deny tax liability on the ground that the sale was made through another and distinct entity when it is proved that the latter was merely a conduit is to sanction a circumvention of our tax laws. Hence, the sale to Altonaga should be disregarded for income tax purposes.34 The two sale transactions should be treated as a single direct sale by CIC to RMI. Accordingly, the tax liability of CIC is governed by then Section 24 of the NIRC of 1986, as amended (now 27 (A) of the Tax Reform Act of 1997), which stated as follows:

Sec. 24. Rates of tax on corporations. (a) Tax on domestic corporations.- A tax is hereby imposed upon the taxable net income received during each taxable year from all sources by every corporation organized in, or existing under the laws of the Philippines, and partnerships, no matter how created or organized but not including general professional partnerships, in accordance with the following: Twenty-five percent upon the amount by which the taxable net income does not exceed one hundred thousand pesos; and Thirty-five percent upon the amount by which the taxable net income exceeds one hundred thousand pesos. CIC is therefore liable to pay a 35% corporate tax for its taxable net income in 1989. The 5% individual capital gains tax provided for in Section 34 (h) of the NIRC of 198635 (now 6% under Section 24 (D) (1) of the Tax Reform Act of 1997) is inapplicable. Hence, the assessment for the deficiency income tax issued by the BIR must be upheld. Has the period of assessment prescribed? No. Section 269 of the NIRC of 1986 (now Section 222 of the Tax Reform Act of 1997) read: Sec. 269. Exceptions as to period of limitation of assessment and collection of taxes.-(a) In the case of a false or fraudulent return with intent to evade tax or of failure to file a return, the tax may be assessed, or a proceeding in court after the collection of such tax may be begun without assessment, at any time within ten years after the discovery of the falsity, fraud or omission: Provided, That in a fraud assessment which has become final and

executory, the fact of fraud shall be judicially taken cognizance of in the civil or criminal action for collection thereof . Put differently, in cases of (1) fraudulent returns; (2) false returns with intent to evade tax; and (3) failure to file a return, the period within which to assess tax is ten years from discovery of the fraud, falsification or omission, as the case may be. It is true that in a query dated 24 August 1989, Altonaga, through his counsel, asked the Opinion of the BIR on the tax consequence of the two sale transactions.36 Thus, the BIR was amply informed of the transactions even prior to the execution of the necessary documents to effect the transfer. Subsequently, the two sales were openly made with the execution of public documents and the declaration of taxes for 1989. However, these circumstances do not negate the existence of fraud. As earlier discussed those two transactions were tainted with fraud. And even assuming arguendo that there was no fraud, we find that the income tax return filed by CIC for the year 1989 was false. It did not reflect the true or actual amount gained from the sale of the Cibeles property. Obviously, such was done with intent to evade or reduce tax liability. As stated above, the prescriptive period to assess the correct taxes in case of false returns is ten years from the discovery of the falsity. The false return was filed on 15 April 1990, and the falsity thereof was claimed to have been discovered only on 8 March 1991.37 The assessment for the 1989 deficiency income tax of CIC was issued on 9 January 1995. Clearly, the issuance of the correct assessment for deficiency income tax was well within the prescriptive period. Is respondent Estate liable for the 1989 deficiency income tax of Cibeles Insurance Corporation?

A corporation has a juridical personality distinct and separate from the persons owning or composing it. Thus, the owners or stockholders of a corporation may not generally be made to answer for the liabilities of a corporation and vice versa. There are, however, certain instances in which personal liability may arise. It has been held in a number of cases that personal liability of a corporate director, trustee, or officer along, albeit not necessarily, with the corporation may validly attach when: 1. He assents to the (a) patently unlawful act of the corporation, (b) bad faith or gross negligence in directing its affairs, or (c) conflict of interest, resulting in damages to the corporation, its stockholders, or other persons; 2. He consents to the issuance of watered down stocks or, having knowledge thereof, does not forthwith file with the corporate secretary his written objection thereto; 3. He agrees to hold himself personally and solidarily liable with the corporation; or 4. He is made, by specific provision of law, to personally answer for his corporate action.38 It is worth noting that when the late Toda sold his shares of stock to Le Hun T. Choa, he knowingly and voluntarily held himself personally liable for all the tax liabilities of CIC and the buyer for the years 1987, 1988, and 1989. Paragraph g of the Deed of Sale of Shares of Stocks specifically provides: g. Except for transactions occurring in the ordinary course of business, Cibeles has no liabilities or obligations, contingent or otherwise, for taxes, sums of money or insurance claims other than those reported in its audited financial statement as of December 31, 1989,

attached hereto as "Annex B" and made a part hereof. The business of Cibeles has at all times been conducted in full compliance with all applicable laws, rules and regulations. SELLER undertakes and agrees to hold the BUYER and Cibeles free from any and all income tax liabilities of Cibeles for the fiscal years 1987, 1988 and 1989.39 [Underscoring Supplied]. When the late Toda undertook and agreed "to hold the BUYER and Cibeles free from any all income tax liabilities of Cibeles for the fiscal years 1987, 1988, and 1989," he thereby voluntarily held himself personally liable therefor. Respondent estate cannot, therefore, deny liability for CICs deficiency income tax for the year 1989 by invoking the separate corporate personality of CIC, since its obligation arose from Todas contractual undertaking, as contained in the Deed of Sale of Shares of Stock. WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The decision of the Court of Appeals of 31 January 2001 in CA-G.R. SP No. 57799 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and another one is hereby rendered ordering respondent Estate of Benigno P. Toda Jr. to pay P79,099,999.22 as deficiency income tax of Cibeles Insurance Corporation for the year 1989, plus legal interest from 1 May 1994 until the amount is fully paid. Costs against respondent. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. L-69259 January 26, 1988 DELPHER TRADES CORPORATION, and DELPHIN PACHECO, petitioners, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and HYDRO PIPES PHILIPPINES, INC., respondents. GUTIERREZ, JR., J.: The petitioners question the decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court which sustained the private respondent's contention that the deed of exchange whereby Delfin Pacheco and Pelagia Pacheco conveyed a parcel of land to Delpher Trades Corporation in exchange for 2,500 shares of stock was actually a deed of sale which violated a right of first refusal under a lease contract. Briefly, the facts of the case are summarized as follows:
In 1974, Delfin Pacheco and his sister, Pelagia Pacheco, were the owners of 27,169 square meters of real estate Identified as Lot. No. 1095, Malinta Estate, in the Municipality of Polo (now Valenzuela), Province of Bulacan (now Metro Manila) which is covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-4240 of the Bulacan land registry. On April 3, 1974, the said co-owners leased to Construction Components International Inc. the same property and providing that during the existence or after the term of this lease the lessor should he decide to sell the property leased shall first offer the same to

the lessee and the letter has the priority to buy under similar conditions (Exhibits A to A5) On August 3, 1974, lessee Construction Components International, Inc. assigned its rights and obligations under the contract of lease in favor of Hydro Pipes Philippines, Inc. with the signed conformity and consent of lessors Delfin Pacheco and Pelagia Pacheco (Exhs. B to B-6 inclusive) The contract of lease, as well as the assignment of lease were annotated at he back of the title, as per stipulation of the parties (Exhs. A to D-3 inclusive) On January 3, 1976, a deed of exchange was executed between lessors Delfin and Pelagia Pacheco and defendant Delpher Trades Corporation whereby the former conveyed to the latter the leased property (TCT No.T-4240) together with another parcel of land also located in Malinta Estate, Valenzuela, Metro Manila (TCT No. 4273) for 2,500 shares of stock of defendant corporation with a total value of P1,500,000.00 (Exhs. C to C-5, inclusive) (pp. 44-45, Rollo)

On the ground that it was not given the first option to buy the leased property pursuant to the proviso in the lease agreement, respondent Hydro Pipes Philippines, Inc., filed an amended complaint for reconveyance of Lot. No. 1095 in its favor under conditions similar to those whereby Delpher Trades Corporation acquired the property from Pelagia Pacheco and Delphin Pacheco. After trial, the Court of First Instance of Bulacan ruled in favor of the plaintiff. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:

ACCORDINGLY, the judgment is hereby rendered declaring the valid existence of the plaintiffs preferential right to acquire the subject property (right of first refusal) and ordering the defendants and all persons deriving rights therefrom to convey the said property to plaintiff who may offer to acquire the same at the rate of P14.00 per square meter, more or less, for Lot 1095 whose area is 27,169 square meters only. Without pronouncement as to attorney's fees and costs. (Appendix I; Rec., pp. 246- 247). (Appellant's Brief, pp. 1-2; p. 134, Rollo)

The lower court's decision was affirmed on appeal by the Intermediate Appellate Court. The defendants-appellants, now the petitioners, filed a petition for certiorari to review the appellate court's decision. We initially denied the petition but upon motion for reconsideration, we set aside the resolution denying the petition and gave it due course. The petitioners allege that:
The denial of the petition will work great injustice to the petitioners, in that: 1. Respondent Hydro Pipes Philippines, Inc, ("private respondent") will acquire from petitioners a parcel of industrial land consisting of 27,169 square meters or 2.7 hectares (located right after the Valenzuela, Bulacan exit of the toll expressway) for only P14/sq. meter, or a total of P380,366, although the prevailing value thereof is approximately P300/sq. meter or P8.1 Million; 2. Private respondent is allowed to exercise its right of first refusal even if there is no "sale" or transfer of actual ownership interests by petitioners to third parties; and

3. Assuming arguendo that there has been a transfer of actual ownership interests, private respondent will acquire the land not under "similar conditions" by which it was transferred to petitioner Delpher Trades Corporation, as provided in the same contractual provision invoked by private respondent. (pp. 251-252, Rollo)

The resolution of the case hinges on whether or not the "Deed of Exchange" of the properties executed by the Pachecos on the one hand and the Delpher Trades Corporation on the other was meant to be a contract of sale which, in effect, prejudiced the private respondent's right of first refusal over the leased property included in the "deed of exchange." Eduardo Neria, a certified public accountant and son-in-law of the late Pelagia Pacheco testified that Delpher Trades Corporation is a family corporation; that the corporation was organized by the children of the two spouses (spouses Pelagia Pacheco and Benjamin Hernandez and spouses Delfin Pacheco and Pilar Angeles) who owned in common the parcel of land leased to Hydro Pipes Philippines in order to perpetuate their control over the property through the corporation and to avoid taxes; that in order to accomplish this end, two pieces of real estate, including Lot No. 1095 which had been leased to Hydro Pipes Philippines, were transferred to the corporation; that the leased property was transferred to the corporation by virtue of a deed of exchange of property; that in exchange for these properties, Pelagia and Delfin acquired 2,500 unissued no par value shares of stock which are equivalent to a 55% majority in the corporation because the other owners only owned 2,000 shares; and that at the time of

incorporation, he knew all about the contract of lease of Lot. No. 1095 to Hydro Pipes Philippines. In the petitioners' motion for reconsideration, they refer to this scheme as "estate planning." (p. 252, Rollo) Under this factual backdrop, the petitioners contend that there was actually no transfer of ownership of the subject parcel of land since the Pachecos remained in control of the property. Thus, the petitioners allege: "Considering that the beneficial ownership and control of petitioner corporation remained in the hands of the original co-owners, there was no transfer of actual ownership interests over the land when the same was transferred to petitioner corporation in exchange for the latter's shares of stock. The transfer of ownership, if anything, was merely in form but not in substance. In reality, petitioner corporation is a mere alter ego or conduit of the Pacheco co-owners; hence the corporation and the co-owners should be deemed to be the same, there being in substance and in effect an Identity of interest." (p. 254, Rollo) The petitioners maintain that the Pachecos did not sell the property. They argue that there was no sale and that they exchanged the land for shares of stocks in their own corporation. "Hence, such transfer is not within the letter, or even spirit of the contract. There is a sale when ownership is transferred for a price certain in money or its equivalent (Art. 1468, Civil Code) while there is a barter or exchange when one thing is given in consideration of another thing (Art. 1638, Civil Code)." (pp. 254-255, Rollo) On the other hand, the private respondent argues that Delpher Trades Corporation is a

corporate entity separate and distinct from the Pachecos. Thus, it contends that it cannot be said that Delpher Trades Corporation is the Pacheco's same alter ego or conduit; that petitioner Delfin Pacheco, having treated Delpher Trades Corporation as such a separate and distinct corporate entity, is not a party who may allege that this separate corporate existence should be disregarded. It maintains that there was actual transfer of ownership interests over the leased property when the same was transferred to Delpher Trades Corporation in exchange for the latter's shares of stock. We rule for the petitioners. After incorporation, one becomes a stockholder of a corporation by subscription or by purchasing stock directly from the corporation or from individual owners thereof (Salmon, Dexter & Co. v. Unson, 47 Phil, 649, citing Bole v. Fulton [1912], 233 Pa., 609). In the case at bar, in exchange for their properties, the Pachecos acquired 2,500 original unissued no par value shares of stocks of the Delpher Trades Corporation. Consequently, the Pachecos became stockholders of the corporation by subscription "The essence of the stock subscription is an agreement to take and pay for original unissued shares of a corporation, formed or to be formed." (Rohrlich 243, cited in Agbayani, Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Commercial Laws of the Philippines, Vol. III, 1980 Edition, p. 430) It is significant that the Pachecos took no par value shares in exchange for their properties.
A no-par value share does not purport to represent any stated proportionate interest in the capital stock measured by value, but only an aliquot part of the whole number of

such shares of the issuing corporation. The holder of no-par shares may see from the certificate itself that he is only an aliquot sharer in the assets of the corporation. But this character of proportionate interest is not hidden beneath a false appearance of a given sum in money, as in the case of par value shares. The capital stock of a corporation issuing only no-par value shares is not set forth by a stated amount of money, but instead is expressed to be divided into a stated number of shares, such as, 1,000 shares. This indicates that a shareholder of 100 such shares is an aliquot sharer in the assets of the corporation, no matter what value they may have, to the extent of 100/1,000 or 1/10. Thus, by removing the par value of shares, the attention of persons interested in the financial condition of a corporation is focused upon the value of assets and the amount of its debts. (Agbayani, Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Commercial Laws of the Philippines, Vol. III, 1980 Edition, p. 107).

Moreover, there was no attempt to state the true or current market value of the real estate. Land valued at P300.00 a square meter was turned over to the family's corporation for only P14.00 a square meter. It is to be stressed that by their ownership of the 2,500 no par shares of stock, the Pachecos have control of the corporation. Their equity capital is 55% as against 45% of the other stockholders, who also belong to the same family group. In effect, the Delpher Trades Corporation is a business conduit of the Pachecos. What they really did was to invest their properties and change the nature of their ownership from unincorporated to incorporated form by organizing Delpher Trades Corporation to take control of their properties and at the same time save on inheritance taxes.

As explained by Eduardo Neria:

xxx xxx xxx
ATTY. LINSANGAN: Q Mr. Neria, from the point of view of taxation, is there any benefit to the spouses Hernandez and Pacheco in connection with their execution of a deed of exchange on the properties for no par value shares of the defendant corporation? A Yes, sir. COURT: Q What do you mean by "point of view"? A To take advantage for both spouses and corporation in entering in the deed of exchange. ATTY. LINSANGAN: Q (What do you mean by "point of view"?) What are these benefits to the spouses of this deed of exchange? A Continuous control of the property, tax exemption benefits, and other inherent benefits in a corporation. Q What are these advantages to the said spouses from the point of view of taxation in entering in the deed of exchange? A Having fulfilled the conditions in the income tax law, providing for tax free exchange of property, they were able to execute the deed of exchange free from income tax and acquire a corporation. Q What provision in the income tax law are you referring to? A I refer to Section 35 of the National Internal Revenue Code under par. C-sub-par. (2) Exceptions regarding the provision which I quote: "No gain or loss shall also be recognized if a person exchanges his property for stock in a corporation of which as a result of such exchange said person alone or together with others not exceeding four persons gains control of said corporation." Q Did you explain to the spouses this benefit at the time you executed the deed of exchange? A Yes, sir Q You also, testified during the last hearing that the decision to have no par value share in the defendant corporation was for the purpose of flexibility. Can you explain flexibility in connection with the ownership of the

property in question? A There is flexibility in using no par value shares as the value is determined by the board of directors in increasing capitalization. The board can fix the value of the shares equivalent to the capital requirements of the corporation. Q Now also from the point of taxation, is there any flexibility in the holding by the corporation of the property in question? A Yes, since a corporation does not die it can continue to hold on to the property indefinitely for a period of at least 50 years. On the other hand, if the property is held by the spouse the property will be tied up in succession proceedings and the consequential payments of estate and inheritance taxes when an owner dies. Q Now what advantage is this continuity in relation to ownership by a particular person of certain properties in respect to taxation? A The property is not subjected to taxes on succession as the corporation does not die. Q So the benefit you are talking about are inheritance taxes? A Yes, sir. (pp. 3-5, tsn., December 15, 1981)

The records do not point to anything wrong or objectionable about this "estate planning" scheme resorted to by the Pachecos. "The legal right of a taxpayer to decrease the amount of what otherwise could be his taxes or altogether avoid them, by means which the law permits, cannot be doubted." (Liddell & Co., Inc. v. The collector of Internal Revenue, 2 SCRA 632 citing Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465, 7 L. ed. 596). The "Deed of Exchange" of property between the Pachecos and Delpher Trades Corporation cannot be considered a contract of sale. There was no transfer of actual ownership interests by the Pachecos to a third party. The Pacheco family merely changed their ownership from one form to another. The ownership remained in the same hands. Hence, the private respondent has no basis for its claim of a light of first refusal under the lease contract.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED, The questioned decision and resolution of the then Intermediate Appellate Court are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The amended complaint in Civil Case No. 885-V-79 of the then Court of First Instance of Bulacan is DISMISSED. No costs. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 119176 March 19, 2002 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner, vs. LINCOLN PHILIPPINE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. (now JARDINE-CMA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.) and THE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents. KAPUNAN, J.: This is a petition for review on certiorari filed by the Commission on Internal Revenue of the decision of the Court of Appeals dated November 18, 1994 in C.A. G.R. SP No. 31224 which reversed in part the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals in C.T.A. Case No. 4583. The facts of the case are undisputed. Private respondent Lincoln Philippine Life Insurance Co., Inc., (now Jardine-CMA Life Insurance Company, Inc.) is a domestic corporation registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission and engaged in life insurance business. In the years prior to 1984, private respondent issued a special kind of life insurance policy known as the "Junior Estate Builder Policy," the distinguishing feature of which is a clause providing for an automatic increase in the amount of life insurance coverage upon attainment of a certain age by the insured without the need of issuing a new policy. The clause was to take effect in the year 1984. Documentary stamp taxes due on the policy were paid by petitioner only on the initial sum assured. In 1984, private respondent also issued 50,000 shares of stock dividends with a par value of P100.00 per share or a total par value of P5,000,000.00. The actual value of said shares,

represented by its book value, was P19,307,500.00. Documentary stamp taxes were paid based only on the par value of P5,000,000.00 and not on the book value.1wphi1.nt Subsequently, petitioner issued deficiency documentary stamps tax assessment for the year 1984 in the amounts of (a) P464,898.75, corresponding to the amount of automatic increase of the sum assured on the policy issued by respondent, and (b) P78,991.25 corresponding to the book value in excess of the par value of the stock dividends. The computation of the deficiency documentary stamp taxes is as follows: On Policies Issued: Total policy issued during the year P1,360,054,000.00

Documentary stamp tax due P 2,380,094.50 thereon (P1,360,054,000.00 divided by P200.00 multiplied by P0.35) Less: Payment P 1,915,495.75

Deficiency Add: Compromise Penalty TOTAL AMOUNT DUE & COLLECTIBLE

P 464,598.75 300.00 ----------------------P 464,898.75

Private respondent questioned the deficiency assessments and sought their cancellation in a petition filed in the Court of Tax Appeals, docketed as CTA Case No. 4583. On March 30, 1993, the Court of Tax Appeals found no valid basis for the deficiency tax assessment on the stock dividends, as well as on the insurance policy. The dispositive portion of the CTAs decision reads: WHEREFORE, the deficiency documentary stamp tax assessments in the amount of P464,898.76 and P78,991.25 or a total of P543,890.01 are hereby cancelled for lack of merit. Respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue is ordered to desist from collecting said deficiency documentary stamp taxes for the same are considered withdrawn. SO ORDERED.1

Petitioner appealed the CTAs decision to the Court of Appeals. On November 18, 1994, the Court of Appeals promulgated a decision affirming the CTAs decision insofar as it nullified the deficiency assessment on the insurance policy, but reversing the same with regard to the deficiency assessment on the stock dividends. The CTA ruled that the correct basis of the documentary stamp tax due on the stock dividends is the actual value or book value represented by the shares. The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals decision states: IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the decision appealed from is hereby REVERSED with respect to the deficiency tax assessment on the stock dividends, but AFFIRMED with regards to the assessment on the Insurance Policies. Consequently, private respondent is ordered to pay the petitioner herein the sum of P78,991.25, representing documentary stamp tax on the stock dividends it issued. No costs pronouncement. SO ORDERED.2 A motion for reconsideration of the decision having been denied,3 both the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and private respondent appealed to this Court, docketed as G.R. No. 118043 and G.R. No. 119176, respectively. In G.R. No. 118043, private respondent appealed the decision of the Court of Appeals insofar as it upheld the validity of the deficiency tax assessment on the stock dividends. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue, on his part, filed the present petition questioning that portion of the Court of Appeals decision which invalidated the deficiency assessment on the insurance policy, attributing the following errors: THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT RULED THAT THERE

IS A SINGLE AGREEMENT EMBODIED IN THE POLICY AND THAT THE AUTOMATIC INCREASE CLAUSE IS NOT A SEPARATE AGREEMENT, CONTRARY TO SECTION 49 OF THE INSURANCE CODE AND SECTION 183 OF THE REVENUE CODE THAT A RIDER, A CLAUSE IS PART OF THE POLICY. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT COMPUTING THE AMOUNT OF TAX ON THE TOTAL VALUE OF THE INSURANCE ASSURED IN THE POLICY INCLUDING THE ADDITIONAL INCREASE ASSURED BY THE AUTOMATIC INCREASE CLAUSE DESPITE ITS RULING THAT THE ORIGINAL POLICY AND THE AUTOMATIC CLAUSE CONSTITUTED ONLY A SINGULAR TRANSACTION.4 Section 173 of the National Internal Revenue Code on documentary stamp taxes provides: Sec. 173. Stamp taxes upon documents, instruments and papers. - Upon documents, instruments, loan agreements, and papers, and upon acceptances, assignments, sales, and transfers of the obligation, right or property incident thereto, there shall be levied, collected and paid for, and in respect of the transaction so had or accomplished, the corresponding documentary stamp taxes prescribed in the following section of this Title, by the person making, signing, issuing, accepting, or transferring the same wherever the document is made, signed, issued, accepted, or transferred when the obligation or right arises from Philippine sources or the property is situated in the Philippines, and at the same time such act is done or transaction had: Provided, That whenever one party to the taxable document

enjoys exemption from the tax herein imposed, the other party thereto who is not exempt shall be the one directly liable for the tax. (As amended by PD No. 1994) The basis for the value of documentary stamp taxes to be paid on the insurance policy is Section 183 of the National Internal Revenue Code which states in part: The basis for the value of documentary stamp taxes to be paid on the insurance policy is Section 183 of the National Internal Revenue Code which states in part: Sec. 183. Stamp tax on life insurance policies. - On all policies of insurance or other instruments by whatever name the same may be called, whereby any insurance shall be made or renewed upon any life or lives, there shall be collected a documentary stamp tax of thirty (now 50c) centavos on each Two hundred pesos per fractional part thereof, of the amount insured by any such policy. Petitioner claims that the "automatic increase clause" in the subject insurance policy is separate and distinct from the main agreement and involves another transaction; and that, while no new policy was issued, the original policy was essentially re-issued when the additional obligation was assumed upon the effectivity of this "automatic increase clause" in 1984; hence, a deficiency assessment based on the additional insurance not covered in the main policy is in order. The Court of Appeals sustained the CTAs ruling that there was only one transaction involved in the issuance of the insurance policy and that the "automatic increase clause" is an integral part of that policy.

The petition is impressed with merit. Section 49, Title VI of the Insurance Code defines an insurance policy as the written instrument in which a contract of insurance is set forth.5 Section 50 of the same Code provides that the policy, which is required to be in printed form, may contain any word, phrase, clause, mark, sign, symbol, signature, number, or word necessary to complete the contract of insurance.6 It is thus clear that any rider, clause, warranty or endorsement pasted or attached to the policy is considered part of such policy or contract of insurance. The subject insurance policy at the time it was issued contained an "automatic increase clause." Although the clause was to take effect only in 1984, it was written into the policy at the time of its issuance. The distinctive feature of the "junior estate builder policy" called the "automatic increase clause" already formed part and parcel of the insurance contract, hence, there was no need for an execution of a separate agreement for the increase in the coverage that took effect in 1984 when the assured reached a certain age. It is clear from Section 173 that the payment of documentary stamp taxes is done at the time the act is done or transaction had and the tax base for the computation of documentary stamp taxes on life insurance policies under Section 183 is the amount fixed in policy, unless the interest of a person insured is susceptible of exact pecuniary measurement.7 What then is the amount fixed in the policy? Logically, we believe that the amount fixed in the policy is the figure written on its face and whatever increases will take effect in the future by reason of the "automatic increase clause" embodied in the policy without the need of another contract.

Here, although the automatic increase in the amount of life insurance coverage was to take effect later on, the date of its effectivity, as well as the amount of the increase, was already definite at the time of the issuance of the policy. Thus, the amount insured by the policy at the time of its issuance necessarily included the additional sum covered by the automatic increase clause because it was already determinable at the time the transaction was entered into and formed part of the policy. The "automatic increase clause" in the policy is in the nature of a conditional obligation under Article 1181,8 by which the increase of the insurance coverage shall depend upon the happening of the event which constitutes the obligation. In the instant case, the additional insurance that took effect in 1984 was an obligation subject to a suspensive obligation,9 but still a part of the insurance sold to which private respondent was liable for the payment of the documentary stamp tax. The deficiency of documentary stamp tax imposed on private respondent is definitely not on the amount of the original insurance coverage, but on the increase of the amount insured upon the effectivity of the "Junior Estate Builder Policy." Finally, it should be emphasized that while tax avoidance schemes and arrangements are not prohibited,10 tax laws cannot be circumvented in order to evade the payment of just taxes. In the case at bar, to claim that the increase in the amount insured (by virtue of the automatic increase clause incorporated into the policy at the time of issuance) should not be included in the computation of the documentary stamp taxes due on the policy would be a clear evasion of the

law requiring that the tax be computed on the basis of the amount insured by the policy. WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby given DUE COURSE. The decision of the Court of Appeals is SET ASIDE insofar as it affirmed the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals nullifying the deficiency stamp tax assessment petitioner imposed on private respondent in the amount of P464,898.75 corresponding to the increase in 1984 of the sum under the policy issued by respondent.1wphi1.nt SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 156 September 27, 1946 MILTON GREENFIELD, plaintiff-appellant, vs. BIBIANO L. MEER, defendant-appellee. Francisco Dalupan for appellant. First Assistant Solicitor General Reyes and Solicitor Arguelles for appellee. FERIA, J.: This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila which dismisses the complaint of the plaintiff and appellant containing two causes of action; one to recover the sum of P9,008.14 paid as income tax for the year 1939 by plaintiff to defendant under protest, by reason of defendant having disallowed a deduction of P67,307.80 alleged by plaintiff to be losses in his trade or business; and the other to reclaim, in the event the first cause of action is dismissed, the sum of P475 collected by defendant from plaintiff illegally according to the latter, because the former has erroneously computed the tax on personal and additional exemptions. The following are the pertinent facts stipulated and submitted by the parties to the lower court: 2. That since the year 1933 up to the present time, the plaintiff has been continuously engaged in the embroidery business located at 385 Cristobal, City of Manila and carried on under his name; 3. That in 1935 the plaintiff began engaging in buying and selling mining stocks and

securities for his own exclusive account and not for the account of others . . .; 4. That Exhibit A attached to the complaint and made a part hereof represents plaintiff's purchases and sales of each class of stock and security as well as the profits and losses resulting on each class during the year 1939; 5. That the plaintiff has not been a dealer in securities as defined in section 84 (t) of Commonwealth Act No. 466; that he has no established place of business for the purchase and sale of mining stocks and securities; and that he was never a member of any stock exchange; 6. That the plaintiff filed an income tax return for the calendar year 1939 showing that he made a net profit amounting to P52,449.29 on embroidery business and P17,850 on dividends from various corporations; and that from the purchase and sales of mining stocks and securities he made a profit of P10,741.30 and incurred losses in the amount of P78,049.10, thereby sustaining a net loss of P67,307.80, which income tax return is hereto attached and marked Exhibit B; 7. That in said income tax return for 1939, the plaintiff declared the results of his stock transactions under Schedule B (Income from Business);but the defendant ruled that they should be declared in the income tax return, Exhibit B, under Schedule D (Gains and Losses from Sales or Exchanges of Capital Assets, real or personal); 8. That in said income tax return, said plaintiff claims his deduction of P67,307.80 representing the net loss sustained by him in mining stocks securities during the year 1939;

and that the defendant disallowed said item of deduction on the ground that said losses were sustained by the plaintiff from the sale of mining stocks and securities which are capital assets, and that the loss arising from the sale of the same should be allowed only to the extent of the gains from such sales, which gains were already taken into consideration in the computation of the alleged net loss of P67,307.80; 9. That the defendant assessed plaintiff's income tax return for the year 1939 at P13,771.06 as shown in the following computation appearing in the audit sheet of the defendant hereto attached and marked Exhibit C; Net income as per return of plaintiff for 1939 Add: Net Loss on sale of mining stocks and securities disallowed in audit Total net income as per office audit P70,299.29

67,307.80 P137,607.09 =========

Amount of tax on net income as per office audit P13,821.06 Less: Tax on exemptions: Personal exemption Additional exemption Total

P2,500.00

1,000.00 P3,500.00 50.00 P13,771.06 =========

Tax on exemption

Net amount of tax due

10. That the defendant computed the graduated rate of income tax due on the entire net income as per office audit, without first deducting therefrom the amount of personal and

additional exemptions to which the plaintiff is entitled, allowing said plaintiff a deduction from the assessed tax the amount of P50 corresponding to the exemption of P3,500; 11. That the plaintiff, objecting and excepting to all the ruling of the defendant above mentioned and in assessing plaintiff with P13,771.06, claimed from the defendant the refund of P9,008.14 or in the alternative case P475, which claim of plaintiff was overruled by the defendant; The questions raised by appellant in his four (4) assignments of error may be reduced into the following: (1) Whether the losses sustained by the plaintiff from the buying and selling of mining securities during the year 1939 are losses incurred in trade and business, deductible under section 30 (d) (1)(A) of Commonwealth Act No. 466 from his gains in his embroidery business and other income; or whether they are capital losses from sales of capital assets which shall be allowed only to the extent of the gains from such sales under section 34 of the same Commonwealth Act No. 466. And (2) whether, under the present law, the personal and additional exemptions granted by section 23 of the same Act, should be considered as a credit against or be deducted from the net income, or whether it is the tax on such exemptions that should be deducted from the tax on the total net income. 1. As to the first question, it is agreed in the above-quoted stipulation of facts that the plaintiff was not a dealer in securities or share of stock as defined in section 84 (t) of Commonwealth Act No. 466. The question for determination is whether appellant, though not a dealer in mining securities, may be considered as engaged in the business of buying and selling them under

section 30 (d), (1) (A) of said Act No. 466. It is evident that, taking into consideration the nature of mining securities, which may be bought or sold either as a business or for speculation purposes only, the National Assembly of the Philippines has deemed it necessary to define or determine beforehand in section 84 ( t) of Commonwealth Act No. 466 who may be considered as persons engaged in the trade or business of buying and selling securities within the meaning of the phrase "incurred in trade or business" used in section 30 (d) (1) (A) of the same Act, in order to avoid any question or doubt as to deductibility of all losses incurred by a merchant in securities from his net income from whatever source. The definition of dealer or merchant in securities given in said section 84 ( t) includes persons, natural or juridical, who are engaged in the purchase and sale of securities whether for his their own account or for others, provided they have a place of business and are regularly engaged therein. There was formerly some doubt or question as to whether a person engaged in buying or selling securities for his own account might be considered as engaged in that trade or business, and several cases involving such question had been submitted to the United States Federal Courts for ruling, and to the Income Tax Units of the United States Bureau of Internal Revenue for opinion. But with the inclusive definition of the term "dealer" or merchant of securities given in section 84 (t) of Act No. 466, such doubt can no longer arise. Said section 84 (t) reads as follows: (t) The term "dealer in securities" means a merchant of stocks or securities, whether an individual, partnership, or corporation, with an established place of business, regularly

engaged in the purchase of securities and their resale of customers; that is, one who as a merchant buys securities and sells them to customers with a view to the gains and profits that may be derived therefrom. Appellant assumes, however, that the above-quoted definition does not cover or include all persons engaged in the trade or business of buying and selling securities within the meaning of said section 30 (d) (1) (A). He contends that, although he is not a dealer in mining securities, he may be considered as having been engaged in the trade or business of buying and selling securities. And in support of his contention appellant quotes Opinion No. 1818 of the Income Tax Unit of the United States Bureau of Internal Revenue(I.T. No. 1818, C.B. II, pp. 39-41), in which opinion the following was said: The taxpayer is not a member of any stock exchange, has no place of business, and does not make purchase and sales of securities for customers. Much of his trading is done on margin. He devotes the greater part of the time in his broker's office keeping in touch with the market. He has no other trade or business, his income consisting entirely of interest bonds, dividends on stocks, and profits from the sale or disposition of securities. Advice is requested (1) whether this taxpayer is entitled to the benefit of section 204 of the Revenue Act of 1921, with reference to a net loss incurred in 1921, from the sale of stocks; (2) whether he is entitled to the benefit of section 206 of the Revenue Act of 1921, with regard to gains derived in 1922 from the sale of two blocks of stock held more than two years.

1. Section 204 (a) provides in part: That as used in this section the term "net loss" means only net losses resulting from the operation of any trade or business regularly carried on by the taxpayer . . . The question is, than, whether the taxpayer was regularly engaged in the trade or business of buying and selling securities. The interpretation placed upon the term "business or trade" by the courts and the department may be indicated by a few illustrative decisions. In two early cases (In re Marson [1871], Fed. Cas. No. 9142, and In re Woodward [1876], Fed. Cas. No. 18001) it was held that a speculator in stocks was not a "merchant or tradesman" within the meaning of the Bankruptcy Act of 1867. It was said in the former case: "The only business he was engaged in was what is called speculating in stocks, that is, buying and selling them, with a view to his own profit, to be made by the excess of the selling price over the buying price . . . The fact that the bankrupt was engaged in no other business can not have the effect to make him a merchant or a tradesman, because he carried on the business he did carry on in the way which he carried it on." That is, although his business was buying and selling, since this business was simply with a view to his own profit and not for others, has was not a merchant or tradesman. Compare In re Surety Guarantee & Trust Co. ([1902], 121 Fed., 73) and In re H.R. Leighton & Co. ([1906], 147 Fed., 311). With this background, the Department, in Treasury Decisions 1989, 2005, 2090, and 2135

(not published in Bulletin service), held that the provision of paragraph B of the 1913 Act, allowing as a deduction for the purpose of the normal tax "losses actually sustained during the year, incurred in trade . . .", did not include losses from isolated transactions; for instance, in stocks and bonds. In Mente vs. Eisner ([1920], 266 Fed., 161) (certiorari denied, 254 U.S., 635), these rulings were upheld in a case in which a manufacturer of bagging was denied deductions for losses in buying and selling cotton on the cotton exchange for his individual account, not connected with his manufacturing business. (Cf. Black vs. Bolen [1920], 268 Fed., 427.) Likewise, in L.O. 601 (not published in Bulletin service), it was held that "losses sustained by a person in buying and selling securities in his own account, he not being a licensed stock and bond broker buying and selling for others as well as for himself, are not deductible as losses in trade within the meaning of paragraph B of the Act of October 3, 1913." The basis of these opinions is thus seen to be (1) that dealing in securities on one's own account is not technically a "trade"; (2) that isolated transactions in securities, not connected with the tax payer's regular business do not constitute a "trade." In the Act of September 8, 1916, the wording of the 1913 Act was slightly changed (section 5 [a], fourth) to permit a deduction of "losses actually sustained during the year, incurred in his business or trade . . ." Under this more liberal provision, it has been uniformly held that where a taxpayer devoted all his time, or the major portion of it, to buying and selling securities on his own account, this occupation was his "business"; and therefore he was permitted to deduct losses sustained in such dealings as being "incurred in his business." A. R. R. 404 (C.B. 4, p. 157); semble L. O.601. These rulings are inferentially supported by

the definitions of trade or business to comprehend "all his activities for gain, profit, or livelihood, entered into with sufficient frequency, or occupying such portion of his time or attention as to constitute a vocation," contained in article 8 of Regulations 41, relative to the war excess-profits tax (approved in Woods vs. Lewellyn [1921], 289 Fed., 498). . . It is submitted that these decisions are a sound interpretation of the accepted definition of business: "Business is a very comprehensive term and embraces everything about which a person can be employed." Black's Law Dictionary, 158, citing People vs. Commissioners of Taxes (23 New York, 242, 244). "That which occupies the time, attention and labor of men for the purpose of a livelihood or profit." Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Vol. 1, p. 273. Fling vs. Stone Tracy Co. (1910), 220 U. S., 107 at 171; 31 Sup Ct., 342; 55 Law. ed., 389; Ann. Cas. 1912-B, 1312; cited with approval in Von Baumbach vs. Sargent Land Company (1916), 242 U. S., 503, at 515. If they are sound, the facts of the instant case require a ruling that the taxpayer was regularly engaged in the business of buying and selling securities on his own account and was, therefore, entitled to the benefit of the provisions of section 204(a). (I. T. No. 1818; C. B. II-2, pp. 39-41.) But, assuming arguendo that the above-quoted opinion may be applied to the present case, it is evident that the appellant can not be considered as having been engaged in the business of buying and selling securities within the meaning of section 30 (d) (1) (A) of Act No. 466 According to said opinion, in order that he may so be considered, it is necessary that he must devote all his time or at least a major portion thereof to said business and that the latter must be regularly carried on by him.

In the stipulation of facts presented in this case it is agreed that "since the year 1933 up to the present time, the plaintiff has been continuously engaged in the embroidery business," and that "in 1935, the plaintiff began engaging in buying and selling mining stocks and securities for his own exclusive account." There is nothing therein to show that plaintiff and appellant has regularly devoted all his time or the major portion thereof to the business of buying and selling mining securities for his own account. On the contrary, it having been stipulated that he has been continuously engaged in the embroidery business during the same time, it necessarily follows that he has not and could not have devoted regularly all his time or a major portion thereof to the buying and selling of mining securities. Furthermore, from Exhibit A attached to the complaint and made a part of said stipulation of facts, which represents plaintiff's purchases and sales of each class of stocks and securities as well as the profits and losses resulting therefrom during the year 1939, it appears that he made purchases and sales of securities only on several days of some months and nothing on others. As shown in said exhibit, during the month of January, 1939, appellant purchased shares of stock of different mining corporations on January 2, 3, 4, 6, 13, 19, 20, 25, 30, and sold some of them on January 4, 10, 13 and 31. During February he made purchases on the dates 1, 8, 13, 14, 25, and 27; and sales on 6, 9, 10, 16, 22, and 30, and sold some on March 9 only. During April he made two purchases on April 3 and 5, and one sale on April 4. During May he purchased mining shares of stock on May 9, 10, 13, 19, 24, and 25; and sold some of them on May 9, 10, 12, 13, and 31. During June appellant made purchases on 1, 3, 5, 8, 13, 15, and 17, and sales on 22, 23, 24, and 28. During July, purchases on 1, 3, 6, 19; and sales on July 24, 25, 26, and 27. During

August he purchased shares of stock on some mining corporations on 5,7, 16, and 18 and sold shares of one mining corporation on August 10 only. During September appellant did not purchase or sell any securities. During October he sold securities only on the 12th of said month, and he made no purchase at all. And during November and December he did not purchase or sell any. Appellant contends that as from Exhibit A it appears that the mining securities were inventoried in order to arrive at his profits and losses, they cannot be considered as capital assets, because, according to section 34, the term capital assets does not include property which would properly be included in the inventory. But it is to be observed that the law refers not to property merely included, but to that which would be properly included in the inventory. Section 148 of the Income Tax Regulations No. 2 of February 10, 1940 (39 Off. Gaz., 325), provides that "the securities (to be) inventoried as here provided may include only those held for purposes of resale and not for investment," and that "the taxpayers who buy and sell or hold securities for investment or speculation, . . . are not dealers insecurities within the meaning of this rule." And the General Counsel of the Federal Bureau of Internal Revenue, after quoting Article 105 of United States Regulations 74 from which said section 148 of our Income Tax Regulations was taken, said that a person not a dealer in securities is precluded from the use of inventories in computing his net income."(C. B. X-2, p. 128, G. C. M., 9656.) The lower court has not therefore erred in dismissing appellant's first cause of action, on the ground that the losses sustained by appellant from the buying and selling of mining securities are not losses incurred in business or trade but are capital losses from sales of capital assets, as

contended by appellee. 2. With regard to the second point, the lower court held that, as the new law does not provide that the personal exemptions shall be allowed in the nature of a deduction from the net income, as prescribed in the old law, and there is a distinction between exemption and deduction, the tax due on said exemptions must be deducted from the tax due on the whole net income, instead of deducting the total amount of the exemptions from the net income. The argument of the appellee in support of the lower court's decision is that the omission in section 23 of Act No. 466 of the phrase "in the nature of a deduction" found in section 7 of the old law, shows that it was the intention of the National Assembly to adopt the innovation proposed by the Tax Commission which prepared the draft of the new law, an innovation based on what is known as the "Wisconsin Plan" now in operation in several American states. Under said plan, the cumulative amount of the tax is fixed on any given amount of net income without regard to the status of the taxpayer, and then this amount is reduced by the tax credit fixed in the law according to the status of the taxpayer and the number of his dependents as follows: for single individuals, there is allowed a tax credit of P10; for married persons or heads of family, P30; and for each dependent below 21 years of age, P10. Section 7 of the old law provided: "For the purpose of the normal tax only, there shall be allowed as an exemption in the nature of a deduction from the amount of the net income . . ."; while section 23 of the new law provides: "For the purpose of the tax provided for in this Title there shall be allowed the following exemptions." Now, the question to be determined or

answered is: Does this change in the phraseology of the law show the intention of the National Assembly to change the theory or policy of the old law so as to deduct now the tax on the personal and additional exemptions from the tax fixed on the amount of the net income, instead of deducting the amount of personal and additional exemptions from that of the net income, before determining the tax due on the latter? It is a well-settled rule of statutory construction that where a statue has been enacted which is susceptible of several interpretations there is no better means for ascertaining the will and intention of the legislature than that which is afforded by the history of the statue. Taking into consideration the history of section 23 of the Commonwealth Act No. 466, the answer to the above-propounded question must obviously be in the negative. Section 22 of the bill entitled "An Act to revise, amend and codify the Internal Revenue Laws of the Philippines," prepared by the Tax Commission and submitted to the National Assembly of the Philippines, in substitution of section 7 of the old Income Tax Law, reads as follows: SEC. 22. Amount of tax credit allowable to individuals.There shall be allowed as a credit in the nature of a deduction from the amount of the tax payable by each citizen or resident of the Philippines under section 20: (a) Tax credit of single individuals.The sum of P10 if the person making the return is a single person or a married person legally separated from his or her spouse. (b) Tax credit of a married person or head of family.The sum of P30 if the person making the return is a married man with a wife not legally separated from him, or a married

woman with a husband not legally separated from her, or the head of the family; Provided, That from the tax due on the aggregate income of both husband and wife when not legally separated only one tax credit of P30 shall be deducted. For the purpose of this section, the term "head of a family" includes an unmarried man or a woman with one or both parents, or one or more brothers or sisters, or one or more legitimate, recognized natural or adopted children dependent upon him or her for their chief support where such brothers, sisters, or children are less than twenty-one years of age. (c) Additional tax credit for dependents.The sum of P10 for each legitimate, recognized natural, or adopted child wholly dependent upon the taxpayer, if such dependents are under twenty-one years of age, or incapable of self-support because mentally or physically defective. The additional tax credit under this paragraph shall be allowed only if the person making the return is the head of the family. But the National Assembly, instead of adopting or incorporating said proposed section 22 in the National Internal Revenue Code, C. A. No. 466, copied substantially in section 23 of the latter provision of section 7 of the old law relating to personal and additional exemptions, with the only modification that the amount of personal exemption of single individuals has been reduced from two thousand to one thousand pesos, and that of married persons or heads of family from four thousand to two thousand five hundred pesos. If it were the intention of the National Assembly to adopt the "Wisconsin plan" proposed by the tax Commission, it would have adopted literally, or at least substantially, the provisions of said

section 22 as section 23 of Commonwealth Act No. 466, instead of substantially incorporating section 7 of the old Income Tax Law as section 23 of the new, except the first paragraph thereof which reads: "For the purpose of the normal tax only, there shall be allowed as an exemption in the nature of a deduction from the amount of the net income." This was changed in said section 23, which provides: "For the purpose of the tax provided for in this Title, there shall be allowed the following exemptions:" From the fact that the National Assembly discarded completely section 22 of the bill drafted in accordance with the "Wisconsin Plan" and submitted by the Tax Commission, it is to be presumed that the National Assembly of the Philippines did not intend to introduce any substantial change in the old law in so far as the effect of personal and additional exemptions on the income tax is concerned. The mere fact that the phrase "in the nature of a deduction" found in section 7 of the old law was omitted in section 23 of the new or National Internal Revenue Code did not and could not effect any change in the law. It is evident that said phrase was added or inserted in said section 7 only out of extreme caution, because, even without it, the exemption would have to be deducted from the gross income in order to determine the net income subject to tax. Had the provision in the old law been drafted in exactly the same term as that of said section 23, the same construction should have been adopted. Because "Exception is an immunity or privilege; it is freedom from a charge or burden to which others are subjected." (Florar vs. Sherifan, 137 Ind., 28; 36 N. E., 365, 369.) If the amounts of personal and additional exemptions fixed in section 23 are exempt from taxation, they should not be included as part of the net income, which is taxable. There is nothing in said section 23 to justify the contention that the tax on personal exemptions (which

are exempt from taxation) should first be fixed, and then deducted from the tax on the net income. The change of phraseology alone does not lead to the conclusion that it was the intention of the lawmaker to amend or change the constructions of the old law as contended by the appellee. For it is a well-established rule, recognized by the Supreme Court of Ohio in the case of Conger vs. Barker's Adm'r (11 Ohio St., 1); "that in the revision of statutes, neither an alteration in phraseology nor the omission or addition of words in the latter statute, shall be held, necessarily, to alter the construction of the former act. And the court is only warranted in holding the construction of a statute, when revised, to be changed, where the intent of the legislature to make such change is clear, or the language used in the new act plainly requires such change of construction. It should be remembered that condensation is a necessity in the work of compilation or codification. Very frequently words which do not materially affect the sense will be omitted from the statutes as incorporated in the code, or that same general idea will be expressed in briefer phrases. No design of altering the law itself could rightly be predicated upon such modifications of the language." (Emphasis ours.) (See Black on the construction and Interpretation of the Laws, Second Edition, pp. 594, 595.) Our Income Tax Law is patterned after the United States Revenue or Income Tax Laws. the United States Revenue Laws of 1916, 1918, 1921, 1924, 1926, 1928 and 1932 considered the personal and additional exemptions as credits against the net income for the purpose of the normal tax; and subsequently, the United States Revenue Acts of 1934, 1936 and 1938 amended the former acts by making said exemptions as credits against the net income for the purpose of

both the normal tax and surtax. Section 7 of our old Income Tax Law, instead of providing that the personal and additional exemptions shall be allowed as a credit against the net income, as in the United States Revenue Acts, prescribed that the amounts specified therein shall be allowed as an exemption in a nature of deduction from the amount of the net income. Which has exactly the same effect as the provision regarding personal and additional exemptions in the said United States Revenue Acts. For, as it was explained in the Ways and Means Committee Report No. 764, 73d Congress, 2d Session, pages 6, 23: To carry out the policy of retaining practically the same tax burden on ordinary income, it is necessary in connection with the proposed plan to allow the personal exemption and credits for dependents as an offset against surtax as well as normal tax. The personal exemption and credits for defendants would appear to be in lieu of deductions for necessary living expenses. They may well apply to both taxes as do all other ordinary deductions. And Paul and Mertens, Law of Federal Taxation, Vol. 3, p. 509, state regarding the change in the United States Revenue Act of 1934: "The practical effect of this statutory change is to convert the personal exemption and credit for dependents into deductions . . ." (Emphasis ours.) The lower court, therefore, erred in not declaring that personal and additional exemptions claimed by appellant should be credited against or deducted from the net income, and consequently in not sentencing appellee to refund to appellant the sum of P475. In view of all the foregoing, the decision of the lower court is affirmed in so far as it dismisses appellant's first cause of action, and is reversed in so far as it dismissed his second cause of

action. Appellee is sentenced to refund to appellant the sum of P475 claimed in the second cause of action of the complaint. Without pronouncement as to costs. So ordered.

G.R. No. 146984 July 28, 2006 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner, vs. MAGSAYSAY LINES, INC., BALIWAG NAVIGATION, INC., FIM LIMITED OF THE MARDEN GROUP (HK) and NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, respondents. DECISION TINGA, J.: The issue in this present petition is whether the sale by the National Development Company (NDC) of five (5) of its vessels to the private respondents is subject to value-added tax (VAT) under the National Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (Tax Code) then prevailing at the time of the sale. The Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) and the Court of Appeals commonly ruled that the sale is not subject to VAT. We affirm, though on a more unequivocal rationale than that utilized by the rulings under review. The fact that the sale was not in the course of the trade or business of NDC is sufficient in itself to declare the sale as outside the coverage of VAT. The facts are culled primarily from the ruling of the CTA. Pursuant to a government program of privatization, NDC decided to sell to private enterprise all of its shares in its wholly-owned subsidiary the National Marine Corporation (NMC). The NDC decided to sell in one lot its NMC shares and five (5) of its ships, which are 3,700 DWT TweenDecker, "Kloeckner" type vessels.1 The vessels were constructed for the NDC between 1981 and 1984, then initially leased to Luzon Stevedoring Company, also its wholly-owned subsidiary.

Subsequently, the vessels were transferred and leased, on a bareboat basis, to the NMC.2 The NMC shares and the vessels were offered for public bidding. Among the stipulated terms and conditions for the public auction was that the winning bidder was to pay "a value added tax of 10% on the value of the vessels."3 On 3 June 1988, private respondent Magsaysay Lines, Inc. (Magsaysay Lines) offered to buy the shares and the vessels for P168,000,000.00. The bid was made by Magsaysay Lines, purportedly for a new company still to be formed composed of itself, Baliwag Navigation, Inc., and FIM Limited of the Marden Group based in Hongkong (collectively, private respondents).4 The bid was approved by the Committee on Privatization, and a Notice of Award dated 1 July 1988 was issued to Magsaysay Lines. On 28 September 1988, the implementing Contract of Sale was executed between NDC, on one hand, and Magsaysay Lines, Baliwag Navigation, and FIM Limited, on the other. Paragraph 11.02 of the contract stipulated that "[v]alue-added tax, if any, shall be for the account of the PURCHASER."5 Per arrangement, an irrevocable confirmed Letter of Credit previously filed as bidders bond was accepted by NDC as security for the payment of VAT, if any. By this time, a formal request for a ruling on whether or not the sale of the vessels was subject to VAT had already been filed with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) by the law firm of Sycip Salazar Hernandez & Gatmaitan, presumably in behalf of private respondents. Thus, the parties agreed that should no favorable ruling be received from the BIR, NDC was authorized to draw on the Letter of Credit upon written demand the amount needed for the payment of the VAT on the stipulated due date, 20 December 1988.6

In January of 1989, private respondents through counsel received VAT Ruling No. 568-88 dated 14 December 1988 from the BIR, holding that the sale of the vessels was subject to the 10% VAT. The ruling cited the fact that NDC was a VAT-registered enterprise, and thus its "transactions incident to its normal VAT registered activity of leasing out personal property including sale of its own assets that are movable, tangible objects which are appropriable or transferable are subject to the 10% [VAT]."7 Private respondents moved for the reconsideration of VAT Ruling No. 568-88, as well as VAT Ruling No. 395-88 (dated 18 August 1988), which made a similar ruling on the sale of the same vessels in response to an inquiry from the Chairman of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee. Their motion was denied when the BIR issued VAT Ruling Nos. 007-89 dated 24 February 1989, reiterating the earlier VAT rulings. At this point, NDC drew on the Letter of Credit to pay for the VAT, and the amount of P15,120,000.00 in taxes was paid on 16 March 1989. On 10 April 1989, private respondents filed an Appeal and Petition for Refund with the CTA, followed by a Supplemental Petition for Review on 14 July 1989. They prayed for the reversal of VAT Rulings No. 395-88, 568-88 and 007-89, as well as the refund of the VAT payment made amounting to P15,120,000.00.8 The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) opposed the petition, first arguing that private respondents were not the real parties in interest as they were not the transferors or sellers as contemplated in Sections 99 and 100 of the then Tax Code. The CIR also squarely defended the VAT rulings holding the sale of the vessels liable for VAT, especially citing Section 3 of Revenue Regulation No. 5-87 (R.R. No. 5-87), which provided that "[VAT] is imposed on any sale or transactions deemed sale of taxable goods (including

capital goods, irrespective of the date of acquisition)." The CIR argued that the sale of the vessels were among those transactions "deemed sale," as enumerated in Section 4 of R.R. No. 587. It seems that the CIR particularly emphasized Section 4(E)(i) of the Regulation, which classified "change of ownership of business" as a circumstance that gave rise to a transaction "deemed sale." In a Decision dated 27 April 1992, the CTA rejected the CIRs arguments and granted the petition.9 The CTA ruled that the sale of a vessel was an "isolated transaction," not done in the ordinary course of NDCs business, and was thus not subject to VAT, which under Section 99 of the Tax Code, was applied only to sales in the course of trade or business. The CTA further held that the sale of the vessels could not be "deemed sale," and thus subject to VAT, as the transaction did not fall under the enumeration of transactions deemed sale as listed either in Section 100(b) of the Tax Code, or Section 4 of R.R. No. 5-87. Finally, the CTA ruled that any case of doubt should be resolved in favor of private respondents since Section 99 of the Tax Code which implemented VAT is not an exemption provision, but a classification provision which warranted the resolution of doubts in favor of the taxpayer. The CIR appealed the CTA Decision to the Court of Appeals,10 which on 11 March 1997, rendered a Decision reversing the CTA.11 While the appellate court agreed that the sale was an isolated transaction, not made in the course of NDCs regular trade or business, it nonetheless found that the transaction fell within the classification of those "deemed sale" under R.R. No. 587, since the sale of the vessels together with the NMC shares brought about a change of ownership in NMC. The Court of Appeals also applied the principle governing tax exemptions

that such should be strictly construed against the taxpayer, and liberally in favor of the government.12 However, the Court of Appeals reversed itself upon reconsidering the case, through a Resolution dated 5 February 2001.13 This time, the appellate court ruled that the "change of ownership of business" as contemplated in R.R. No. 5-87 must be a consequence of the "retirement from or cessation of business" by the owner of the goods, as provided for in Section 100 of the Tax Code. The Court of Appeals also agreed with the CTA that the classification of transactions "deemed sale" was a classification statute, and not an exemption statute, thus warranting the resolution of any doubt in favor of the taxpayer.14 To the mind of the Court, the arguments raised in the present petition have already been adequately discussed and refuted in the rulings assailed before us. Evidently, the petition should be denied. Yet the Court finds that Section 99 of the Tax Code is sufficient reason for upholding the refund of VAT payments, and the subsequent disquisitions by the lower courts on the applicability of Section 100 of the Tax Code and Section 4 of R.R. No. 5-87 are ultimately irrelevant. A brief reiteration of the basic principles governing VAT is in order. VAT is ultimately a tax on consumption, even though it is assessed on many levels of transactions on the basis of a fixed percentage.15 It is the end user of consumer goods or services which ultimately shoulders the tax, as the liability therefrom is passed on to the end users by the providers of these goods or services16 who in turn may credit their own VAT liability (or input VAT) from the VAT

payments they receive from the final consumer (or output VAT).17 The final purchase by the end consumer represents the final link in a production chain that itself involves several transactions and several acts of consumption. The VAT system assures fiscal adequacy through the collection of taxes on every level of consumption,18 yet assuages the manufacturers or providers of goods and services by enabling them to pass on their respective VAT liabilities to the next link of the chain until finally the end consumer shoulders the entire tax liability. Yet VAT is not a singular-minded tax on every transactional level. Its assessment bears direct relevance to the taxpayers role or link in the production chain. Hence, as affirmed by Section 99 of the Tax Code and its subsequent incarnations,19 the tax is levied only on the sale, barter or exchange of goods or services by persons who engage in such activities, in the course of trade or business. These transactions outside the course of trade or business may invariably contribute to the production chain, but they do so only as a matter of accident or incident. As the sales of goods or services do not occur within the course of trade or business, the providers of such goods or services would hardly, if at all, have the opportunity to appropriately credit any VAT liability as against their own accumulated VAT collections since the accumulation of output VAT arises in the first place only through the ordinary course of trade or business. That the sale of the vessels was not in the ordinary course of trade or business of NDC was appreciated by both the CTA and the Court of Appeals, the latter doing so even in its first decision which it eventually reconsidered.20 We cite with approval the CTAs explanation on this point:

In Imperial v. Collector of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. L-7924, September 30, 1955 (97 Phil. 992), the term "carrying on business" does not mean the performance of a single disconnected act, but means conducting, prosecuting and continuing business by performing progressively all the acts normally incident thereof; while "doing business" conveys the idea of business being done, not from time to time, but all the time. [J. Aranas, UPDATED NATIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE CODE (WITH ANNOTATIONS), p. 608-9 (1988)]. "Course of business" is what is usually done in the management of trade or business. [Idmi v. Weeks & Russel, 99 So. 761, 764, 135 Miss. 65, cited in Words & Phrases, Vol. 10, (1984)]. What is clear therefore, based on the aforecited jurisprudence, is that "course of business" or "doing business" connotes regularity of activity. In the instant case, the sale was an isolated transaction. The sale which was involuntary and made pursuant to the declared policy of Government for privatization could no longer be repeated or carried on with regularity. It should be emphasized that the normal VAT-registered activity of NDC is leasing personal property.21 This finding is confirmed by the Revised Charter22 of the NDC which bears no indication that the NDC was created for the primary purpose of selling real property.23 The conclusion that the sale was not in the course of trade or business, which the CIR does not dispute before this Court,24 should have definitively settled the matter. Any sale, barter or exchange of goods or services not in the course of trade or business is not subject to VAT.

Section 100 of the Tax Code, which is implemented by Section 4(E)(i) of R.R. No. 5-87 now relied upon by the CIR, is captioned "Value-added tax on sale of goods," and it expressly states that "[t]here shall be levied, assessed and collected on every sale, barter or exchange of goods, a value added tax x x x." Section 100 should be read in light of Section 99, which lays down the general rule on which persons are liable for VAT in the first place and on what transaction if at all. It may even be noted that Section 99 is the very first provision in Title IV of the Tax Code, the Title that covers VAT in the law. Before any portion of Section 100, or the rest of the law for that matter, may be applied in order to subject a transaction to VAT, it must first be satisfied that the taxpayer and transaction involved is liable for VAT in the first place under Section 99. It would have been a different matter if Section 100 purported to define the phrase "in the course of trade or business" as expressed in Section 99. If that were so, reference to Section 100 would have been necessary as a means of ascertaining whether the sale of the vessels was "in the course of trade or business," and thus subject to VAT. But that is not the case. What Section 100 and Section 4(E)(i) of R.R. No. 5-87 elaborate on is not the meaning of "in the course of trade or business," but instead the identification of the transactions which may be deemed as sale. It would become necessary to ascertain whether under those two provisions the transaction may be deemed a sale, only if it is settled that the transaction occurred in the course of trade or business in the first place. If the transaction transpired outside the course of trade or business, it would be irrelevant for the purpose of determining VAT liability whether the transaction may be deemed sale, since it anyway is not subject to VAT.

Accordingly, the Court rules that given the undisputed finding that the transaction in question was not made in the course of trade or business of the seller, NDC that is, the sale is not subject to VAT pursuant to Section 99 of the Tax Code, no matter how the said sale may hew to those transactions deemed sale as defined under Section 100. In any event, even if Section 100 or Section 4 of R.R. No. 5-87 were to find application in this case, the Court finds the discussions offered on this point by the CTA and the Court of Appeals (in its subsequent Resolution) essentially correct. Section 4 (E)(i) of R.R. No. 5-87 does classify as among the transactions deemed sale those involving "change of ownership of business." However, Section 4(E) of R.R. No. 5-87, reflecting Section 100 of the Tax Code, clarifies that such "change of ownership" is only an attending circumstance to "retirement from or cessation of business[, ] with respect to all goods on hand [as] of the date of such retirement or cessation."25 Indeed, Section 4(E) of R.R. No. 5-87 expressly characterizes the "change of ownership of business" as only a "circumstance" that attends those transactions "deemed sale," which are otherwise stated in the same section.26 WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. No costs. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. L-3538 May 28, 1952 JUAN LUNA SUBDIVISION, INC., plaintiff-appellee, vs. M. SARMIENTO, ET AL., defendants-appellants. Gibbs, Gibbs, Chuidian and Quasha for appellee. City Fiscal Eugenio Angeles and Assistant Fiscal Cornelio S. Ruperto for appellant. La O and Feria for defendant Philippine Trust Co. TUASON, J.: This is an appeal by the City Treasure of the City of Manila from the following judgment handed down in the above-entitled cause: POR TODAS CONSIDERACIONES, el Jugado dicta sentencia ordenado: que el demandado Tesorero de la Ciudad de Manila pague a la demandante la cantidad de P2,210.52 sin intereses; que la demandada Philippine Trust Companypague a la demandante la suma de P105 sin intereses. The Philippine Trust Company did not appeal. The facts of the case, in so far as they are not in controversy, are these: The plaintiff was a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines with principal office in Manila. On December 29, 1941 it issued to the City Treasurer of Manila, and the City Treasurer accepted checks No. 628334 for P2,210.52 drawn upon the Philippine Trust Company with

which it had a credit balance of P4,940.17 on its account. This check was to be applied to plaintiff's land tax for the second semester of 1941 the exact amount of which was yet undetermine and so it was entered in the ledger, Exhibit "F", as deposit by the taxpayer. On February 20, 1942, presumably after the exact amount had been verified, which was P341.60, the balance of P1,868.92, covered by voucher No. 1487 of the City Treasure's office, was noted in the ledger as a credit to the Juan Luna Subdivision, Inc. Further than this, the records of the City Treasurer's office do not show what was done with the check. But the books of the Philippine Trust Company do reveal that it was deposited with the Philippine National Bank, the City Treasurer's sole depository, on December 29, 1941, and that it was presented by that Bank to the Philippine Trust Company on May 1, 1944 and was cashed by the drawee. Manuel F. Garcia, Assistant Treasurer of the Philippine Trust Company, testified that soon after his bank was authorized in March, 1942, to reopen for business (it had been closed by order of the Japanese military authorities,) it received from the Philippine National Bank a bundle of checks, including appellees check No. 628334, drawn upon the Philippine Trust Company before the Japanese occupation and held in abeyance by the Philippine National Bank pending resumption of operation by the Philippine Trust Company; that these checks, including the appellee's check, were accepted and the amounts thereof debited against the respective drawer's accounts; that with respect to check No. 628334, the operation was effected on May 1, 1944. The City refused after liberation to refund the plaintiff's deposit or apply it to such future taxes as might be found due, while the Philippine Trust Company was unwilling to reverse its debit

entry against the Juan Luna Subdivision, Inc. It was upon this predicament that the Juan Luna Subdivision, Inc. brought this suit against the City Treasurer and the Philippine Trust Company as defendants in the alternative. The purpose of the action is determine which of the two defendants is liable for plaintiff's check. There is a separate cause of action which concerns the plaintiff and the City Treasurer alone. On the main cause of action the burden of the City Treasurer's defense is that his office was not benefited why the check. He denies that the said check was cashed "or rather there was no proof that it was." It is pointed out that Mr. Gibbs, testifying in open court, admitted that he had never received nor could he have received the cancelled checks;" that "the courts finding that sum P2,210.52 was in fact and in truth added to the actual cash of the Treasurer of the City of Manila is based on conjectures and surprises without any support of pertinent and competent proof;" that "special ledger sheet of the City Treasurer . . . simply showed that some accounting transaction in the book value was done or accomplished but these accounting processes did not show that actual payment had been made (by the Philippine National Bank) to the City Treasurer, and that the City Treasurer had in effect received said amount represented by said checks;" that "the burden of proving that the check in question was in fact paid rest on the defendant Philippine Trust Company." It is further argued that "there is a lot of difference between the book value and the cash value of this check," that the acceptance by the City Treasurer and the issuance of the Official Receipt No. 755402 on December 29, 1941 in favor of Juan Luna Subdivision, Inc. did not simultaneously and automatically place in the hands of the City Treasurer the cash value represented by the said checks in the amount of P2,210.52".

That the plaintiff's check was deposited by the City Treasurer with the Philippine National Bank, and the latter was paid the cash equivalent thereof by the Philippine Trust Company, admits of no doubt. The entries in the books of the latter bank are not in the least impugned. Whether the City Treasurer was paid that amount by the Philippine National Bank or given credit for it, the City Treasurer would neither admit nor deny. He said: A. Not that I am not willing (to admit); I am willing, but I am not the right party to admit that the check was actually collected by the City of Manila from the Philippine Trust Company, The Philippine Trust Company never submitted any financial statement. To my knowledge, the City Treasurer of Manila has never been informed by the Philippine Trust Company or by the Philippine National Bank, which is the depository of the City of Manila, that same check was collected by the City Manila from the Philippine National Bank; by that I am not trying to say that the check was not actually collected by the City. xxx xxx xxx Q. This particular check in question pertains to the revenue account of the City of Manila, is that right? A. Yes, sir. Q. Ordinarily it would be deposited with the Philippine National Bank, is that right? A. That is right. Q. And the Philippine National Bank has not rendered you any account of its collections?

A. I would not say that; they probably gave us statement, but as we have lost our records pertaining to the occupation and the pre-war years, I could not make a categorial statement. From the fact that the Philippine National Bank was open throughout the Japanese occupation and the other facts heretofore admitted or not denied, it is to be presumed that the Philippine National Bank credited the City Treasurer with the amount of the check in question, and that the City Treasurer, taking ordinary care of his concerns, withdrew that amount. This is in accordance with the presumption that things happened according to the ordinary course of business and habits. The burden is on the City Treasurer, not on the plaintiff, to rebut these presumptions. But the point is not material at all as far as the plaintiff is concerned. What became of the check or where the money went is a matter between the City Treasurer and the Philippine National Bank. The drawer of the check had funds on deposit to meet it; the City Treasurer accepted it and deposited it with the Philippine National Bank, and the Philippine National Bank, collected the equivalent amount from the drawee Bank. In the light of these circumstances, the City Treasurer became the Philippine National Bank's creditor and the Juan Luna Subdivision, Inc. was released from liability on its checks. If the City Treasurer did not collect his credit from the Philippine National Bank or otherwise make use of it, he alone was to blame and should suffer the consequences of his neglect. That the City Treasurer held the check merely in trust for plaintiff does not alter the situation as far as his branch of the case goes. The amount to be refunded to the plaintiff is the subject of another disagreement between the

Juan Luna Subdivision, Inc. and the City Treasurer. This is the ground of other cause of action heretofore referred to. The plaintiff claims the whole amount of the check contending that taxes for the last semester of 1941 have been remitted by Commonwealth Act No. 703. Section 1 of this Act, which was approved on November 1, 1945, provides: All land taxes and penalties due and payable for the years nineteen hundred and forty-two nineteen hundred and forty-three nineteen hundred and forty-four and fifty per cent of the tax due for nineteen hundred and forty-five, are hereby remitted. The land taxes and penalties due and payable for the second semester of the year nineteen hundred and fortyone shall also be remitted the if the remaining fifty per cent corresponding to the year nineteen hundred and forty-five shall been paid on or before December thirty-first, nineteen hundred and forty-five. Does this provision cover taxes paid before its enactment as the plaintiff maintains and the court below held, or does it refer, as the City Treasurer believes, only to taxes which were still unpaid? There is no ambiguity in the language of the law. It says "taxes and penalties due and payable," the literal meaning of which taxes owned or owing. (See Webster's New International Dictionary) Note that the provision speaks of penalties, and note that penalties accrue only when taxes are not paid on time. The word "remit" underlined by the appellant does not help its theory, for to remit to desist or refrain from exacting, inflicting, or enforcing something as well as to restore what has already been taken. (Webster's New International Dictionary.)

We do not see that literal interpretation of Commonwealth Act No. 703 runs counter and does violence to its spirit and intention , nor do we think that such interpretation would be "constitutionally bad" in that "it would unduly discriminate against taxpayers who had paid in favor of delinquent taxpayers." The remission of taxes due and payable to the exclusion of taxes already collected does not constitute unfair discrimination. Each set of taxes is a class by itself, and the law would be open to attack as class legislation only if all taxpayers belonging to one class were not treated alike. They are not. As to the justice of the measure, the confinement of the condonation to deliquent taxes was not without good reason. The property owners who had paid their taxes before liberation and those who had not were not on the same footing on the need of material relief. It is true that the ravages and devastations wrought by was operations had rendered the bulk of the people destitute or impoverished and that it was this situation which prompted the passage of Commonwealth Act No. 703. But it is also true that the taxpayers who had been in arrears in their obligation would have to satisfy their liability with genuine currency, while the taxes paid during the occupation had been satisfied in Japanese military notes, many of them at a time when those notes were well-nigh worthless. To refund those taxes with the restored currency, even if the Government could afford to do so, would be unduly to enrich many of the payers at a greater expense to the people at large. What is more, the process of refunding would entail a tremendous amount of work and difficulties, what with the destruction of tax records and the great number of claimants who would take advantage of such grace.

It is said that the plaintiff's check was in the nature of deposit, held trust by the City Treasurer, and that for this reason, plaintiff's taxes are to be regarded as still due and payable. This argument is well taken but only to the extent of P1,868.92. The amount of P341.60 as early as February 20, 1942, had been applied to the second half of plaintiff's 1941 tax and become part of the general funds of the city treasury. From that date that tax was legally and actually paid and settled. The appealed judgment should, therefore, be modified so that the defendant City Treasurer shall refund to the plaintiff the sum of P1,868.92 instead P2,210.52, without costs. It is so ordered.

G.R. No. L-14878 December 26, 1963 SURIGAO CONSOLIDATED MINING CO., INC., petitioner, vs. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE and COURT OF APPEALS, respondents. Leido, Angeles and Valladolid for petitioner. Office of the Solicitor General for respondents. REGALA, J.: This is a petition to review the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals in Manila Civil Case No. 4770 dismissing for lack of merit the action of the Surigao Consolidated Mining Company for the refund of the total amount of P17,051.14 allegedly representing overpayment of ad valorem tax for the fourth quarter of 1941. The record shows that before the outbreak of World War II, the Surigao Consolidated Mining Company (called SURIGAO CONSOLIDATED, for short), a domestic corporation which then had its principal office in the City of Iloilo, was operating its mining concessions in Mainit, Surigao. Pursuant to section 246 of the Internal Revenue Code, which prescribes the time and manner of payment of royalties or ad valorem taxes, it filed a bond and had been regularly filing its returns for minerals removed from its mines during each calendar quarter and paying ad valorem tax thereon within 20 days after the close of every quarter. In each case, computation of the ad valorem tax was based on the market value of the minerals set forth in the returns, subject to adjustment upon the receipt of the smelter showing the actual market value of the minerals to

the United States. Due to the interruption, of the communications outbreak of the war, the principal office of Surigao Consolidated lost contact with its mines and never received the production reports for the fourth quarter of 1941. In order to avoid incurring any tax penalty, said company, on January 19, 1942, deposited a check amount of P27,000.00 payable to and "indorsed in favor of the City Treasurer (of Iloilo) in payment of the ad valorem taxes (approximate adjustment to be made when circumstances allow it) for the fourth quarter of 1941." After the termination of the war, Commonwealth Act No. 722 was enacted, which provided for the filing of returns for minerals removed during the last quarter of 1941 up to December 31, 1945 and the payment of ad valorem tax on said minerals to February 28, 1946. Availing of the provisions of the aforementioned Act, the Surigao Consolidated, on December 28, 1945, ad valorem tax returns for the fourth quarter declaring as its tax liability the amount of P43,486.54. Applying the amount of P27,000.00 previously deposited with the City Treasurer of Iloilo, the returns indicated an unpaid balance of P16,486.54 as the " tax subject to revision." However, on February 26, 1946, the Surigao Consolidated filed an amended ad valorem tax returns under which amendment it declared a reduced ad valorem tax in the amount of P37,189.00. And crediting itself with the amount of P27,000.00 previously deposited with the City Treasurer of Iloilo, it paid the remaining balance of P10,189.00. On September 24, 1946, the Surigao Consolidated again filed a statement of adjustment allegedly containing figures and data of the complete smelter returns for minerals shipped to the

United States. In the accompanying letter, a request was made, this time not only for the reduction of tax, but for the refund of the amount of P18,107.87. On October 19, 1946, another statement of adjustment was filed reducing the claim for refund to P17,158.01. Finally, on March 15, 1947, a third statement of adjustment was submitted further reducing the claim for refund to the amount of P 17,051.14. As the Collector of Internal Revenue denied the request for the refund of the said P17,051.14 on the ground that the money already paid as ad valorem tax was legally due to the Government, the Surigao Consolidated instituted with the Court of First Instance of Manila civil action for its recovery. However, upon the enactment of Republic Act No. 1125 creating the Court of Tax Appeals, the case was remanded to the latter court for proper disposition. After hearing, the Court of Tax Appeals, on July 16, 1958, finding that the amount sought to be refunded been lawfully collected, rendered its decision denying the claim for refund. The Surigao Consolidated in due time filed a motion for new trial on the ground that the decision was "not justified by the overwhelming weight of evidence" and that it was contrary to law. The tax court, however, denied the motion. Hence, this petition for review.lawphil.net The question to be resolved is whether or not Surigao Consolidated, petitioner herein, is entitled to the refund of ad valorem tax in the total amount of P17,051.14, itemized as follows: 1. Ad valorem tax on P1,191.46 minerals removed from the mines but allegedly

lost in transit on account of war 2. Ad valorem tax on 15,609.73 minerals extracted from the mines but allegedly looted during the Japanese occupation 3. Alleged overpayment 249.95 of ad valorem tax on minerals shipped to the United States P17,051.14 The first, item in petitioner's claim for refund in the amount of P1,191.46 represents the amount of ad valorem tax paid on minerals removed from the mines but alleged to have been lost in transit on account of the war. The refund is sought under section 1 (d) of Republic Act No. 81, which provides as follows: SECTION 1. Any provision of existing law to the contrary notwithstanding:

(d) All unpaid royalties, ad valorem or specific taxes on all minerals mined from mining claims or concessions existing and in force on January first, nineteen hundred and forty-two, and which minerals were lost by reason of the war or circumstances arising therefrom, are hereby condoned: Provided, That if said minerals had been or shall be recovered by the miner or producer, such royalties, ad valorem or specific taxes on the same shall be immediately due and demandable. Petitioner argues that since the law condones the taxes due from taxpayers who failed to pay their taxes, it would be unfair to deny this benefit to those taxpayers who had been prompt in paying theirs. The argument merits careful consideration. At first it would seem to be sound and logical. But the aforequoted section clearly refers to the condonation of unpaid taxes only. The condonation of a tax liability is equivalent and is in the nature of a tax exemption. Being so, it should be sustained only when expressed in explicit terms, and it can not be extended beyond the plain meaning of those terms. It is the universal rule that he who claims an exemption from his share of the common burden of taxation must justify his claim by showing that the Legislature intended to exempt him by words too plain to be mistaken. (Statutory Construction by Francisco, citing Government of P. I. v. Monte de Piedad, 25 Phil. 42.) The application of a statute creating an exemption for taxation to taxes already assessed depends upon whether it is retrospective in its operation. Such a statute has no retrospective operation, unless by the terms thereof it clearly appears to be the intention of the legislature

that the exemption shall relate back to taxes which have already become fixed, as a statute which releases a person or corporation from a burden common to the whole community should be strictly (Louisville Water Co. v. Hamilton, 81 Ky. 517, ... cited 6 American and English Ann. Cases, p. 438). Petitioner having failed to point to Us any portion of the law that explicitly provides for a refund of those taxpayers who had paid their taxes on the items and under circumstances mentioned in the abovequoted provision, We are constrained to hold that the benefits of said provision does not extend to it. Even assuming arguendo that the provisions of Republic Act No. 81 authorizes the refund of taxes already paid by petitioner, the latter would not still be entitled to the refund sought for under the first item. It is to be noted that petitioner's evidence of the alleged loss in transit as observed by the Court of Tax Appeals, merely of testimony of witnesses who did not have personal knowledge of the circumstances which gave rise to the loss. Such evidence cannot, of course be considered sufficient to establish that the minerals were in fact lost. Judge Luciano of the Court of Tax Appeals during the trial, would be to create a dangerous precendent. Under the second item, petitioner seeks to recover the amount of P15,609.73 representing the ad valorem tax paid on minerals extracted from its mines but alleged to have been looted during the enemy occupation. In connection with the alleged looting of the minerals, the Tax Court has this to say: We are again confronted with the case where plaintiff has, to our mind, failed to present

adequate evidence to prove such loss. The evidence, if at all, is merely limited to the general and uncorroborated statements of plaintiff's officers that the same were lost in the mines. These testimonies cannot be taken on their full face value, especially because they had no direct supervision over the handling of such minerals at the time of the alleged loss. Much less had these officers have personal knowledge of the loss. Under the circumstances, we can not make the finding that the minerals were in fact lost. Going over the record, We find no reason to disturb the above findings of the Court of Tax Appeals, there being no showing that they are not substantiated by the evidence. With this observation, it would be useless ceremony to delve into the issue of whether ad valorem tax should be or should not be paid on minerals extracted from the mines but not removed therefrom. One more item in petitioner's claim is the alleged overpayment of ad valorem tax in the amount of P249.95 on the minerals shipped to the United States. It is that an ad valorem tax in the amount of P20,387.81 was originally paid on the minerals shipped to the United States with a gross value of P410,299.49; that the smelter returns from the United States show that the actual market value of the minerals shipped to the States was P416,895.28; and that after deducting all allowable deductions amounting in all to P1,828,34, the true and correct amount of ad valorem tax on said minerals was P20,137.86. Petitioner, therefore, claims difference between the amount of P20,387.81 and P20,137.86 is an overpayment. It is not disputed that, as indicated above, the amount of ad valorem tax on the minerals shipped to the United States is subject to adjustment upon the receipt of the smelter returns showing their

actual market value Petitioner contends that the statements of adjustment alleged to contain the figures and data set forth in the smelter returns are adequate evidence of the actual market value of the minerals shipped to the United States. The best evidence of the actual market value minerals shipped to the United States are the smelter returns themselves. These returns are admittedly petitioner's possession, but for unknown reasons, petitioner failed to produce them during the trial. As there is no credible and satisfactory explanation for the non-production of said returns, there arises the presumption that if produced they would be adverse to petitioner. Under the circumstances, the Court of Tax Appeals cannot be said to have committed error, much less abused its discretion, in refusing to give any probative value statements of adjustment. It is a settled doctrine that in a suit for the recovery of the payment of taxes or any portion thereof as having been illegally or erroneously collected, the burden is upon the taxpayer to establish the facts which show the illegality of the tax or that the determination thereof is erroneous. In this case, petitioner failed to show that the amount of taxes sought to be refunded have been erroneously collected. Conformably to the above, We are of the opinion that the Court of Tax Appeals did not commit any error in denying petitioner's claim. WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed. Costs against petitioner.

G.R. No. 108358 January 20, 1995 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, R.O.H. AUTO PRODUCTS PHILIPPINES, INC. and THE HON. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, respondents. VITUG, J.: On 22 August 1986, during the period when the President of the Republic still wielded legislative powers, Executive Order No. 41 was promulgated declaring a one-time tax amnesty on unpaid income taxes, later amended to include estate and donor's taxes and taxes on business, for the taxable years 1981 to 1985. Availing itself of the amnesty, respondent R.O.H. Auto Products Philippines, Inc., filed, in October 1986 and November 1986, its Tax Amnesty Return No. 34-F-00146-41 and Supplemental Tax Amnesty Return No. 34-F-00146-64-B, respectively, and paid the corresponding amnesty taxes due. Prior to this availment, petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue, in a communication received by private respondent on 13 August 1986, assessed the latter deficiency income and business taxes for its fiscal years ended 30 September 1981 and 30 September 1982 in an aggreg7ate amount of P1,410,157.71. The taxpayer wrote back to state that since it had been able to avail itself of the tax amnesty, the

deficiency tax notice should forthwith be cancelled and withdrawn. The request was denied by the Commissioner, in his letter of 22 November 1988, on the ground that Revenue Memorandum Order No. 4-87, dated 09 February 1987, implementing Executive Order No. 41, had construed the amnesty coverage to include only assessments issued by the Bureau of Internal Revenue after the promulgation of the executive order on 22 August 1986 and not to assessments theretofore made. The invoked provisions of the memorandum order read:
TO: All Internal Revenue Officers and Others Concerned: 1.0. To give effect and substance to the immunity provisions of the tax amnesty under Executive Order No. 41, as expanded by Executive Order No. 64, the following instructions are hereby issued: xxx xxx xxx 1.02. A certification by the Tax Amnesty Implementation Officer of the fact of availment of the said tax amnesty shall be a sufficient basis for: xxx xxx xxx 1.02.3. In appropriate cases, the cancellation/withdrawal of assessment notices and letters of demand issued after August 21, 1986 for the collection of income, business, estate or donor's taxes due during the same taxable years. 1 (Emphasis supplied)

Private respondent appealed the Commissioner's denial to the Court of Tax Appeals. Ruling for the taxpayer, the tax court said:

Respondent (herein petitioner Commissioner) failed to present any case or law which proves that an assessment can withstand or negate the force and effects of a tax amnesty. This burden of proof on the petitioner (herein respondent taxpayer) was created by the clear and express terms of the executive order's intention qualified availers of the amnesty may pay an amnesty tax in lieu of said unpaid taxes which are forgiven (Section 2, Section 5, Executive Order No. 41, as amended). More specifically, the plain provisions in the statute granting tax amnesty for unpaid taxes for the period January 1, 1981 to December 31, 1985 shifted the burden of proof on respondent to show how the issuance of an assessment before the date of the promulgation of the executive order could have a reasonable relation with the objective periods of the amnesty, so as to make petitioner still answerable for a tax liability which, through the statute, should have been erased with the proper availment of the amnesty. Additionally, the exceptions enumerated in Section 4 of Executive Order No. 41, as amended, do not indicate any reference to an assessment or pending investigation aside from one arising from information furnished by an informer. . . . Thus, we deem that the rule in Revenue Memorandum Order No. 4-87 promulgating that only assessments issued after August 21, 1986 shall be abated by the amnesty is beyond the contemplation of Executive Order No. 41, as amended. 2

On appeal by the Commissioner to the Court of Appeals, the decision of the tax court was affirmed. The appellate court further observed:
In the instant case, examining carefully the words used in Executive Order No. 41, as amended, we find nothing which justifies petitioner Commissioner's ground for denying respondent taxpayer's claim to the benefits of the amnesty law. Section 4 of the subject

law enumerates, in no uncertain terms, taxpayers who may not avail of the amnesty granted,. . . . Admittedly, respondent taxpayer does not fall under any of the . . . exceptions. The added exception urged by petitioner Commissioner based on Revenue Memorandum Order No. 4-87, further restricting the scope of the amnesty clearly amounts to an act of administrative legislation quite contrary to the mandate of the law which the regulation ought to implement. xxx xxx xxx Lastly, by its very nature, a tax amnesty, being a general pardon or intentional overlooking by the State of its authority to impose penalties on persons otherwise guilty of evasion or violation of a revenue or tax law, partakes of an absolute forgiveness or waiver by the Government of its right to collect what otherwise would be due it, and in this sense, prejudicial thereto, particularly to give tax evaders, who wish to relent and are willing to reform a chance to do so and thereby become a part of the new society with a clean slate. (Republic vs. Intermediate Appellate Court. 196 SCRA 335, 340 [1991] citing Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Botelho Shipping Corp., 20 SCRA 487) To follow [the restrictive application of Revenue Memorandum Order No. 4-87 pressed by petitioner Commissioner would be to work against the raison d'etre of E.O. 41, as amended, i.e., to raise government revenues by encouraging taxpayers to declare their untaxed income and pay the tax due thereon. (E.O. 41, first paragraph)] 3

In this petition for review, the Commissioner raises these related issues:
1. WHETHER OR NOT REVENUE MEMORANDUM ORDER NO. 4-87, PROMULGATED TO

IMPLEMENT E.O. NO. 41, IS VALID; 2. WHETHER OR NOT SAID DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENTS IN QUESTION WERE EXTINGUISHED BY REASON OR PRIVATE RESPONDENT'S AVAILMENT OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 41 AS AMENDED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 64; 3. WHETHER OR NOT PRIVATE RESPONDENT HAS OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTION OF VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENTS. 4

The authority of the Minister of Finance (now the Secretary of Finance), in conjunction with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, to promulgate all needful rules and regulations for the effective enforcement of internal revenue laws cannot be controverted. Neither can it be disputed that such rules and regulations, as well as administrative opinions and rulings, ordinarily should deserve weight and respect by the courts. Much more fundamental than either of the above, however, is that all such issuances must not override, but must remain consistent and in harmony with, the law they seek to apply and implement. Administrative rules and regulations are intended to carry out, neither to supplant nor to modify, the law. The real and only issue is whether or not the position taken by the Commissioner coincides with the meaning and intent of executive Order No. 41. We agree with both the court of Appeals and court of Tax Appeals that Executive Order No. 41 is quite explicit and requires hardly anything beyond a simple application of its provisions. It reads:

Sec. 1. Scope of Amnesty. A one-time tax amnesty covering unpaid income taxes for the years 1981 to 1985 is hereby declared. Sec. 2. Conditions of the Amnesty. A taxpayer who wishes to avail himself of the tax amnesty shall, on or before October 31, 1986; a) file a sworn statement declaring his net worth as of December 31, 1985; b) file a certified true copy of his statement declaring his net worth as of December 31, 1980 on record with the Bureau of Internal Revenue, or if no such record exists, file a statement of said net worth therewith, subject to verification by the Bureau of Internal Revenue; c) file a return and pay a tax equivalent to ten per cent (10%) of the increase in net worth from December 31, 1980 to December 31, 1985: Provided, That in no case shall the tax be less than P5,000.00 for individuals and P10,000.00 for judicial persons. Sec. 3. Computation of Net Worth. In computing the net worths referred to in Section 2 hereof, the following rules shall govern: a) Non-cash assets shall be valued at acquisition cost. b) Foreign currencies shall be valued at the rates of exchange prevailing as of the date of the net worth statement. Sec. 4. Exceptions. The following taxpayers may not avail themselves of the amnesty herein granted: a) Those falling under the provisions of Executive Order Nos. 1, 2 and 14;

b) Those with income tax cases already filed in Court as of the effectivity hereof; c) Those with criminal cases involving violations of the income tax already filed in court as of the effectivity filed in court as of the effectivity hereof; d) Those that have withholding tax liabilities under the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended, insofar as the said liabilities are concerned; e) Those with tax cases pending investigation by the Bureau of Internal Revenue as of the effectivity hereof as a result of information furnished under Section 316 of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended; f) Those with pending cases involving unexplained or unlawfully acquired wealth before the Sandiganbayan; g) Those liable under Title Seven, Chapter Three (Frauds, Illegal Exactions and Transactions) and Chapter Four (Malversation of Public Funds and Property) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. xxx xxx xxx Sec. 9. The Minister of finance, upon the recommendation of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, shall promulgate the necessary rules and regulations to implement this Executive Order. xxx xxx xxx Sec. 11. This Executive Order shall take effect immediately. DONE in the City of Manila, this 22nd day of August in the year of Our Lord, nineteen

hundred and eighty-six.

The period of the amnesty was later extended to 05 December 1986 from 31 October 1986 by Executive Order No. 54, dated 04 November 1986, and, its coverage expanded, under Executive Order No. 64, dated 17 November 1986, to include estate and honors taxes and taxes on business. If, as the Commissioner argues, Executive Order No. 41 had not been intended to include 1981-1985 tax liabilities already assessed (administratively) prior to 22 August 1986, the law could have simply so provided in its exclusionary clauses. It did not. The conclusion is unavoidable, and it is that the executive order has been designed to be in the nature of a general grant of tax amnesty subject only to the cases specifically excepted by it. It might not be amiss to recall that the taxable periods covered by the amnesty include the years immediately preceding the 1986 revolution during which time there had been persistent calls, all too vivid to be easily forgotten, for civil disobedience, most particularly in the payment of taxes, to the martial law regime. It should be understandable then that those who ultimately took over the reigns of government following the successful revolution would promptly provide for abroad, and not a confined, tax amnesty. Relative to the two other issued raised by the Commissioner, we need only quote from Executive Order No. 41 itself; thus:

Sec. 6. Immunities and Privileges. Upon full compliance with the conditions of the tax amnesty and the rules and regulations issued pursuant to this Executive order, the taxpayer shall enjoy the following immunities and privileges: a) The taxpayer shall be relieved of any income tax liability on any untaxed income from January 1, 1981 to December 31, 1985, including increments thereto and penalties on account of the non-payment of the said tax. Civil, criminal or administrative liability arising from the non-payment of the said tax, which are actionable under the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended, are likewise deemed extinguished. b) The taxpayer's tax amnesty declaration shall not be admissible in evidence in all proceedings before judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative bodies, in which he is a defendant or respondent, and the same shall not be examined, inquired or looked into by any person, government official, bureau or office. c) The books of account and other records of the taxpayer for the period from January 1, 1981 to December 31, 1985 shall not be examined for income tax purposes: Provided, That the Commissioner of Internal Revenue may authorize in writing the examination of the said books of accounts and other records to verify the validity or correctness of a claim for grant of any tax refund, tax credit (other than refund on credit of withheld taxes on wages), tax incentives, and/or exemptions under existing laws.

There is no pretension that the tax amnesty returns and due payments made by the taxpayer did not conform with the conditions expressed in the amnesty order.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the court of Appeals, sustaining that of the court of Tax Appeals, is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. No costs. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. L-69344 April 26, 1991 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and SPOUSES ANTONIO and CLARA PASTOR, respondents. Roberto L. Bautista for private respondents. GRIO-AQUINO, J.:p The legal issue presented in this petition for review is whether or not the tax amnesty payments made by the private respondents on October 23, 1973 bar an action for recovery of deficiency income taxes under P.D.'s Nos. 23, 213 and 370. On April 15, 1980, the Republic of the Philippines, through the Bureau of Internal Revenue, commenced an action in the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Manila, Branch XVI, to collect from the spouses Antonio Pastor and Clara Reyes-Pastor deficiency income taxes for the years 1955 to 1959 in the amount of P17,117.08 with a 5% surcharge and 1% monthly interest, and costs. The Pastors filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, but the motion was denied. On August 2, 1975, they filed an answer admitting there was an assessment against them of P17,117.08 for income tax deficiency but denying liability therefor. They contended

that they had availed of the tax amnesty under P.D.'s Nos. 23, 213 and 370 and had paid the corresponding amnesty taxes amounting to P10,400 or 10% of their reported untaxed income under P.D. 23, P2,951.20 or 20% of the reported untaxed income under P.D. 213, and a final payment on October 26, 1973 under P.D. 370 evidenced by the Government's Official Receipt No. 1052388. Consequently, the Government is in estoppel to demand and compel further payment of income taxes by them. The parties agreed that there were no issues of fact to be litigated, hence, the case was submitted for decision upon the pleadings and memoranda on the lone legal question of: whether or not the payment of deficiency income tax under the tax amnesty, P.D. 23, and its acceptance by the Government operated to divest the Government of the right to further recover from the taxpayer, even if there was an existing assessment against the latter at the time he paid the amnesty tax. It is not disputed that as a result of an investigation made by the Bureau of Internal Revenue in 1963, it was found that the private respondents owed the Government P1,283,621.63 as income taxes for the years 1955 to 1959, inclusive of the 50% surcharge and 1% monthly interest. The defendants protested against the assessment. A reinvestigation was conducted resulting in the drastic reduction of the assessment to only P17,117.08. It appears that on April 27, 1978, the private respondents offered to pay the Bureau of Internal Revenue the sum of P5,000 by way of compromise settlement of their income

tax deficiency for the questioned years, but Assistant Commissioner Bernardo Carpio, in a letter addressed to the Pastor spouses, rejected the offer stating that there was no legal or factual justification for accepting it. The Government filed the action against the spouses in 1980, ten (10) years after the assessment of the income tax deficiency was made. On a motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by the Government, which the spouses did not oppose, the trial court rendered a decision on February 28, 1980, holding that the defendants spouses had settled their income tax deficiency for the years 1955 to 1959, not under P.D. 23 or P.D. 370, but under P.D. 213, as shown in the Amnesty Income Tax Returns' Summary Statement and the tax Payment Acceptance Order for P2,951.20 with its corresponding official receipt, which returns also contain the very assessment for the questioned years. By accepting the payment of the amnesty income taxes, the Government, therefore, waived its right to further recover deficiency incomes taxes "from the defendants under the existing assessment against them because:
1. the defendants' amnesty income tax returns' Summary Statement included therein the deficiency assessment for the years 1955 to 1959; 2. tax amnesty payment was made by the defendants under Presidential Decree No. 213, hence, it had the effect of remission of the income tax deficiency for the years 1955 to 1959; 3. P.D. No. 23 as well as P.D. No. 213 do not make any exceptions nor impose any conditions for their application, hence, Revenue Regulation No. 7-73 which excludes

certain taxpayers from the coverage of P.D. No. 213 is null and void, and 4. the acceptance of tax amnesty payment by the plaintiff-appellant bars the recovery of deficiency taxes. (pp. 3-4, IAC Decision, pp. 031-032, Rollo.)

The Government appealed to the Intermediate Appellant Court (AC G.R. CV No. 68371 entitled, "Republic of the Philippines vs. Antonio Pastor, et al."), alleging that the private respondents were not qualified to avail of the tax amnesty under P.D. 213 for the benefits of that decree are available only to persons who had no pending assessment for unpaid taxes, as provided in Revenue Regulations Nos. 8-72 and 7-73. Since the Pastors did in fact have a pending assessment against them, they were precluded from availing of the amnesty granted in P.D.'s Nos. 23 and 213. The Government further argued that "tax exemptions should be interpreted strictissimi juris against the taxpayer." The respondent spouses, on the other hand, alleged that P.D. 213 contains no exemptions from its coverage and that, under Letter of Instruction LOI 129 dated September 18, 1973, the immunities granted by P.D. 213 include:
II-Immunities Granted. Upon payment of the amounts specified in the Decree, the following shall be observed: 1. . . . . 2. The taxpayer shall not be subject to any investigation, whether civil, criminal or administrative, insofar as his declarations in the income tax returns are concerned nor

shall the same be used as evidence against, or to the prejudice of the declarant in any proceeding before any court of law or body, whether judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative, in which he is a defendant or respondent, and he shall be exempt from any liability arising from or incident to his failure to file his income tax return and to pay the tax due thereon, as well as to any liability for any other tax that may be due as a result of business transactions from which such income, now voluntarily declared may have been derived. (Emphasis supplied; p. 040, Rollo.)

There is nothing in the LOI which can be construed as authority for the Bureau of Internal Revenue to introduce exceptions and/or conditions to the coverage of the law. On November 23, 1984, the Intermediate Appellate Court (now Court of Appeals) rendered a decision dismissing the Government's appeal and holding that the payment of deficiency income taxes by the Pastors under PD. No. 213, and the acceptance thereof by the Government, operated to divest the latter of its right to further recover deficiency income taxes from the private respondents pursuant to the existing deficiency tax assessment against them. The appellate court held that if Revenue Regulation No. 7-73 did provide an exception to the coverage of P.D. 213, such provision was null and void for being contrary to, or restrictive of, the clear mandate of P.D. No. 213 which the regulation should implement. Said revenue regulation may not prevail over the provisions of the decree, for it would then be an act of administrative legislation, not mere implementation, by the Bureau of Internal Revenue.

On February 4, 1986, the Republic of the Philippines, through the Solicitor General, filed this petition for review of the decision dated November 23, 1984 of the Intermediate Appellate Court affirming the dismissal, by the Court of First Instance of Manila, of the Government's complaint against the respondent spouses. The petition is devoid of merit. Even assuming that the deficiency tax assessment of P17,117.08 against the Pastor spouses were correct, since the latter have already paid almost the equivalent amount to the Government by way of amnesty taxes under P.D. No. 213, and were granted not merely an exemption, but an amnesty, for their past tax failings, the Government is estopped from collecting the difference between the deficiency tax assessment and the amount already paid by them as amnesty tax.
A tax amnesty, being a general pardon or intentional overlooking by the State of its authority to impose penalties on persons otherwise guilty of evasion or violation of a revenue or tax law, partakes of an absolute forgiveness or waiver by the Government of its right to collect what otherwise would be due it, and in this sense, prejudicial thereto, particularly to give tax evaders, who wish to relent and are willing to reform a chance to do so and thereby become a part of the new society with a clean slate (Commission of Internal Revenue vs. Botelho Corp. and Shipping Co., Inc., 20 SCRA 487).

The finding of the appellate court that the deficiency income taxes were paid by the Pastors, and accepted by the Government, under P.D. 213, granting amnesty to persons who are required by law to file income tax returns but who failed to do so, is

entitled to the highest respect and may not be disturbed except under exceptional circumstances which have already become familiar (Rule 45, Sec. 4, Rules of Court; e.g., where: (1) the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmise and conjecture; (2) the inference made is manifestly mistaken; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts; (5) the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case and its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (6) the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (7) said findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence in which they are based; (8) the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and (9) when the finding of fact of the Court of Appeals is premised on the absense of evidence and is contradicted by the evidence on record (Thelma Fernan vs. CA, et al., 181 SCRA 546, citing Tolentino vs. de Jesus, 56 SCRA 67; People vs. Traya, 147 SCRA 381), none of which is present in this case. The rule is that in case of doubt, tax statutes are to be construed strictly against the Government and liberally in favor of the taxpayer, for taxes, being burdens, are not to be presumed beyond what the applicable statute (in this case P.D. 213) expressly and clearly declares (Commission of Internal Revenue vs. La Tondena, Inc. and CTA, 5 SCRA 665, citing Manila Railroad Company vs. Collector of Customs, 52 Phil, 950). WHEREFORE, the petition for review is denied. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. L-46881 September 15, 1988 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. MARIANO CASTAEDA JR., Judge of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, Branch III, VICENTE LEE TENG, PRISCILLA CASTILLO VDA. DE CURA and FRANCISCO VALENCIA, respondents. The Solicitor General for petitioner. Martin N. Roque for respondents Priscilla Castillo Vda. de Cura and Francisco Valencia. Antonio N. Santos for respondent Judge. FELICIANO, J.: In this Petition for certiorari and mandamus, the People seek the annulment of the Orders of respondent Judge quashing criminal informations against the accused upon the grounds that: (a) accused Francisco Valencia was entitled to tax amnesty under Presidential Decree No. 370; and (b) that the dismissal of the criminal cases against accused Valencia inured to the benefit of his co-accused Vicente Lee Teng and Priscilla Castillo de Cura, and denying the People's Motion for Reconsideration of said Orders. Sometime in 1971, two (2) informants submitted sworn information under Republic Act

No. 2338 (entitled "An Act to Provide for Reward to Informers of Violations of the Internal Revenue and Customs Laws," effective June 19, 1959) to the Bureau of Internal Revenue ("BIR"), concerning alleged violations of provisions of the Internal Revenue Code committed by the private respondents, The record of this case includes an affidavit executed on 27 December 1971 by Mr. William Chan, one of the said informers, describing the details of alleged violations of the tax code. 1 After conducting an investigation, the BIR applied for and obtained search warrants from Executive Judge Malcolm Sarmiento. Following investigation and examination by the BIR of the materials and documents yielded by service of such search warrants, criminal informations were filed in court against the private respondents. In July 1973, State Prosecutor Estanislao L. Granados Department of Justice, filed with the Court of First Instance of Pampanga an information docketed as Criminal Case No. 439 for violation of Sec. 170 (2) of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended, against Francisco Valencia, Apolonio G. Erespe y Comia and Priscilla Castillo de Cura, committed as follows:
That on or about the 19th day of January, 1972, in the premises of Valencia Distillery located at del Pilar Street, San Fernando, Pampanga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of the abovenamed Court, the accused FRANCISCO VALENCIA, APOLONIO ERESPE Y COMIA and PRISCILLA QUIAZON OR "QUIAPO" alias "MARY JO," conspiring and confederating with one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have in their possession, custody and control, false and

counterfeit or fake internal revenue labels consisting of five (5) sheets containing ten (10) labels each purporting to be regular labels of the Tanduay Distillery, Inc. bearing Serial Nos. 2571891 to 2571901 to 2571910, 2571911 to 2571920, 05381 to 05390 and 05391 to 05400. CONTRARY to the provisions of Section 170, paragraph 2 of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended. 2

On the same date, another criminal information docketed as Criminal Case No. 440 was filed by the same State Prosecutor in the same court for violation of Section 174 (3) of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended against the same persons, charging them as follows:
That on or about the 19th day of January 1972 in the premises of Valencia Distillery located at del Pilar Street, San Fernando, Pampanga, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused FRANCISCO VALENCIA, APOLONIO G. ERESPE y COMIA and PRISCILLA QUIAZON or QUIANO alias MARY JO, conspiring and confederating together, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, have in their possession, custody and control, locally manufactured articles subject to specific tax, the tax on which has not been paid in accordance with law, THIRTY THREE (33) boxes of 24 bottles each of alleged Anejo Rum, 375 cc., NINE (9) BOXES of alleged Tanduay Rum of TWELVE (12) BOTTLES each, 750 cc., TWENTY (20) BOXES of alleged Ginebra San Miguel Gin of TWENTY FOUR (24) BOTTLES each, 375 cc., THREE (3) BOXES OF TWENTY FOUR (24) BOTTLES each, 375 cc., of Ginebra San Miguel Gin, ONE (1) GALLON bottle of wine improver, NINE lbs. net with

actual contents of 1/5 of the bottle, ONE (1) SMALL BOTTLE, 1 Ib, net, of Rum Jamaica, half-full, ONE (1) BOTTLE, 1 Ib. net of the wine improvers (full), TWELVE (12) BOTTLES of alleged Tanduay Rum, 750 cc., pale, FOUR (4) BOTTLES of Ginebra San Miguel (alleged) 350 cc. and TWO (2) BOTTLES of Tanduay Rum, 375 cc. the total specific tax due on which is P160.01. CONTRARY to Section 174 of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended. 3

As a result of further investigation of the sworn complaints filed by the informers with the BIR, on 14 March 1974, six (6) more criminal informations docketed as Criminal Cases Nos., 538-543 were filed in the Pampanga Court of First Instance against Vicente Lee Teng alias "Vicente Lee," alias "Lee Teng," and Francisco Valencia. These informations charged the two (2) with violations of Section 178, in relation to Sections 182 (A) (1) (3c) and 208 of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended based on their failure to pay annual privilege taxes for each of the six (6) years from 1966 to 1972. The six (6) informations uniformly charged the accused as follows:
The undersigned State Prosecutor accuses VICENTE LEE TENG alias VICENTE LEE alias LEE TENG, and FRANCISCO VALENCIA of the crime of Violation of Sec. 178 in relation with Sec. 182 (A) (1) 3c and Sec. 208 of the National Internal Revenue Code as amended, committed as follows: That on or about the 19th of January 1972, [also during the years 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970 and 1971] in the premises of Valencia Distillery located at del Pilar Street, San Fernando, Pampanga, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one

another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously distill, rectify, repair compound or manufacture alcoholic products subject to specific tax without having paid the privilege tax therefor. CONTRARY TO LAW. 4

On 22 April 1974, after arraignment, accused Valencia filed a Motion to Quash Criminal Cases Nos. 538-543 inclusive, upon the grounds that the six (6) informations had been filed without conducting the necessary preliminary investigation and that he was entitled to the benefits of the tax amnesty provided by P.D. No. 370. The State Prosecutor opposed the Motion to Quash arguing that the necessary preliminary investigation in the six (6) criminal cases had in fact been conducted and that in any case, failure to hold the preliminary investigation was not a ground for a motion to quash. The State Prosecutor further argued that the accused Valencia was not entitled to avail himself of the benefits of P.D. No. 370 since his tax cases were the subject of valid information submitted under R.A. No. 2338 as of 31 December 1973. The respondent Judge granted the Motion to Quash and issued an Order, dated 15 July 1974, dismissing not only Criminal Cases Nos. 538-543 but also Criminal Cases Nos. 439 and 440 insofar as accused Francisco Valencia was concerned. A Motion for Reconsideration by the People was similarly denied by respondent Judge. On 14 December 1975, the remaining accused Vicente Lee Teng and Priscilla Castillo de Cura, having been arraigned, filed Motions to Quash Criminal Cases Nos. 538-543 and 439 and 440, upon the common ground that the dismissal of said cases insofar as accused Francisco Valencia was concerned, inured to their benefit. The People

opposed the Motions to Quash upon the ground that the accused were not entitled to the benefits of the tax amnesty under P.D. No. 370 and that, assuming the dismissal of said criminal cases was valid insofar as accused Valencia was concerned, the resulting immunity from criminal prosecution was personal to accused Valencia. The respondent Judge granted the Motions to Quash by Vicente Lee Teng and Priscilla Castillo de Cura, and denied the People's Motion for Reconsideration. There are two (2) preliminary issues which need to be addressed before dealing with the questions of substantive law posed by this case. The first preliminary issue-whether or not the People of the Philippines are guilty of laches-was raised by private respondents in their Answer. 5 The respondent Judge denied the People's Motion for Reconsideration of his Order granting Francisco Valencia's Motion to Quash the eight (8) criminal cases, on 18 November 1974. Vicente Lee Teng and Priscilla Castillo de Cura filed their respective Motions to Quash on 14 December 1975; respondent Judge granted their Motions to Quash on 31 March 1976. The People filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied on 17 February 1977. Approximately seven (7) months later, on 12 September 1977, the present Petition for certiorari and mandamus was filed by the People. Initially, the Court resolved to dismiss this Petition in a Resolution dated 5 July 1978. The People, however, filed a Motion for Reconsideration of that Order and the Court, in its Resolution of 1 October 1979, set aside its Resolution of dismissal and considered this case as submitted for decision.

Ordinarily, perhaps, a Petition for certiorari brought seven (7) months after rendition of the last order sought to be set aside might be regarded as barred by laches. In the case at bar, however, the Court believes that the equitable principle of laches should not be applied to bar this Petition for certiorari and Mandamus. The effect of such application would not be the avoidance of an inequitable situation (the very raison d'etre of the laches principle), but rather the perpetuation of the state of facts brought about by the orders of the respondent Judge, a state of facts which, as will be seen later, is marked by a gross disregard of the legal rights of the People. The Court, in other words, is compelled to take into account both the importance of the substantive issues raised in this case and the nature of the result brought about by the respondent Judge's orders. Moreover, on a more practical level, the dismissal of the cases was resisted vigorously by the prosecution which filed both oppositions to the Motion to Dismiss and Motions for Reconsideration of the Orders granting the Motions to Quash. The private respondents, in other words, were under no illusion as to the position taken and urged by the People in this Case. We hold that, in the circumstances of this case, the Petition for certiorari and mandamus is not barred by laches. The second preliminary issue was also raised by private respondents in their Answer, that is, whether or not the defense of double jeopardy became available to them with the dismissal by respondent Judge of the eight (8) criminal cases. This defense need not detain us for long for it is clearly premature in the present certiorari proceeding. In the certiorari petition at bar, the validity and legal effect of the orders of dismissal

issued by the respondent Judge of the eight (8) criminal cases are precisely in issue. Should the Court uphold these dismissal orders as valid and effective and should a second prosecution be brought against the accused respondents, that second prosecution may be defended against with the plea of double jeopardy. If, upon the other hand, the Court finds the dismissal orders to be invalid and of no legal effect, the legal consequence would follow that the first jeopardy commenced by the eight (8) informations against the accused has not yet been terminated and accordingly a plea of second jeopardy must be rejected both here and in the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the respondents-accused. We turn, therefore, to the first substantive issue that needs to be resolved: whether or not the accused Valencia, Lee Teng and de Cura are entitled to the benefits available under P.D. No. 370. The scope of application of the tax amnesty declared by P.D. No. 370 is marked out in the following broad terms:
1. A tax amnesty is hereby granted to any person, natural or juridical, who for any reason whatsoever failed to avail of Presidential Decree No. 23 and Presidential Decree No. 157; or, in so availing of the said Presidential Decrees failed to include all that were required to be declared therein if he now voluntarily discloses under this decree all his previously untaxed income and/or wealth such as earnings, receipts, gifts, bequests or any other acquisitions from any source whatsoever which are or were previously taxable under the National Internal Revenue Code, realized here or abroad by condoning all

internal revenue taxes including the increments or penalties on account of non-payment as well as all civil, criminal or administrative liabilities, under the National Internal Revenue Code, the Revised Penal Code, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, the Revised Administrative Code, the Civil Service Laws and Regulations, laws and regulations on Immigration and Deportation, or any other applicable law or proclamation, as it is hereby condoned, provided a tax of fifteen (15%) per centum on such previously untaxed income and/or wealth is imposed subject to the following conditions: a. Such previously untaxed income and/or wealth must have been earned or realized prior to 1973, except the following: b. Capital gains transactions where the taxpayer has availed of Presidential Decree No. 16, as amended, but has not complied with the conditions thereof; c. Tax liabilities with or without assessments, on withholding tax at source provided under Sections 53 and 54 of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended; d. Tax liabilities with assessment notices issued as of December 31, 1 973; e. Tax cases which are the subject of a valid information under Republic Act No. 2338 as of December 31, 1973; and f. Property transferred by reason of death or by donation during the year 1972. xxx xxx xxx

The first point that should be made in respect of P.D. No. 370 is that compliance with all the requirements of availment of tax amnesty under P.D. No. 370 would have the effect of condoning not just income tax liabilities but also "all internal revenue taxes including

the increments or penalties on account of non-payment as well as all civil, criminal or administrative liabilities, under the Internal Revenue Code, the Revised Penal Code, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, the Revised Administrative Code, the Civil Service Laws and Regulations, laws and regulations on Immigration and Deportation, or any other applicable law or proclamation." Thus, entitlement to benefits of P.D. No. 370 would have the effect of condoning or extinguishing the liabilities consequent upon possession of false and counterfeit internal revenue labels; the manufacture of alcoholic products subject to specific tax without having paid the annual privilege tax therefor, and the possession, custody and control of locally manufactured articles subject to specific tax on which the taxes had not been paid in accordance with law, in other words, the criminal liabilities sought to be imposed upon the accused respondents by the several informations quoted above. It should be underscored, secondly, that to be entitled to the extinction of liability provided by P.D. No. 370, the claimant must have voluntarily disclosed his previously untaxed income or wealth and paid the required fifteen percent (15%) tax on such previously untaxed income or wealth imposed by P.D. No.370. 6 Where the disclosure of such previously untaxed income or wealth was not voluntary but rather the accompaniment or result of tax cases or tax assessments already pending as of 31 December 1973, the claimant is not entitled to the benefits of P.D. No. 370. Section 1 (a) (4) of P.D. No. 370, expressly excluded from the coverage of P.D. No. 370: "tax cases which are the subject of a valid information under R.A. No. 2338 as of December

31, 1973." 7 In the instant case, the violations of the National Internal Revenue Code with which the respondent accused were charged, had already been discovered by the BIR when P.D. No. 370 took effect on 9 January 1974, by reason of the sworn information or affidavit-complaints filed by informers with the BIR under Republic Act No. 2338 prior to 31 December 1973. It is necessary to note that the "valid information under Republic Act No. 2338" referred to in Section 1 (a) (4) of P.D. No. 370, refers not to a criminal information filed in court by a fiscal or special prosecutor, but rather to the sworn information or complaint filed by an informer with the BIR under R.A. No. 2338 in the hope of earning an informer's reward. The sworn information or complaint filed with the BIR under R.A. No. 2338 may be considered "valid" where the following conditions are complied with:
(1) that the information was submitted by a person other than an internal revenue or customs official or employee or other public official, or a relative of such official or employee within the sixth degree of consanguinity; (2) that the information must be definite and sworn to and must state the facts constituting the grounds for such information; and (3) that such information was not yet in the possession of the BIR or the Bureau of Customs and does not refer to "a case already pending or previously investigated or examined by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue or the Commissioner of Customs, or any of their deputies, agents or examiners, as the case may be, or the Secretary of Finance or any of his deputies or agents. 8

In the instant case, not one but two (2) "informations' or affidavit-complaints concerning private respondents' operations said to be in violation of certain provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code, had been filed with the BIR as of 31 December 1973. In fact, those two (2) affidavit-complaints had matured into two (2) criminal informations in court -Criminal Cases Nos. 439 and 440 against the respondent accused, by 31 December 1973. The six (6) informations docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 538-543, while filed in court only on 14 March 1974, had been based upon the sworn information previously submitted as of 31 December 1973 to the BIR. It follows that, even assuming respondent accused Francisco Valencia was otherwise entitled to the benefits of P.D. No. 370, none of the informations filed against him could have been condoned under the express provisions of the tax amnesty statute. Accused Valencia argued that the People were estopped from questioning his entitlement to the benefits of the tax amnesty, considering that agents of the BIR had already accepted his application for tax amnesty and his payment of the required fifteen percent (15%) special tax. This contention does not persuade. At the time he paid the special fifteen percent (15%) tax under P.D. No. 370, accused Francisco Valencia had in fact already been subjected by the BIR to extensive investigation such that the criminal charges against him could not be condoned under the provisions of the amnesty statute. Further, acceptance by the BIR agents of accused Valencia's application for tax amnesty and payment of the

fifteen percent (15%) special tax was no more than a ministerial duty on the part of such agents. Accused Valencia does not pretend that the BIR had actually ruled that he was entitled to the benefits of the tax amnesty statute. In any case, even assuming, though only arguendo, that the BIR had so ruled, there is the long familiar rule that "erroneous application and enforcement of the law by public officers do not block, subsequent correct application of the statute and that the government is never estopped by mistake or error on the part of its agent." 9 which finds application in the case at bar. Still further, a tax amnesty, much like to a tax exemption, is never favored nor presumed in law and if granted by statute, the terms of the amnesty like that of a tax exemption must be construed strictly against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing authority. 10 Valencia's payment of the special fifteen percent (15%) tax must be regarded as legally ineffective. We turn to the second substantive issue which is whether or not the dismissal by the respondent court of the criminal informations against accused Valencia, inured to the benefit of Valencia's co-accused. Because of the conclusion reached above, that is, that accused Francisco Valencia was not legally entitled to the benefits of P.D. No. 370 and that the dismissal of the criminal information as against him was serious error on the part of the respondent Judge, it may not be strictly necessary to deal with this second issue. There was in fact nothing that could have inured to the benefit of Valencia's co-accused. It seems appropriate to stress, nonetheless, that co-accused and co-respondents Lee Teng and Priscilla Castillo de Cura, in order to enjoy the

benefits of the tax amnesty statute here involved, must show that they have individually complied with and come within the terms of that statute. 11 The fact that conspiracy had been alleged in each of the criminal informations here involved certainly could not result in an automatic exemption of Lee Teng and Priscilla Castillo de Cura from compliance with the requirements of the tax amnesty statute. In the second place, assuming, for present purposes only, that accused Francisco Valencia was (and he was not) legally entitled to the benefits of P.D. No. 370 the defense of amnesty which (hypothetically) became available to Valencia was personal to him. Once more, the allegation of conspiracy made in the several criminal informations here involved, did not have the effect of making a defense available to one co-conspirator automatically available to the other co-conspirators. The defense of the tax amnesty under P.D. No. 370 is, like insanity, a personal defense; for that defense relates to the circumstances of a particular accused and not to the character of the acts charged in the criminal information. The statute makes the defense of extinguishment of liability available only under very specific circumstances and on the basis of reciprocity, as it were: the claimant must disclose his previously untaxed income or wealth (which then may be effectively subjected to future taxation) and surrender to the Government fifteen percent (15%) of such income or wealth; then, and only then, would the claimant's liability be extinguished. Lee Teng and Pricilla Castillo de Cura never pretended that they had complied with the requirements of PD No. 370, including that of reciprocity. We conclude that the respondent Judge's error in respect of the first and second

substantive issues considered above is so gross and palpable as to amount to arbitrary and capricious action and to grave abuse of discretion. Those orders effectively prevented the People from prosecuting and presenting evidence against the accusedrespondents; they denied the People its day in court. It is well-settled that:
[a] purely capricious dismissal of an information as herein involved, moreover, deprives the State of fair opportunity to prosecute and convict. It denies the prosecution its day in court. Accordingly, it is a dismissal without due process and, therefore, null and void. A dismissal invalid for lack of a fundamental requisite, such as due process, will not constitute a proper basis for the claim of double jeopardy. 12

WHEREFORE, the Orders of respondent Judge dated 15 July 1974, 18 November 1974, 31 March 1976 and 17 February 1977 are hereby SET ASIDE. Respondent Judge no longer being with the Judiciary, the branch of the Regional Trial Court of Pampanga seized of Criminal Cases Nos. 439 and 440, and 538-543 inclusive, against the surviving respondent accused, 13 is hereby ORDERED to proceed with the trial of these criminal cases. Costs against private respondents. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 78133 October 18, 1988 MARIANO P. PASCUAL and RENATO P. DRAGON, petitioners, vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE and COURT OF TAX APPEALS, respondents. De la Cuesta, De las Alas and Callanta Law Offices for petitioners. The Solicitor General for respondents GANCAYCO, J.: The distinction between co-ownership and an unregistered partnership or joint venture for income tax purposes is the issue in this petition. On June 22, 1965, petitioners bought two (2) parcels of land from Santiago Bernardino, et al. and on May 28, 1966, they bought another three (3) parcels of land from Juan Roque. The first two parcels of land were sold by petitioners in 1968 toMarenir Development Corporation, while the three parcels of land were sold by petitioners to Erlinda Reyes and Maria Samson on March 19,1970. Petitioners realized a net profit in the sale made in 1968 in the amount of P165,224.70, while they realized a net profit of P60,000.00 in the sale made in 1970. The corresponding capital gains taxes were paid by petitioners in 1973 and 1974 by availing of the tax amnesties granted in the said

years. However, in a letter dated March 31, 1979 of then Acting BIR Commissioner Efren I. Plana, petitioners were assessed and required to pay a total amount of P107,101.70 as alleged deficiency corporate income taxes for the years 1968 and 1970. Petitioners protested the said assessment in a letter of June 26, 1979 asserting that they had availed of tax amnesties way back in 1974. In a reply of August 22, 1979, respondent Commissioner informed petitioners that in the years 1968 and 1970, petitioners as co-owners in the real estate transactions formed an unregistered partnership or joint venture taxable as a corporation under Section 20(b) and its income was subject to the taxes prescribed under Section 24, both of the National Internal Revenue Code 1 that the unregistered partnership was subject to corporate income tax as distinguished from profits derived from the partnership by them which is subject to individual income tax; and that the availment of tax amnesty under P.D. No. 23, as amended, by petitioners relieved petitioners of their individual income tax liabilities but did not relieve them from the tax liability of the unregistered partnership. Hence, the petitioners were required to pay the deficiency income tax assessed. Petitioners filed a petition for review with the respondent Court of Tax Appeals docketed as CTA Case No. 3045. In due course, the respondent court by a majority decision of March 30, 1987, 2 affirmed the decision and action taken by respondent

commissioner with costs against petitioners. It ruled that on the basis of the principle enunciated in Evangelista 3 an unregistered partnership was in fact formed by petitioners which like a corporation was subject to corporate income tax distinct from that imposed on the partners. In a separate dissenting opinion, Associate Judge Constante Roaquin stated that considering the circumstances of this case, although there might in fact be a coownership between the petitioners, there was no adequate basis for the conclusion that they thereby formed an unregistered partnership which made "hem liable for corporate income tax under the Tax Code. Hence, this petition wherein petitioners invoke as basis thereof the following alleged errors of the respondent court:
A. IN HOLDING AS PRESUMPTIVELY CORRECT THE DETERMINATION OF THE RESPONDENT COMMISSIONER, TO THE EFFECT THAT PETITIONERS FORMED AN UNREGISTERED PARTNERSHIP SUBJECT TO CORPORATE INCOME TAX, AND THAT THE BURDEN OF OFFERING EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION THERETO RESTS UPON THE PETITIONERS. B. IN MAKING A FINDING, SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF ISOLATED SALE TRANSACTIONS, THAT AN UNREGISTERED PARTNERSHIP EXISTED THUS IGNORING THE REQUIREMENTS LAID DOWN BY LAW THAT WOULD WARRANT THE PRESUMPTION/CONCLUSION THAT A PARTNERSHIP EXISTS. C. IN FINDING THAT THE INSTANT CASE IS SIMILAR TO THE EVANGELISTA CASE

AND THEREFORE SHOULD BE DECIDED ALONGSIDE THE EVANGELISTA CASE. D. IN RULING THAT THE TAX AMNESTY DID NOT RELIEVE THE PETITIONERS FROM PAYMENT OF OTHER TAXES FOR THE PERIOD COVERED BY SUCH AMNESTY. (pp. 12-13, Rollo.)

The petition is meritorious. The basis of the subject decision of the respondent court is the ruling of this Court in Evangelista. 4 In the said case, petitioners borrowed a sum of money from their father which together with their own personal funds they used in buying several real properties. They appointed their brother to manage their properties with full power to lease, collect, rent, issue receipts, etc. They had the real properties rented or leased to various tenants for several years and they gained net profits from the rental income. Thus, the Collector of Internal Revenue demanded the payment of income tax on a corporation, among others, from them. In resolving the issue, this Court held as follows:
The issue in this case is whether petitioners are subject to the tax on corporations provided for in section 24 of Commonwealth Act No. 466, otherwise known as the National Internal Revenue Code, as well as to the residence tax for corporations and the real estate dealers' fixed tax. With respect to the tax on corporations, the issue hinges on the meaning of the terms corporation and partnership as used in sections 24 and 84 of said Code, the pertinent parts of which read:

Sec. 24. Rate of the tax on corporations.There shall be levied, assessed, collected, and paid annually upon the total net income received in the preceding taxable year from all sources by every corporation organized in, or existing under the laws of the Philippines, no matter how created or organized but not including duly registered general co-partnerships (companies collectives), a tax upon such income equal to the sum of the following: ... Sec. 84(b). The term "corporation" includes partnerships, no matter how created or organized, joint-stock companies, joint accounts (cuentas en participation), associations or insurance companies, but does not include duly registered general co-partnerships (companies colectivas). Article 1767 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides: By the contract of partnership two or more persons bind themselves to contribute money, property, or industry to a common fund, with the intention of dividing the profits among themselves. Pursuant to this article, the essential elements of a partnership are two, namely: (a) an agreement to contribute money, property or industry to a common fund; and (b) intent to divide the profits among the contracting parties. The first element is undoubtedly present in the case at bar, for, admittedly, petitioners have agreed to, and did, contribute money and property to a common fund. Hence, the issue narrows down to their intent in acting as they did. Upon consideration of all the facts and circumstances surrounding the case, we are fully satisfied that their purpose was to engage in real estate transactions for monetary gain and then divide the same among themselves, because:

1. Said common fund was not something they found already in existence. It was not a property inherited by them pro indiviso. They created it purposely. What is more they jointly borrowed a substantial portion thereof in order to establish said common fund. 2. They invested the same, not merely in one transaction, but in a series of transactions. On February 2, 1943, they bought a lot for P100,000.00. On April 3, 1944, they purchased 21 lots for P18,000.00. This was soon followed, on April 23, 1944, by the acquisition of another real estate for P108,825.00. Five (5) days later (April 28, 1944), they got a fourth lot for P237,234.14. The number of lots (24) acquired and transcations undertaken, as well as the brief interregnum between each, particularly the last three purchases, is strongly indicative of a pattern or common design that was not limited to the conservation and preservation of the aforementioned common fund or even of the property acquired by petitioners in February, 1943. In other words, one cannot but perceive a character of habituality peculiar to business transactions engaged in for purposes of gain. 3. The aforesaid lots were not devoted to residential purposes or to other personal uses, of petitioners herein. The properties were leased separately to several persons, who, from 1945 to 1948 inclusive, paid the total sum of P70,068.30 by way of rentals. Seemingly, the lots are still being so let, for petitioners do not even suggest that there has been any change in the utilization thereof. 4. Since August, 1945, the properties have been under the management of one person, namely, Simeon Evangelists, with full power to lease, to collect rents, to issue receipts, to bring suits, to sign letters and contracts, and to indorse and deposit notes and checks. Thus, the affairs relative to said properties have been handled as if the same belonged

to a corporation or business enterprise operated for profit. 5. The foregoing conditions have existed for more than ten (10) years, or, to be exact, over fifteen (15) years, since the first property was acquired, and over twelve (12) years, since Simeon Evangelists became the manager. 6. Petitioners have not testified or introduced any evidence, either on their purpose in creating the set up already adverted to, or on the causes for its continued existence. They did not even try to offer an explanation therefor. Although, taken singly, they might not suffice to establish the intent necessary to constitute a partnership, the collective effect of these circumstances is such as to leave no room for doubt on the existence of said intent in petitioners herein. Only one or two of the aforementioned circumstances were present in the cases cited by petitioners herein, and, hence, those cases are not in point. 5

In the present case, there is no evidence that petitioners entered into an agreement to contribute money, property or industry to a common fund, and that they intended to divide the profits among themselves. Respondent commissioner and/ or his representative just assumed these conditions to be present on the basis of the fact that petitioners purchased certain parcels of land and became co-owners thereof. In Evangelists, there was a series of transactions where petitioners purchased twentyfour (24) lots showing that the purpose was not limited to the conservation or preservation of the common fund or even the properties acquired by them. The character of habituality peculiar to business transactions engaged in for the purpose of

gain was present. In the instant case, petitioners bought two (2) parcels of land in 1965. They did not sell the same nor make any improvements thereon. In 1966, they bought another three (3) parcels of land from one seller. It was only 1968 when they sold the two (2) parcels of land after which they did not make any additional or new purchase. The remaining three (3) parcels were sold by them in 1970. The transactions were isolated. The character of habituality peculiar to business transactions for the purpose of gain was not present. In Evangelista, the properties were leased out to tenants for several years. The business was under the management of one of the partners. Such condition existed for over fifteen (15) years. None of the circumstances are present in the case at bar. The co-ownership started only in 1965 and ended in 1970. Thus, in the concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Angelo Bautista in Evangelista he said:
I wish however to make the following observation Article 1769 of the new Civil Code lays down the rule for determining when a transaction should be deemed a partnership or a co-ownership. Said article paragraphs 2 and 3, provides; (2) Co-ownership or co-possession does not itself establish a partnership, whether such co-owners or co-possessors do or do not share any profits made by the use of the property; (3) The sharing of gross returns does not of itself establish a partnership, whether or not

the persons sharing them have a joint or common right or interest in any property from which the returns are derived; From the above it appears that the fact that those who agree to form a co- ownership share or do not share any profits made by the use of the property held in common does not convert their venture into a partnership. Or the sharing of the gross returns does not of itself establish a partnership whether or not the persons sharing therein have a joint or common right or interest in the property. This only means that, aside from the circumstance of profit, the presence of other elements constituting partnership is necessary, such as the clear intent to form a partnership, the existence of a juridical personality different from that of the individual partners, and the freedom to transfer or assign any interest in the property by one with the consent of the others (Padilla, Civil Code of the Philippines Annotated, Vol. I, 1953 ed., pp. 635-636) It is evident that an isolated transaction whereby two or more persons contribute funds to buy certain real estate for profit in the absence of other circumstances showing a contrary intention cannot be considered a partnership. Persons who contribute property or funds for a common enterprise and agree to share the gross returns of that enterprise in proportion to their contribution, but who severally retain the title to their respective contribution, are not thereby rendered partners. They have no common stock or capital, and no community of interest as principal proprietors in the business itself which the proceeds derived. (Elements of the Law of Partnership by Flord D. Mechem 2nd Ed., section 83, p. 74.) A joint purchase of land, by two, does not constitute a co-partnership in respect thereto; nor does an agreement to share the profits and losses on the sale of land create a

partnership; the parties are only tenants in common. (Clark vs. Sideway, 142 U.S. 682,12 Ct. 327, 35 L. Ed., 1157.) Where plaintiff, his brother, and another agreed to become owners of a single tract of realty, holding as tenants in common, and to divide the profits of disposing of it, the brother and the other not being entitled to share in plaintiffs commission, no partnership existed as between the three parties, whatever their relation may have been as to third parties. (Magee vs. Magee 123 N.E. 673, 233 Mass. 341.) In order to constitute a partnership inter sese there must be: (a) An intent to form the same; (b) generally participating in both profits and losses; (c) and such a community of interest, as far as third persons are concerned as enables each party to make contract, manage the business, and dispose of the whole property.-Municipal Paving Co. vs. Herring 150 P. 1067, 50 III 470.) The common ownership of property does not itself create a partnership between the owners, though they may use it for the purpose of making gains; and they may, without becoming partners, agree among themselves as to the management, and use of such property and the application of the proceeds therefrom. (Spurlock vs. Wilson, 142 S.W. 363,160 No. App. 14.) 6

The sharing of returns does not in itself establish a partnership whether or not the persons sharing therein have a joint or common right or interest in the property. There must be a clear intent to form a partnership, the existence of a juridical personality different from the individual partners, and the freedom of each party to transfer or assign the whole property.

In the present case, there is clear evidence of co-ownership between the petitioners. There is no adequate basis to support the proposition that they thereby formed an unregistered partnership. The two isolated transactions whereby they purchased properties and sold the same a few years thereafter did not thereby make them partners. They shared in the gross profits as co- owners and paid their capital gains taxes on their net profits and availed of the tax amnesty thereby. Under the circumstances, they cannot be considered to have formed an unregistered partnership which is thereby liable for corporate income tax, as the respondent commissioner proposes. And even assuming for the sake of argument that such unregistered partnership appears to have been formed, since there is no such existing unregistered partnership with a distinct personality nor with assets that can be held liable for said deficiency corporate income tax, then petitioners can be held individually liable as partners for this unpaid obligation of the partnership p. 7 However, as petitioners have availed of the benefits of tax amnesty as individual taxpayers in these transactions, they are thereby relieved of any further tax liability arising therefrom. WHEREFROM, the petition is hereby GRANTED and the decision of the respondent Court of Tax Appeals of March 30, 1987 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and another decision is hereby rendered relieving petitioners of the corporate income tax liability in this case, without pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 139786 September 27, 2006 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner, vs. CITYTRUST INVESTMENT PHILS., INC., respondent. x---------------------------------------------x G.R. No. 140857 September 27, 2006 ASIANBANK CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, respondent. DECISION SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.: Does the twenty percent (20%) final withholding tax (FWT) on a bank's passive income1 form part of the taxable gross receipts for the purpose of computing the five percent (5%) gross receipts tax (GRT)? This is the central issue in the present two (2) consolidated petitions for review. In G.R. No. 139786, petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue (Commissioner) assails the Court of Appeals Decision dated August 17, 1999 in CA-G.R. SP No. 527072 affirming the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) Decision3 ordering the refund or issuance of tax credit certificate in favor of respondent Citytrust Investment Philippines., Inc. (Citytrust). In G.R. No. 140857,

petitioner Asianbank Corporation (Asianbank) challenges the Court of Appeals Decision dated November 22, 1999 in CA-G.R. SP No. 512484 reversing the CTA Decision5 ordering a tax refund in its (Asianbank's) favor. A brief review of the taxation laws provides an adequate backdrop for our subsequent narration of facts. Under Section 27(D), formerly Section 24(e)(1) of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997 (Tax Code), the earnings of banks from passive income are subject to a 20% FWT,6 thus: (D) Rates of Tax on Certain Passive Incomes (1) Interest from Deposits and Yield or any other Monetary Benefit from Deposit Substitutes and from Trust Funds and Similar Arrangements, and Royalties. A final tax at the rate of twenty percent (20%) is hereby imposed upon the amount of interest on currency bank deposit and yield or any other monetary benefit from deposit substitutes and from trust funds and similar arrangements received by domestic corporation and royalties, derived from sources within the Philippines: x x x Apart from the 20% FWT, banks are also subject to the 5% GRT on their gross receipts, which includes their passive income. Section 121 (formerly Section 119) of the Tax Code reads: SEC. 121. Tax on banks and Non-bank financial intermediaries. There shall be collected a tax on gross receipts derived from sources within the Philippines by all banks and non-bank financial intermediaries in accordance with the following schedule:

(a) On interest, commissions and discounts from lending activities as well as income from financial leasing, on the basis of remaining maturities of instruments from which such receipts are derived: Short-term maturity (not in excess of two [2] years) 5%

Medium-term maturity (over two [2] years but not exceeding four [4] years) 3% Long-term maturity (1) Over four (4) years but not exceeding seven (7) years (2) Over seven (7) years (b) On dividends 1% 0% 0% 5%

(c) On royalties, rentals of property, real

or personal, profits from exchange and all other items treated as gross income under Section 32 of this Code Provided, however, That in case the maturity period referred to in paragraph (a) is shortened thru pretermination, then the maturity period shall be reckoned to end as of the date of pretermination for purposes of classifying the transaction as short, medium or longterm and the correct rate of tax shall be applied accordingly. Nothing in this Code shall preclude the Commissioner from imposing the same tax herein provided on persons performing similar banking activities. I - G.R. No. 139786 Citytrust, respondent, is a domestic corporation engaged in quasi-banking activities. In 1994, Citytrust reported the amount of P110,788,542.30 as its total gross receipts and paid the amount of P5,539,427.11 corresponding to its 5% GRT. Meanwhile, on January 30, 1996, the CTA, in Asian Bank Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue7 (ASIAN BANK case), ruled that the basis in computing the 5% GRT is the gross receipts minus the 20% FWT. In other words, the 20% FWT on a bank's passive income does not form part of the taxable gross receipts. On July 19, 1996, Citytrust, inspired by the above-mentioned CTA ruling, filed with the Commissioner a written claim for the tax refund or credit in the amount of P326,007.01. It

alleged that its reported total gross receipts included the 20% FWT on its passive income amounting to P32,600,701.25. Thus, it sought to be reimbursed of the 5% GRT it paid on the portion of 20% FWT or the amount of P326,007.01. On the same date, Citytrust filed a petition for review with the CTA, which eventually granted its claim.8 On appeal by the Commissioner, the Court of Appeals affirmed the CTA Decision, citing as main bases Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Tours Specialist Inc.9 and Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Manila Jockey Club,10 holding that monies or receipts that do not redound to the benefit of the taxpayer are not part of its gross receipts, thus: Patently, as expostulated by our Supreme Court, monies or receipts that do not redound to the benefit of the taxpayer are not part of its gross receipts for the purpose of computing its taxable gross receipts. In Manila Jockey Club, a portion of the wager fund and the ten-peso contribution, although actually received by the Club, was not considered as part of its gross receipts for the purpose of imposing the amusement tax. Similarly, in Tours Specialists, the room or hotel charges actually received by them from the foreign travel agency was, likewise, not included in its gross receipts for the imposition of the 3% contractor's tax. In both cases, the fees, bets or hotel charges, as the case may be, were actually received and held in trust by the taxpayers. On the other hand, the 20% final tax on the Respondent's passive income was already deducted and withheld by various withholding agents. Hence, the actual or the exact amount received by the Respondent,

as its passive income in the year 1994, was less the 20% final tax already withheld by various withholding agents. The various withholding agents at source were required under section 50 (a), of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1986, to withhold the 20% final tax on certain passive income x x x. Moreover, under Section 51 (g) of the said Code, all taxes withheld pursuant to the provisions of this Code and its implementing regulations are considered trust funds and shall be maintained in a separate account and not commingled with any other funds of the withholding agent. Accordingly, the 20% final tax withheld against the Respondent's passive income was already remitted to the Bureau of Internal Revenue, for the corresponding year that the same was actually withheld and considered final withholding taxes under Section 50 of the same Code. Indubitably, to include the same to the Respondent's gross receipts for the year 1994 would be to tax twice the passive income derived by Respondent for the said year, which would constitute double taxation anathema to our taxation laws. II - G.R. No. 140857 Asianbank, petitioner, is a domestic corporation also engaged in banking business. For the taxable quarters ending June 30, 1994 to June 30, 1996, Asianbank filed and remitted to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) the 5% GRT on its total gross receipts. On the strength of the January 30, 1996 CTA Decision in the ASIAN BANK case, Asianbank

filed with the Commissioner a claim for refund of the overpaid GRT amounting to P2,022,485.78. To toll the running of the two-year prescriptive period for filing of claims, Asianbank also filed a petition for review with the CTA. On February 3, 1999, the CTA allowed refund in the reduced amount of P1,345,743.01,11 the amount proven by Asianbank. Unsatisfied, the Commissioner filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for review. On November 22, 1999, the Court of Appeals reversed the CTA Decision and ruled in favor of the Commissioner, thus: It is true that Revenue Regulation No. 12-80 provides that the gross receipts tax on banks and other financial institutions should be based on all items of income actually received. Actual receipt here is used in opposition to mere accrual. Accrued income refers to income already earned but not yet received. (Rep. v. Lim Tian Teng Sons & Co., 16 SCRA 584). But receipt may be actual or constructive. Article 531 of the Civil Code provides that possession is acquired by the material occupation of a thing or the exercise of a right, or by the fact that it is subject to the action of one will, or by the proper acts and legal formalities established for acquiring such right. Moreover, taxation income may be received by the taxpayer himself or by someone authorized to receive it for him (Art. 532, Civil Code). The 20% final tax withheld from interest income of banks and other similar institutions is not income that they have not received; it is simply withheld from them and paid to

the government, for their benefit. Thus, the 20% income tax withheld from the interest income is, in fact, money of the taxpayer bank but paid by the payor to the government in satisfaction of the bank's obligation to pay the tax on interest earned. It is the bank's obligation to pay the tax. Hence, the withholding of the said tax and its payment to the government is for its benefit. xxx The case of Collector of Internal Revenue vs. Manila Jockey Club is inapplicable. In that case, a percentage of the gross receipts to be collected by the Manila Jockey Club was earmarked by law to be turned over to the Board on Races and distributed as prizes among owners of winning horses and authorized bonus for jockeys. The Manila Jockey Club itself derives no benefit at all from earmarked percentage. That is why it cannot be considered as part of its gross receipts. WHEREFORE, the C.T.A's judgment herein appealed from is hereby REVERSED, and judgment is hereby rendered DISMISSING the respondent's Petition for Review in C.T.A Case No. 5412. SO ORDERED. Hence, the present consolidated petitions. The Commissioner's arguments in the two (2) petitions may be synthesized as follows: first, there is no law which excludes the 20% FWT from the taxable gross receipts for the

purpose of computing the 5% GRT; second, the imposition of the 20% FWT on the bank's passive income and the 5% GRT on its taxable gross receipts, which include the bank's passive income, does not constitute double taxation; third, the ruling by this Court in Manila Jockey Club,12 cited in the ASIAN BANK case, is not applicable; and fourth, in the computation of the 5% GRT, the passive income need not be actually received in order to form part of the taxable gross receipts. In its Resolution13 dated January 17, 2000, this Court adopted as Citytrust's Comment on the instant petition for review its Memorandum submitted to the CTA and its Comment submitted to the Court of Appeals. Citytrust contends therein that: first, Section 4(e) of Revenue Regulations No. 12-80 dated November 7, 1980 provides that the rates of taxes on the gross receipts of financial institutions shall be based only on all items of income actually received; and, second, this Court's ruling in Manila Jockey Club14 is applicable. Asianbank echoes similar arguments. We rule in favor of the Commissioner. The issue of whether the 20% FWT on a bank's interest income forms part of the taxable gross receipts for the purpose of computing the 5% GRT is no longer novel. This has been previously resolved by this Court in a catena of cases, such as China Banking Corporation v. Court of Appeals,15 Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Solidbank Corporation,16 Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Bank of Commerce,17 and the latest, Commissioner of Internal Revenue v.

Bank of the Philippine Islands.18 The above cases are unanimous in defining "gross receipts" as "the entire receipts without any deduction." We quote the Court's enlightening ratiocination in Bank of the Philippines Islands,19 thus: The Tax Code does not provide a definition of the term "gross receipts". Accordingly, the term is properly understood in its plain and ordinary meaning and must be taken to comprise of the entire receipts without any deduction. We, thus, made the following disquisition in Bank of Commerce: The word "gross" must be used in its plain and ordinary meaning. It is defined as "whole, entire, total, without deduction." A common definition is "without deduction." "Gross" is also defined as "taking in the whole; having no deduction or abatement; whole, total as opposed to a sum consisting of separate or specified parts." Gross is the antithesis of net. Indeed, in China Banking Corporation v. Court of Appeals, the Court defined the term in this wise: As commonly understood, the term "gross receipts" means the entire receipts without any deduction. Deducting any amount from the gross receipts changes the result, and the meaning, to net receipts. Any deduction from gross receipts is inconsistent with a law that mandates a tax on gross receipts, unless the law itself makes an exception. As explained by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Koppers Company, Inc.

Highly refined and technical tax concepts have been developed by the accountant and legal technician primarily because of the impact of federal income tax legislation. However, this is no way should affect or control the normal usage of words in the construction of our statutes; and we see nothing that would require us not to include the proceeds here in question in the gross receipts allocation unless statutorily such inclusion is prohibited. Under the ordinary basic methods of handling accounts, the term gross receipts, in the absence of any statutory definition of the term, must be taken to include the whole total gross receipts without any deductions, x x x. [Citations omitted] (Emphasis supplied)" Likewise, in Laclede Gas Co. v. City of St. Louis, the Supreme Court of Missouri held: The word "gross" appearing in the term "gross receipts," as used in the ordinance, must have been and was there used as the direct antithesis of the word "net." In its usual and ordinary meaning, "gross receipts" of a business is the whole and entire amount of the receipts without deduction, x x x. On the ordinary, "net receipts" usually are the receipts which remain after deductions are made from the gross amount thereof of the expenses and cost of doing business, including fixed charges and depreciation. Gross receipts become net receipts after certain proper deductions are made from the gross. And in the use of the words "gross receipts," the instant ordinance, or course,

precluded plaintiff from first deducting its costs and expenses of doing business, etc., in arriving at the higher base figure upon which it must pay the 5% tax under this ordinance. (Emphasis supplied) xxxxxx Additionally, we held in Solidbank, to wit: [W]e note that US cases have persuasive effect in our jurisdiction because Philippine income tax law is patterned after its US counterpart. [G]ross receipts with respect to any period means the sum of: (a) The total amount received or accrued during such period from the sale, exchange, or other disposition of x x x other property of a kind which would properly be included in the inventory of the taxpayer if on hand at the close of the taxable year, or property held by the taxpayer primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of its trade or business, and (b) The gross income, attributable to a trade or business, regularly carried on by the taxpayer, received or accrued during such period x x x. x x x [B]y gross earnings from operations x x x was intended all operations x x x including incidental, subordinate, and subsidiary operations, as well as principal operations. When we speak of the "gross earnings" of a person or corporation, we

mean the entire earnings or receipts of such person or corporation from the business or operation to which we refer. From these cases, "gross receipts" refer to the total, as opposed to the net income. These are therefore the total receipts before any deduction for the expenses of management. Webster's New International Dictionary, in fact, defines gross as "whole or entire." In China Banking Corporation,20 this Court further explained that the legislative intent to apply the term in its plain and ordinary meaning may be surmised from a historical perspective of the levy on gross receipts. From the time the GRT on banks was first imposed in 1946 under Republic Act No. 3921 and throughout its successive re-enactments,22 the legislature has not established a definition of the term "gross receipts." Under Revenue Regulations No. 12-80 and No. 17-84, as well as several numbered rulings, the BIR has consistently ruled that the term "gross receipts" does not admit of any deduction. This interpretation has remained unchanged throughout the various re-enactments of the present Section 121 of the Tax Code. On the presumption that the legislature is familiar with the contemporaneous interpretation of a statute given by the administrative agency tasked to enforce the statute, the reasonable conclusion is that the legislature has adopted the BIR's interpretation. In other words, the subsequent re-enactments of the present Section 121, without changes in the term interpreted by the BIR, confirm that its interpretation carries out the legislative purpose. Now, bereft of any laudable statutory basis, Citytrust and Asianbank simply anchor their

argument on Section 4(e) of Revenue Regulations No. 12-80 stating that "the rates of taxes to be imposed on the gross receipts of such financial institutions shall be based on all items of income actually received." They contend that since the 20% FWT is withheld at source and is paid directly to the government by the entities from which the banks derived the income, the same cannot be considered actually received, hence, must be excluded from the taxable gross receipts. The argument is bereft of merit. First, Section 4(e) merely recognizes that income may be taxable either at the time of its actual receipt or its accrual, depending on the accounting method of the taxpayer. It does not really exclude accrued interest income from the taxable gross receipts but merely postpones its inclusion until actual payment of the interest to the lending bank. Thus, while it is true that Section 4(e) states that "the rates of taxes to be imposed on the gross receipts of such financial institutions shall be based on all items of income actually received," it goes on to distinguish actual receipt from accrual, i.e., that "mere accrual shall not be considered, but once payment is received in such accrual or in case of prepayment, then the amount actually received shall be included in the tax base of such financial institutions." And second, Revenue Regulations No. 12-80, issued on November 7, 1980, had been superseded by Revenue Regulations No. 17-84 issued on October 12, 1984. Section 4(e) of Revenue Regulations No. 12-80 provides that only items of income actually received shall be included in the tax base for computing the GRT. On the other hand, Section 7(c) of Revenue Regulations No. 17-84 includes all interest income in computing the GRT, thus:

SECTION 7. Nature and Treatment of Interest on Deposits and Yield on Deposit Substitutes. (a) The interest earned on Philippine Currency bank deposits and yield from deposit substitutes subjected to the withholding taxes in accordance with these regulations need not be included in the gross income in computing the depositor's/investor's income tax liability in accordance with the provision of Section 29 (b), (c) and (d) of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended. (b) Only interest paid or accrued on bank deposits, or yield from deposit substitutes declared for purposes of imposing the withholding taxes in accordance with these regulations shall be allowed as interest expense deductible for purposes of computing taxable net income of the payor. (c) If the recipient of the above-mentioned items of income are financial institutions, the same shall be included as part of the tax base upon which the gross receipt tax is imposed. Revenue Regulations No. 17-84 categorically states that if the recipient of the above-mentioned items of income are financial institutions, the same shall be included as part of the tax base upon which the gross receipt tax is imposed. There is, therefore, an implied repeal of Section 4(e). There exists a disparity between Section 4(e) which imposes the GRT only on all items of income actually received (as opposed to their mere accrual) and Section 7(c) which includes all interest income (whether actual or accrued) in computing the GRT. As held by this Court in

Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Solidbank Corporation,23 "the exception having been eliminated, the clear intent is that the later R.R. No. 17-84 includes the exception within the scope of the general rule." Clearly, then, the current Revenue Regulations require interest income, whether actually received or merely accrued, to form part of the bank's taxable gross receipts.2 Moreover, this Court, in Bank of Commerce,25 settled the matter by holding that "actual receipt may either be physical receipt or constructive receipt," thus: Actual receipt of interest income is not limited to physical receipt. Actual receipt may either be physical receipt or constructive receipt. When the depositary bank withholds the final tax to pay the tax liability of the lending bank, there is prior to the withholding a constructive receipt by the lending bank of the amount withheld. From the amount constructively received by the lending bank, the depositary bank deducts the final withholding tax and remits it to the government for the account of the lending bank. Thus, the interest income actually received by the lending bank, both physically and constructively, is the net interest plus the amount withheld as final tax. The concept of a withholding tax on income obviously and necessarily implies that the amount of the tax withheld comes from the income earned by the taxpayer. Since the amount of the tax withheld constitute income earned by the taxpayer, then that amount manifestly forms part of the taxpayer's gross receipts. Because the amount withheld belongs to the taxpayer, he can transfer its ownership to the government in payment of his

tax liability. The amount withheld indubitably comes from the income of the taxpayer, and thus forms part of his gross receipts. Corollarily, the Commissioner contends that the imposition of the 20% FWT and 5% GRT does not constitute double taxation. We agree. Double taxation means taxing for the same tax period the same thing or activity twice, when it should be taxed but once, for the same purpose and with the same kind of character of tax.26 This is not the situation in the case at bar. The GRT is a percentage tax under Title V of the Tax Code ([Section 121], Other Percentage Taxes), while the FWT is an income tax under Title II of the Code (Tax on Income). The two concepts are different from each other. In Solidbank Corporation,27 this Court defined that a percentage tax is a national tax measured by a certain percentage of the gross selling price or gross value in money of goods sold, bartered or imported; or of the gross receipts or earnings derived by any person engaged in the sale of services. It is not subject to withholding. An income tax, on the other hand, is a national tax imposed on the net or the gross income realized in a taxable year. It is subject to withholding. Thus, there can be no double taxation here as the Tax Code imposes two different kinds of taxes. Now, both Asianbank and Citytrust rely on Manila Jockey Club28 in support of their positions. We are not convinced. In said case, Manila Jockey Club paid amusement tax on its commission in the total amount of bets called wager funds from the period November 1946 to October 1950. But such payment did not include the 5 % of the funds which went to the Board on Races and

to the owners of horses and jockeys. We ruled that the gross receipts of the Manila Jockey Club should not include the 5 % because although delivered to the Club, such money has been especially earmarked by law or regulation for other persons. The Manila Jockey Club29 does not apply to the cases at bar because what happened there is earmarking and not withholding. Earmarking is not the same as withholding. Amounts earmarked do not form part of gross receipts because these are by law or regulation reserved for some person other than the taxpayer, although delivered or received. On the contrary, amounts withheld form part of gross receipts because these are in constructive possession and not subject to any reservation, the withholding agent being merely a conduit in the collection process.30 The distinction was explained in Solidbank, thus: "The Manila Jockey Club had to deliver to the Board on Races, horse owners and jockeys amounts that never became the property of the race track (Manila Jockey Club merely held that these amounts were held in trust and did not form part of gross receipts). Unlike these amounts, the interest income that had been withheld for the government became property of the financial institutions upon constructive possession thereof. Possession was indeed acquired, since it was ratified by the financial institutions in whose name the act of possession had been executed. The money indeed belonged to the taxpayers; merely holding it in trust was not enough (A trustee does not own money received in trust.) It is a basic concept in taxation that such money does not constitute taxable income to the trustee [China Banking Corp. v. Court of Appeals, supra, p. 27]).

The government subsequently becomes the owner of the money when the financial institutions pay the FWT to extinguish their obligation to the government. As this Court has held before, this is the consideration for the transfer of ownership of the FWT from these institutions to the government (Ibid., p. 26). It is ownership that determines whether interest income forms part of taxable gross receipts (Ibid., p. 27). Being originally owned by these financial institutions as part of their interest income, the FWT should form part of their taxable gross receipts. In fine, let it be stressed that tax exemptions are highly disfavored. It is a governing principle in taxation that tax exemptions are to be construed in strictissimi juris against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing authority and should be granted only by clear and unmistakable terms. WHEREFORE, in G.R. No. 139786, we GRANT the petition of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and REVERSE the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated August 17, 1999 in CAG.R. SP No. 52707. In G.R. No. 140857, we DENY the petition of Asianbank Corporation and AFFIRM in toto the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 51248. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. L-24756 October 31, 1968 CITY OF BAGUIO, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FORTUNATO DE LEON, defendant-appellant. The City Attorney for plaintiff-appellee. Fortunato de Leon for and in his own behalf as defendant-appellant. FERNANDO, J.: In this appeal, a lower court decision upholding the validity of an ordinance1 of the City of Baguio imposing a license fee on any person, firm, entity or corporation doing business in the City of Baguio is assailed by defendant-appellant Fortunato de Leon. He was held liable as a real estate dealer with a property therein worth more than P10,000, but not in excess of P50,000, and therefore obligated to pay under such ordinance the P50 annual fee. That is the principal question. In addition, there has been a firm and unyielding insistence by defendant-appellant of the lack of jurisdiction of the City Court of Baguio, where the suit originated, a complaint having been filed against him by the City Attorney of Baguio for his failure to pay the amount of P300 as license fee covering the period from the first quarter of 1958 to the fourth quarter of 1962, allegedly, inspite of repeated demands. Nor was defendant-appellant agreeable to such a suit being instituted by the City Treasurer without the consent of the Mayor, which for him was indispensable. The lower court was of a different mind. In its decision of December 19, 1964, it declared the above ordinance as amended, valid and

subsisting, and held defendant-appellant liable for the fees therein prescribed as a real estate dealer. Hence, this appeal. Assume the validity of such ordinance, and there would be no question about the liability of defendant-appellant for the above license fee, it being shown in the partial stipulation of facts, that he was "engaged in the rental of his property in Baguio" deriving income therefrom during the period covered by the first quarter of 1958 to the fourth quarter of 1962. The source of authority for the challenged ordinance is supplied by Republic Act No. 329, amending the city charter of Baguio2 empowering it to fix the license fee and regulate "businesses, trades and occupations as may be established or practiced in the City." Unless it can be shown then that such a grant of authority is not broad enough to justify the enactment of the ordinance now assailed, the decision appealed from must be affirmed. The task confronting defendant-appellant, therefore, was far from easy. Why he failed is understandable, considering that even a cursory reading of the above amendment readily discloses that the enactment of the ordinance in question finds support in the power thus conferred. Nor is the question raised by him as to the validity thereof novel in character. In Medina v. City of Baguio,3 the effect of the amendatory section insofar as it would expand the previous power vested by the city charter was clarified in these terms: "Appellants apparently have in mind section 2553, paragraph (c) of the Revised Administrative Code, which empowers the City of Baguio merely to impose a license fee for the purpose of rating the business that may be established in the city. The power as thus conferred is indeed limited, as it does not include the

power to levy a tax. But on July 15, 1948, Republic Act No. 329 was enacted amending the charter of said city and adding to its power to license the power to tax and to regulate. And it is precisely having in view this amendment that Ordinance No. 99 was approved in order to increase the revenues of the city. In our opinion, the amendment above adverted to empowers the city council not only to impose a license fee but also to levy a tax for purposes of revenue, more so when in amending section 2553 (b), the phrase 'as provided by law' has been removed by section 2 of Republic Act No. 329. The city council of Baguio, therefore, has now the power to tax, to license and to regulate provided that the subjects affected be one of those included in the charter. In this sense, the ordinance under consideration cannot be considered ultra vires whether its purpose be to levy a tax or impose a license fee. The terminology used is of no consequence." It would be an undue and unwarranted emasculation of the above power thus granted if defendant-appellant were to be sustained in his contention that no such statutory authority for the enactment of the challenged ordinance could be discerned from the language used in the amendatory act. That is about all that needs to be said in upholding the lower court, considering that the City of Baguio was not devoid of authority in enacting this particular ordinance. As mentioned at the outset, however, defendant-appellant likewise alleged procedural missteps and asserted that the challenged ordinance suffered from certain constitutional infirmities. To such points raised by him, we shall now turn. 1. Defendant-appellant makes much of the alleged lack of jurisdiction of the City Court of Baguio in the suit for the collection of the real estate dealer's fee from him in the amount of

P300. He contended before the lower court, and it is his contention now, that while the amount of P300 sought was within the jurisdiction of the City Court of Baguio where this action originated, since the principal issue was the legality and constitutionality of the challenged ordinance, it is not such City Court but the Court of First Instance that has original jurisdiction. There is here a misapprehension of the Judiciary Act. The City Court has jurisdiction. Only recently, on September 7, 1968 to be exact, we rejected a contention similar in character in Nemenzo v. Sabillano.4 The plaintiff in that case filed a claim for the payment of his salary before the Justice of the Peace Court of Pagadian, Zamboanga del Sur. The question of jurisdiction was raised; the defendant Mayor asserted that what was in issue was the enforcement of the decision of the Commission of Civil Service; the Justice of the Peace Court was thus without jurisdiction to try the case. The above plea was curtly dismissed by Us, as what was involved was "an ordinary money claim" and therefore "within the original jurisdiction of the Justice of the Peace Court where it was filed, considering the amount involved." Such is likewise the situation here. Moreover, in City of Manila v. Bugsuk Lumber Co.,5 a suit to collect from a defendant this license fee corresponding to the years 1951 and 1952 was filed with the Municipal Court of Manila, in view of the amount involved. The thought that the municipal court lacked jurisdiction apparently was not even in the minds of the parties and did not receive any consideration by this Court. Evidently, the fear is entertained by defendant-appellant that whenever a constitutional question

is raised, it is the Court of First Instance that should have original jurisdiction on the matter. It does not admit of doubt, however, that what confers jurisdiction is the amount set forth in the complaint. Here, the sum sought to be recovered was clearly within the jurisdiction of the City Court of Baguio. Nor could it be plausibly maintained that the validity of such ordinance being open to question as a defense against its enforcement from one adversely affected, the matter should be elevated to the Court of First Instance. For the City Court could rely on the presumption of the validity of such ordinance,6 and the mere fact, however, that in the answer to such a complaint a constitutional question was raised did not suffice to oust the City Court of its jurisdiction. The suit remains one for collection, the lack of validity being only a defense to such an attempt at recovery. Since the City Court is possessed of judicial power and it is likewise axiomatic that the judicial power embraces the ascertainment of facts and the application of the law, the Constitution as the highest law superseding any statute or ordinance in conflict therewith, it cannot be said that a City Court is bereft of competence to proceed on the matter. In the exercise of such delicate power, however, the admonition of Cooley on inferior tribunals is well worth remembering. Thus: "It must be evident to any one that the power to declare a legislative enactment void is one which the judge, conscious of the fallibility of the human judgment, will shrink from exercising in any case where he can conscientiously and with due regard to duty and official oath decline the responsibility."7 While it remains undoubted that such a power to pass on the validity of an ordinance alleged to infringe certain constitutional rights of a litigant exists, still it should be exercised with due care and circumspection, considering not only the

presumption of validity but also the relatively modest rank of a city court in the judicial hierarchy. 2. To repeat the challenged ordinance cannot be considered ultra vires as there is more than ample statutory authority for the enactment thereof. Nonetheless, its validity on constitutional grounds is challenged because of the allegation that it imposed double taxation, which is repugnant to the due process clause, and that it violated the requirement of uniformity. We do not view the matter thus. As to why double taxation is not violative of due process, Justice Holmes made clear in this language: "The objection to the taxation as double may be laid down on one side. ... The 14th Amendment [the due process clause] no more forbids double taxation than it does doubling the amount of a tax, short of confiscation or proceedings unconstitutional on other grounds."8With that decision rendered at a time when American sovereignty in the Philippines was recognized, it possesses more than just a persuasive effect. To some, it delivered the coup de grace to the bogey of double taxation as a constitutional bar to the exercise of the taxing power. It would seem though that in the United States, as with us, its ghost as noted by an eminent critic, still stalks the juridical state. In a 1947 decision, however,9 we quoted with approval this excerpt from a leading American decision:10 "Where, as here, Congress has clearly expressed its intention, the statute must be sustained even though double taxation results." At any rate, it has been expressly affirmed by us that such an "argument against double taxation may not be invoked where one tax is imposed by the state and the other is imposed by the city ...,

it being widely recognized that there is nothing inherently obnoxious in the requirement that license fees or taxes be exacted with respect to the same occupation, calling or activity by both the state and the political subdivisions thereof."11 The above would clearly indicate how lacking in merit is this argument based on double taxation. Now, as to the claim that there was a violation of the rule of uniformity established by the constitution. According to the challenged ordinance, a real estate dealer who leases property worth P50,000 or above must pay an annual fee of P100. If the property is worth P10,000 but not over P50,000, then he pays P50 and P24 if the value is less than P10,000. On its face, therefore, the above ordinance cannot be assailed as violative of the constitutional requirement of uniformity. In Philippine Trust Company v. Yatco,12 Justice Laurel, speaking for the Court, stated: "A tax is considered uniform when it operates with the same force and effect in every place where the subject may be found." There was no occasion in that case to consider the possible effect on such a constitutional requirement where there is a classification. The opportunity came in Eastern Theatrical Co. v. Alfonso.13 Thus: "Equality and uniformity in taxation means that all taxable articles or kinds of property of the same class shall be taxed at the same rate. The taxing power has the authority to make reasonable and natural classifications for purposes of taxation; ..." About two years later, Justice Tuason, speaking for this Court in Manila Race Horses Trainers Assn. v. De la Fuente14 incorporated the above excerpt in his opinion and continued: "Taking everything into account, the differentiation against which the plaintiffs complain conforms to the practical dictates of

justice and equity and is not discriminatory within the meaning of the Constitution." To satisfy this requirement then, all that is needed as held in another case decided two years later, 15 is that the statute or ordinance in question "applies equally to all persons, firms and corporations placed in similar situation." This Court is on record as accepting the view in a leading American case16 that "inequalities which result from a singling out of one particular class for taxation or exemption infringe no constitutional limitation."17 It is thus apparent from the above that in much the same way that the plea of double taxation is unavailing, the allegation that there was a violation of the principle of uniformity is inherently lacking in persuasiveness. There is no need to pass upon the other allegations to assail the validity of the above ordinance, it being maintained that the license fees therein imposed "is excessive, unreasonable and oppressive" and that there is a failure to observe the mandate of equal protection. A reading of the ordinance will readily disclose their inherent lack of plausibility. 3. That would dispose of all the errors assigned, except the last two, which would predicate a grievance on the complaint having been started by the City Treasurer rather than the City Mayor of Baguio. These alleged errors, as was the case with the others assigned, lack merit. In much the same way that an act of a department head of the national government, performed within the limits of his authority, is presumptively the act of the President unless reprobated or disapproved,18 similarly the act of the City Treasurer, whose position is roughly analogous, may be assumed to carry the seal of approval of the City Mayor unless repudiated or set aside. This

should be the case considering that such city official is called upon to see to it that revenues due the City are collected. When administrative steps are futile and unavailing, given the stubbornness and obduracy of a taxpayer, convinced in good faith that no tax was due, judicial remedy may be resorted to by him. It would be a reflection on the state of the law if such fidelity to duty would be met by condemnation rather than commendation. So, much for the analytical approach. The conclusion thus reached has a reinforcement that comes to it from the functional and pragmatic test. If a city treasurer has to await the nod from the city mayor before a municipal ordinance is enforced, then opportunity exists for favoritism and undue discrimination to come into play. Whatever valid reason may exist as to why one taxpayer is to be accorded a treatment denied another, the suspicion is unavoidable that such a manifestation of official favor could have been induced by unnamed but not unknown consideration. It would not be going too far to assert that even defendant-appellant would find no satisfaction in such a sad state of affairs. The more desirable legal doctrine therefore, on the assumption that a choice exists, is one that would do away with such temptation on the part of both taxpayer and public official alike. WHEREFORE, the lower court decision of December 19, 1964, is hereby affirmed. Costs against defendant-appellant.

G.R. Nos. L-13887 and L-13890 June 30, 1960 THE COLLECTOR (now Commissioner) OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner, vs. MANILA JOCKEY CLUB, INC., respondent. THE COMMISSIONER (formerly Collector) OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner, vs. MANILA JOCKEY CLUB, INC., respondent. Assistant Solicitor General Jose P. Alejandro and Atty. Jose G. Azurin for petitioner. Marcial P. Lichauco and Alfonso V. Agcaoili for respondent. BENGZON, J.: Statement.The Commissioner (formerly Collector) of Internal Revenue has appealed from two decisions of the Court of Tax Appeals from two decisionsof the Court of Tax appeals disapproving his levy of amusement taxes upon the Manila Jockey Club, a corporation duly organized and authorized to hold horse races in Manila. First case.In such races, betting is made through the sale of tickets tothe public. The total amount of bets is called wager funds, which were distributed, pursuant to Executive Order 320 and Republic Act 309, as follows:[in regular races]1 87- as dividends to holders of

1/2 winning tickets; 12- as "commission" of the 1/2 Manila Jockey Club, of which 1/2% was assigned to the Board on Races and 5% was distributed as prizes for owners of winning horses and authorized bonuses for jockeys. During the period November 1946 to October 1950, the Manila Jockey Club paid amusement tax on its commission abovementioned but without including the 5 1/2% which, as stated, went to the Board on Races and to the owners of horses and jockeys. Under the Internal Revenue Law, sec. 260, the amusement tax was payable by the operator on its "gross receipts." Yet the ManilaJockey Club did not consider as part of its "gross receipts" subject to amusement tax the amounts which it had to deliver to the Board on Races, the horse owners and the jockeys. In this view it was fully sustained by three opinions of the Secreatry of Justice rendered on three different occasions (Opinion No. 345, series of 1941; Opinion No. 249, series of 1952 and Opinion No. 340, series of 1955). Said the Secretary:

There is no question that the Manila Jockey Club, Inc. owns only 7-1/2% of the total bets registered by the Totalizer. This portion represents its share or commission in the total amount of money it handles and goes to the funds thereof as its own property which it may legally disburse for its own purposes. The 5% does not belong to the club. It is merely held in trust for distribution as prizes to the owners of winning horses. It is destined for no other object than the payment of prizes and the club cannot otherwise appropriate this portion without incurring liability to the owners of winning horses. It can not be considered as an item of expense because the sum used for the payment of prizes is not taken from the funds of the club but from a certain portion of the total bets especially earmarked for that purpose. In view of all foregoing, I am of the opinion that in the submission of the returns for the amusement tax of 10% (now it is 20%) of the "gross receipts", provided for in section 260 of the National Internal Revenue Code, the 5% of the total bets that is set aside for prizes to owners of winning horses should not be included by the Manila Jockey Club, Inc. Notwithstanding the opinion of the legal adviser of the Government, in October 1955, the Collector of Internal Revenue demanded payment of amusement taxes amounting to P401,173.20 plus P39,810.00, for the period of November 1946 to October 1950. After resisting the demand and making appropriate representations, the Manila Jockey Club resorted to the Court of Tax Appeals wherein it obtained judgment unanimously reversing the Collector's stand in the matter.

In this appeal, the appellant cites two opinion of the aforesaid Department Head, particularly Opinion No. 135, series of 1950. But the Department itself in subsequent opinions, explained that there is no conflict between this Opinion No. 135 and the Opinion No. 345 of October 1941. The former made a general statement of the rule about gross receipts (and referred to theater tickets). The latter specifically declared that the 5% reserved to horse owners and jockeys of the Manila Jockey Club should not be included in the computation of gross receipts for purposes of the amusement tax. Thus, for several years, the Executive Department (including previous Collectors of Internal Revenue who at one time or another, attempted tocollect on this portion of the "commission" of the Jockey Club, but who had to desist it in view of the Secretary of Justice's opinions), proceeded on the principle that such funds are not included as "gross receipts" of the Jockey Club. As the court a quo holds, such interpretation deserves great weight. More so in this case, because the Legislature has lately amended the law making it clearer, and ordering distribution of the total wager funds as follows: (in regular races) 87-1/2 % dividends for winning tickets; 6-1/2 % commission of the racing club; 5-1/2 % prizes of owners of winning horses and

jockeys; and 1/2 % for the Games and Amusements Boards (successors of Board on Races). [Rupublic Act 1933] At this point, the arrangement of appellee on the inequity of requiring it to pay amusement tax on these funds may favorably be quoted; after the Secretary of Justice rendered his official Opinion No. 345 (October 1945), "the Club necessarily could not and did not deduct any amount (amusement tax) from the prizes turned over (by it) to the owners of the winning horses. ... It is most unjust and unfair to say the least, for the government (now) to hold the Club liable for amusement tax on funds ... which it turned over without deductions to the parties entitled thereto" relying upon the advice of the Goverment's legal adviser. The Secretary's opinion was correct. The Government could not have meant to tax as gross receipt of the Manila Jockey Club the 1/2 % which it directs same Club to turn over to the Board on Races. The latter being a Government institution, there would be double taxation, which should be avoided unless the statute admits of no other interpretation. In the same manner, theGovernment could not have intended to consider as gross receipt the portion of the funds which it directed the Club to give, or knew the Club would give, to winning horses and

jockeysadmittedly 5%. It is true that the law says that out of the total wager funds 12-1/2 % shall be set aside as the "commission" of the race track owner, but the law itself takes official notice, and actually approves or directs payment of the portion that goes to owners of horses as prizes and bonuses of jockeys, which portion is admittedly 5% out of that 12 1/2% commission. As it did not at that time contemplate the application of "gross receipts" revenue principle, the law in making distribution of the total wager funds, took no trouble of separating one item from the other; and for convenience, grouped three items under one common denomination. Needless to say, gross receipts of the proprietor of the amusement place should not include any money which although delivered to the amusement place has been especially earmarked by law or regulation for some person other than the proprietor.2 The appellants seems to labor under the impression that since the Jockey Club, at least for some time held possession of the money represented by12-1/2 % before paying over 5% to horse owners and jockeys and 1/2% to the Board on Races, the whole 12-1/2% should be considered its gross receipts. However, under the theory, the Club should also pay amusement tax on the 87--1/2% paid as dividends to winning tickets. Yet no claim of amusement tax on that portion has been laid. In fact, the appellant admits that the 87-1/2% paid as dividends to the winning tickets is "owned" by the holders of winning tickets. If so, there is no reason to hold that the"dividends" or prizes assigned to owners of winning horses are not also"owned" by the latter. These form part of the gross receipts from the sale of tickets (sec. 19, Republic Act 309)not gross receipts of theClub. They are, of course, moneys received by the racing track; but they moneys earmarked by law or regulation for horse owners and jockeys and do not for a single

minute become the property of the race track. Indeed, there were reasons for such earmarking. As to the 1/2% for the Board on Races, it is self-evident; to insure its adequate functioning. As to the 5%, probably to give incentives to horse owners to develop a better breed of horses. For all the above reasons, we must agree with the Court of Tax Appeals that such funds do not form part of the gross receipts of the Club and are not subject to the amusement tax. Second case.The Manila Jockey Club holds once a year a so called "special Novato race", wherein only "novato" horses, (i.e. horses which are running for the first time in an official [of the club] race), may take part. Owners of these horses must pay to the Club an inscription fee of P1.00 and a declaration fee of P1.00 per horse. In addition, each of them must contribute to a common fund P10.00 per horse. The Club contributes an equal amount (P10.00 per horse) to such common fund, the total amount of which is added to the 5% participation of horse owners already described herein-above in the first case. Since the institution of this yearly special novato race in 1950, the Manila Jockey Club never paid amusement tax on the moneys thus contributed by horse owners (P10.00 each) because it entertained the belief that in accordance with the three opinions, of the Secretary of Justice herein-above described, such contributions never formed part of its gross receipts. On the inscription fee of the P1.00 per horse, it paid the tax. It did not on the declaration fee of P1.00 because it was imposed by the Municipal Ordinance of Manila and was turned over to the City officers. The Collector of Internal Revenue required the Manila Jockey Club to pay amusement tax on

such contributed fund P10.00 per horse in a special novato race, holding they were part of its gross receipts. The Manila Jockey Club protested and resorted to the Court of Tax Appeals, where it obtained favorable judgment on the same grounds sustained by said Court in connection with the 5% of the total wager funds in the herein-mentioned first case; they were not receipts of the Club. We think the reasons for upholding the Tax Court's decision in the first case apply to this one. The ten-peso contribution never belonged to the Club. It was held by it as a trust fund. And then, after all, when it received the ten-peso contribution, it at thesame time contributed ten pesos out of its own pocket, and thereafter distributed both amounts as prizes to horse owners. It would seem unreasonable to regard the ten-peso contribution of the horse owners as taxable receipt of the Club, since the latter, at the same moment it received the contribution necessarily lost ten pesos too. Judgment.Both decisions of the Court of Tax Appeals should be, and are hereby affirmed. No costs.

FIRST DIVISION [ G.R. No. 148191, November 25, 2003 ]

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER, VS. SOLIDBANK CORPORATION, RESPONDENT. DECISION
PANGANIBAN, J.: Under the Tax Code, the earnings of banks from "passive" income are subject to a twenty percent final withholding tax (20% FWT). This tax is withheld at source and is thus not actually and physically received by the banks, because it is paid directly to the government by the entities from which the banks derived the income. Apart from the 20% FWT, banks are also subject to a five percent gross receipts tax (5% GRT) which is imposed by the Tax Code on their gross receipts, including the "passive" income. Since the 20% FWT is constructively received by the banks and forms part of their gross receipts or earnings, it follows that it is subject to the 5% GRT. After all, the amount withheld is paid to the government on their behalf, in satisfaction of their withholding taxes. That they do not actually receive the amount does not alter the fact that it is remitted for their benefit in

satisfaction of their tax obligations. Stated otherwise, the fact is that if there were no withholding tax system in place in this country, this 20 percent portion of the "passive" income of banks would actually be paid to the banks and then remitted by them to the government in payment of their income tax. The institution of the withholding tax system does not alter the fact that the 20 percent portion of their "passive" income constitutes part of their actual earnings, except that it is paid directly to the government on their behalf in satisfaction of the 20 percent final income tax due on their "passive" incomes. The Case Before us is a Petition for Review[1] under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to annul the July 18, 2000 Decision[2] and the May 8, 2001 Resolution[3] of the Court of Appeals[4] (CA) in CA-GR SP No. 54599. The decretal portion of the assailed Decision reads as follows: "WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM in toto the assailed decision and resolution of the Court of Tax Appeals."[5] The challenged Resolution denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. The Facts Quoting petitioner, the CA[6] summarized the facts of this case as follows:

"For the calendar year 1995, [respondent] seasonably filed its Quarterly Percentage Tax Returns reflecting gross receipts (pertaining to 5% [Gross Receipts Tax] rate) in the total amount of P1,474,691,693.44 with corresponding gross receipts tax payments in the sum of P73,734,584.60, broken down as follows: Period Covered Gross Receipts Gross Receipts Tax P 9,420,303.10 18,545,691.63 24,075,091.95

January to P 188,406,061.95 March 1994 April to June 370,913,832.70 1994 July to 481,501,838.98 September 1994 October to 433,869,959.81 December 1994 P Total 1,474,691,693.44

21,693,497.98 P 73,734,584.60

"[Respondent] alleges that the total gross receipts in the amount of P1,474,691,693.44 included the sum of P350,807,875.15 representing gross receipts from passive income

which was already subjected to 20% final withholding tax. "On January 30, 1996, [the Court of Tax Appeals] rendered a decision in CTA Case No. 4720 entitled Asian Bank Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue[,] wherein it was held that the 20% final withholding tax on [a] bank's interest income should not form part of its taxable gross receipts for purposes of computing the gross receipts tax. "On June 19, 1997, on the strength of the aforementioned decision, [respondent] filed with the Bureau of Internal Revenue [BIR] a letter- request for the refund or issuance of [a] tax credit certificate in the aggregate amount of P3,508,078.75, representing allegedly overpaid gross receipts tax for the year 1995, computed as follows: Gross Receipts Subjected to the Final Tax Derived from Passive [Income] Multiply by Final Tax rate 20% Final Tax Withheld at Source Multiply by [Gross Receipts Tax] rate Overpaid [Gross Receipts

P 350,807,875.15 20% P 70,161,575.03 5% P 3,508,078.75

Tax] "Without waiting for an action from the [petitioner], [respondent] on the same day filed [a] petition for review [with the Court of Tax Appeals] in order to toll the running of the two-year prescriptive period to judicially claim for the refund of [any] overpaid internal revenue tax[,] pursuant to Section 230 [now 229] of the Tax Code [also `National Internal Revenue Code'] x x x. xxxxxxxxx "After trial on the merits, the [Court of Tax Appeals], on August 6, 1999, rendered its decision ordering x x x petitioner to refund in favor of x x x respondent the reduced amount of P1,555,749.65 as overpaid [gross receipts tax] for the year 1995. The legal issue x x x was resolved by the [Court of Tax Appeals], with Hon. Amancio Q. Saga dissenting, on the strength of its earlier pronouncement in x x x Asian Bank Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue x x x, wherein it was held that the 20% [final withholding tax] on [a] bank's interest income should not form part of its taxable gross receipts for purposes of computing the [gross receipts tax]."[7] Ruling of the CA The CA held that the 20% FWT on a bank's interest income did not form part of the taxable

gross receipts in computing the 5% GRT, because the FWT was not actually received by the bank but was directly remitted to the government. The appellate court curtly said that while the Tax Code "does not specifically state any exemption, x x x the statute must receive a sensible construction such as will give effect to the legislative intention, and so as to avoid an unjust or absurd conclusion."[8] Hence, this appeal.[9] Issue Petitioner raises this lone issue for our consideration: "Whether or not the 20% final withholding tax on [a] bank's interest income forms part of the taxable gross receipts in computing the 5% gross receipts tax." [10] The Court's Ruling The Petition is meritorious. Sole Issue: Whether the 20% FWT Forms Part of the Taxable Gross Receipts Petitioner claims that although the 20% FWT on respondent's interest income was not actually

received by respondent because it was remitted directly to the government, the fact that the amount redounded to the bank's benefit makes it part of the taxable gross receipts in computing the 5% GRT. Respondent, on the other hand, maintains that the CA correctly ruled otherwise. We agree with petitioner. In fact, the same issue has been raised recently in China Banking Corporation v. CA,[11] where this Court held that the amount of interest income withheld in payment of the 20% FWT forms part of gross receipts in computing for the GRT on banks. The FWT and the GRT: Two Different Taxes The 5% GRT is imposed by Section 119[12] of the Tax Code,[13] which provides: "SEC. 119. Tax on banks and non-bank financial intermediaries. - There shall be collected a tax on gross receipts derived from sources within the Philippines by all banks and non-bank financial intermediaries in accordance with the following schedule: "(a) On interest, commissions and discounts from lending activities as well as income from financial leasing, on the basis of remaining maturities of instruments from which such receipts are derived. Short-term maturity not in excess of two (2) years.............................................5%

Medium-term maturity - over two (2) years but not exceeding four (4) years.......................................................................3% Long-term maturity: (i) Over four (4) years but not exceeding seven (7) years......................................................................................1% (ii) Over seven (7) years..........................................................................0% "(b) On dividends...................................................................................0% "(c) On royalties, rentals of property, real or personal, profits from exchange and all other items treated as gross income under Section 28[14] of this Code.............................................................5% Provided, however, That in case the maturity period referred to in paragraph (a) is shortened thru pretermination, then the maturity period shall be reckoned to end as of the date of pretermination for purposes of classifying the transaction as short, medium or long term and the correct rate of tax shall be applied accordingly. "Nothing in this Code shall preclude the Commissioner from imposing the same tax herein provided on persons performing similar banking activities."

The 5% GRT[15] is included under "Title V. Other Percentage Taxes" of the Tax Code and is not subject to withholding. The banks and non-bank financial intermediaries liable therefor shall, under Section 125(a)(1),[16] file quarterly returns on the amount of gross receipts and pay the taxes due thereon within twenty (20)[17] days after the end of each taxable quarter. The 20% FWT,[18] on the other hand, falls under Section 24(e)(1)[19] of "Title II. Tax on Income." It is a tax on passive income, deducted and withheld at source by the payorcorporation and/or person as withholding agent pursuant to Section 50,[20] and paid in the same manner and subject to the same conditions as provided for in Section 51.[21] A perusal of these provisions clearly shows that two types of taxes are involved in the present controversy: (1) the GRT, which is a percentage tax; and (2) the FWT, which is an income tax. As a bank, petitioner is covered by both taxes. A percentage tax is a national tax measured by a certain percentage of the gross selling price or gross value in money of goods sold, bartered or imported; or of the gross receipts or earnings derived by any person engaged in the sale of services.[22] It is not subject to withholding. An income tax, on the other hand, is a national tax imposed on the net or the gross income realized in a taxable year.[23] It is subject to withholding.

In a withholding tax system, the payee is the taxpayer, the person on whom the tax is imposed; the payor, a separate entity, acts as no more than an agent of the government for the collection of the tax in order to ensure its payment. Obviously, this amount that is used to settle the tax liability is deemed sourced from the proceeds constitutive of the tax base.[24] These proceeds are either actual or constructive. Both parties herein agree that there is no actual receipt by the bank of the amount withheld. What needs to be determined is if there is constructive receipt thereof. Since the payee -- not the payor -- is the real taxpayer, the rule on constructive receipt can be easily rationalized, if not made clearly manifest.[25] Constructive Receipt Versus Actual Receipt Applying Section 7 of Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 17-84,[26] petitioner contends that there is constructive receipt of the interest on deposits and yield on deposit substitutes.[27] Respondent, however, claims that even if there is, it is Section 4(e) of RR 12-80[28] that nevertheless governs the situation. Section 7 of RR 17-84 states: "SEC. 7. Nature and Treatment of Interest on Deposits and Yield on Deposit Substitutes. -

`(a) The interest earned on Philippine Currency bank deposits and yield from deposit substitutes subjected to the withholding taxes in accordance with these regulations need not be included in the gross income in computing the depositor's/investor's income tax liability in accordance with the provision of Section 29(b), [29] (c)[30] and (d) of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended. `(b) Only interest paid or accrued on bank deposits, or yield from deposit substitutes declared for purposes of imposing the withholding taxes in accordance with these regulations shall be allowed as interest expense deductible for purposes of computing taxable net income of the payor. `(c) If the recipient of the above-mentioned items of income are financial institutions, the same shall be included as part of the tax base upon which the gross receipt[s] tax is imposed.'" Section 4(e) of RR 12-80, on the other hand, states that the tax rates to be imposed on the gross receipts of banks, non-bank financial intermediaries, financing companies, and other non-bank financial intermediaries not performing quasi-banking activities shall be based on all items of income actually received. This provision reads: "SEC. 4. x x x x x x x x x

"(e) Gross receipts tax on banks, non-bank financial intermediaries, financing companies, and other non-bank financial intermediaries not performing quasi- banking activities. The rates of tax to be imposed on the gross receipts of such financial institutions shall be based on all items of income actually received. Mere accrual shall not be considered, but once payment is received on such accrual or in cases of prepayment, then the amount actually received shall be included in the tax base of such financial institutions, as provided hereunder x x x." Respondent argues that the above-quoted provision is plain and clear: since there is no actual receipt, the FWT is not to be included in the tax base for computing the GRT. There is supposedly no pecuniary benefit or advantage accruing to the bank from the FWT, because the income is subjected to a tax burden immediately upon receipt through the withholding process. Moreover, the earlier RR 12-80 covered matters not falling under the later RR 17-84.[31] We are not persuaded. By analogy, we apply to the receipt of income the rules on actual and constructive possession provided in Articles 531 and 532 of our Civil Code. Under Article 531:[32]

"Possession is acquired by the material occupation of a thing or the exercise of a right, or by the fact that it is subject to the action of our will, or by the proper acts and legal formalities established for acquiring such right." Article 532 states "Possession may be acquired by the same person who is to enjoy it, by his legal representative, by his agent, or by any person without any power whatever; but in the last case, the possession shall not be considered as acquired until the person in whose name the act of possession was executed has ratified the same, without prejudice to the juridical consequences of negotiorum gestio in a proper case."[33] The last means of acquiring possession under Article 531 refers to juridical acts -- the acquisition of possession by sufficient title - to which the law gives the force of acts of possession.[34] Respondent argues that only items of income actually received should be included in its gross receipts. It claims that since the amount had already been withheld at source, it did not have actual receipt thereof. We clarify. Article 531 of the Civil Code clearly provides that the acquisition of the right of possession is through the proper acts and legal formalities established therefor. The withholding process is one such act. There may not be actual receipt of the income withheld; however, as provided for in Article 532, possession by any person without any power whatsoever shall be considered as acquired when ratified by the person in whose name the act of possession is

executed. In our withholding tax system, possession is acquired by the payor as the withholding agent of the government, because the taxpayer ratifies the very act of possession for the government. There is thus constructive receipt. The processes of bookkeeping and accounting for interest on deposits and yield on deposit substitutes that are subjected to FWT are indeed -- for legal purposes -- tantamount to delivery, receipt or remittance.[35] Besides, respondent itself admits that its income is subjected to a tax burden immediately upon "receipt," although it claims that it derives no pecuniary benefit or advantage through the withholding process. There being constructive receipt of such income -- part of which is withheld -- RR 17-84 applies, and that income is included as part of the tax base upon which the GRT is imposed. RR 12-80 Superseded by RR 17-84 We now come to the effect of the revenue regulations on interest income constructively received. In general, rules and regulations issued by administrative or executive officers pursuant to the procedure or authority conferred by law upon the administrative agency have the force and effect, or partake of the nature, of a statute.[36] The reason is that statutes express the policies, purposes, objectives, remedies and sanctions intended by the legislature in general terms. The details and manner of carrying them out are oftentimes left to the administrative agency

entrusted with their enforcement. In the present case, it is the finance secretary who promulgates the revenue regulations, upon recommendation of the BIR commissioner. These regulations are the consequences of a delegated power to issue legal provisions that have the effect of law.[37] A revenue regulation is binding on the courts as long as the procedure fixed for its promulgation is followed. Even if the courts may not be in agreement with its stated policy or innate wisdom, it is nonetheless valid, provided that its scope is within the statutory authority or standard granted by the legislature.[38] Specifically, the regulation must (1) be germane to the object and purpose of the law;[39] (2) not contradict, but conform to, the standards the law prescribes;[40] and (3) be issued for the sole purpose of carrying into effect the general provisions of our tax laws. [41] In the present case, there is no question about the regularity in the performance of official duty. What needs to be determined is whether RR 12-80 has been repealed by RR 17-84. A repeal may be express or implied. It is express when there is a declaration in a regulation -usually in its repealing clause -- that another regulation, identified by its number or title, is repealed. All others are implied repeals.[42] An example of the latter is a general provision that predicates the intended repeal on a substantial conflict between the existing and the prior

regulations.[43] As stated in Section 11 of RR 17-84, all regulations, rules, orders or portions thereof that are inconsistent with the provisions of the said RR are thereby repealed. This declaration proceeds on the premise that RR 17-84 clearly reveals such an intention on the part of the Department of Finance. Otherwise, later RRs are to be construed as a continuation of, and not a substitute for, earlier RRs; and will continue to speak, so far as the subject matter is the same, from the time of the first promulgation.[44] There are two well-settled categories of implied repeals: (1) in case the provisions are in irreconcilable conflict, the later regulation, to the extent of the conflict, constitutes an implied repeal of an earlier one; and (2) if the later regulation covers the whole subject of an earlier one and is clearly intended as a substitute, it will similarly operate as a repeal of the earlier one.[45] There is no implied repeal of an earlier RR by the mere fact that its subject matter is related to a later RR, which may simply be a cumulation or continuation of the earlier one.[46] Where a part of an earlier regulation embracing the same subject as a later one may not be enforced without nullifying the pertinent provision of the latter, the earlier regulation is deemed impliedly amended or modified to the extent of the repugnancy.[47] The unaffected provisions or portions of the earlier regulation remain in force, while its omitted portions are deemed repealed.[48] An exception therein that is amended by its subsequent elimination shall now

cease to be so and instead be included within the scope of the general rule.[49] Section 4(e) of the earlier RR 12-80 provides that only items of income actually received shall be included in the tax base for computing the GRT, but Section 7(c) of the later RR 17-84 makes no such distinction and provides that all interests earned shall be included. The exception having been eliminated, the clear intent is that the later RR 17-84 includes the exception within the scope of the general rule. Repeals by implication are not favored and will not be indulged, unless it is manifest that the administrative agency intended them. As a regulation is presumed to have been made with deliberation and full knowledge of all existing rules on the subject, it may reasonably be concluded that its promulgation was not intended to interfere with or abrogate any earlier rule relating to the same subject, unless it is either repugnant to or fully inclusive of the subject matter of an earlier one, or unless the reason for the earlier one is "beyond peradventure removed."[50] Every effort must be exerted to make all regulations stand -- and a later rule will not operate as a repeal of an earlier one, if by any reasonable construction, the two can be reconciled. [51] RR 12-80 imposes the GRT only on all items of income actually received, as opposed to their mere accrual, while RR 17-84 includes all interest income in computing the GRT. RR 12-80 is superseded by the later rule, because Section 4(e) thereof is not restated in RR 17-84. Clearly

therefore, as petitioner correctly states, this particular provision was impliedly repealed when the later regulations took effect.[52] Reconciling the Two Regulations Granting that the two regulations can be reconciled, respondent's reliance on Section 4(e) of RR 12-80 is misplaced and deceptive. The "accrual" referred to therein should not be equated with the determination of the amount to be used as tax base in computing the GRT. Such accrual merely refers to an accounting method that recognizes income as earned although not received, and expenses as incurred although not yet paid. Accrual should not be confused with the concept of constructive possession or receipt as earlier discussed. Petitioner correctly points out that income that is merely accrued -- earned, but not yet received -- does not form part of the taxable gross receipts; income that has been received, albeit constructively, does.[53] The word "actually," used confusingly in Section 4(e), will be clearer if removed entirely. Besides, if actually is that important, accrual should have been eliminated for being a mere surplusage. The inclusion of accrual stresses the fact that Section 4(e) does not distinguish between actual and constructive receipt. It merely focuses on the method of accounting known as the accrual system.

Under this system, income is accrued or earned in the year in which the taxpayer's right thereto becomes fixed and definite, even though it may not be actually received until a later year; while a deduction for a liability is to be accrued or incurred and taken when the liability becomes fixed and certain, even though it may not be actually paid until later.[54] Under any system of accounting, no duty or liability to pay an income tax upon a transaction arises until the taxable year in which the event constituting the condition precedent occurs.[55] The liability to pay a tax may thus arise at a certain time and the tax paid within another given time.[56] In reconciling these two regulations, the earlier one includes in the tax base for GRT all income, whether actually or constructively received, while the later one includes specifically interest income. In computing the income tax liability, the only exception cited in the later regulations is the exclusion from gross income of interest income, which is already subjected to withholding. This exception, however, refers to a different tax altogether. To extend mischievously such exception to the GRT will certainly lead to results not contemplated by the legislators and the administrative body promulgating the regulations. Manila Jockey Club Inapplicable

In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Manila Jockey Club,[57] we held that the term "gross receipts" shall not include money which, although delivered, has been especially earmarked by law or regulation for some person other than the taxpayer.[58] To begin, we have to nuance the definition of gross receipts[59] to determine what it is exactly. In this regard, we note that US cases have persuasive effect in our jurisdiction, because Philippine income tax law is patterned after its US counterpart.[60] "`[G]ross receipts' with respect to any period means the sum of: (a) The total amount received or accrued during such period from the sale, exchange, or other disposition of x x x other property of a kind which would properly be included in the inventory of the taxpayer if on hand at the close of the taxable year, or property held by the taxpayer primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of its trade or business, and (b) The gross income, attributable to a trade or business, regularly carried on by the taxpayer, received or accrued during such period x x x."[61] "x x x [B]y gross earnings from operations x x x was intended all operations xxx including incidental, subordinate, and subsidiary operations, as well as principal operations."[62] "When we speak of the `gross earnings' of a person or corporation, we mean the entire

earnings or receipts of such person or corporation from the business or operations to which we refer."[63] From these cases, "gross receipts"[64] refer to the total, as opposed to the net, income.[65] These are therefore the total receipts before any deduction[66] for the expenses of management.[67] Webster's New International Dictionary, in fact, defines gross as "whole or entire." Statutes taxing the gross "receipts," "earnings," or "income" of particular corporations are found in many jurisdictions.[68] Tax thereon is generally held to be within the power of a state to impose; or constitutional, unless it interferes with interstate commerce or violates the requirement as to uniformity of taxation.[69] Moreover, we have emphasized that the BIR has consistently ruled that "gross receipts" does not admit of any deduction.[70] Following the principle of legislative approval by reenactment,[71] this interpretation has been adopted by the legislature throughout the various reenactments of then Section 119 of the Tax Code.[72] Given that a tax is imposed upon total receipts and not upon net earnings, [73] shall the income withheld be included in the tax base upon which such tax is imposed? In other words, shall interest income constructively received still be included in the tax base for computing the GRT?

We rule in the affirmative. Manila Jockey Club does not apply to this case. Earmarking is not the same as withholding. Amounts earmarked do not form part of gross receipts, because, although delivered or received, these are by law or regulation reserved for some person other than the taxpayer. On the contrary, amounts withheld form part of gross receipts, because these are in constructive possession and not subject to any reservation, the withholding agent being merely a conduit in the collection process. The Manila Jockey Club had to deliver to the Board on Races, horse owners and jockeys amounts that never became the property of the race track.[74] Unlike these amounts, the interest income that had been withheld for the government became property of the financial institutions upon constructive possession thereof. Possession was indeed acquired, since it was ratified by the financial institutions in whose name the act of possession had been executed. The money indeed belonged to the taxpayers; merely holding it in trust was not enough.[75] The government subsequently becomes the owner of the money when the financial institutions pay the FWT to extinguish their obligation to the government. As this Court has held before, this is the consideration for the transfer of ownership of the FWT from these institutions to the government. [76] It is ownership that determines whether interest income forms part of taxable gross receipts. [77] Being originally owned by these financial institutions as part of their interest

income, the FWT should form part of their taxable gross receipts. Besides, these amounts withheld are in payment of an income tax liability, which is different from a percentage tax liability. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Tours Specialists, Inc. aptly held thus:[78] "x x x [G]ross receipts subject to tax under the Tax Code do not include monies or receipts entrusted to the taxpayer which do not belong to them and do not redound to the taxpayer's benefit; and it is not necessary that there must be a law or regulation which would exempt such monies and receipts within the meaning of gross receipts under the Tax Code."[79] In the construction and interpretation of tax statutes and of statutes in general, the primary consideration is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature. [80] We ought to impute to the lawmaking body the intent to obey the constitutional mandate, as long as its enactments fairly admit of such construction.[81] In fact, "x x x no tax can be levied without express authority of law, but the statutes are to receive a reasonable construction with a view to carrying out their purpose and intent."[82] Looking again into Sections 24(e)(1) and 119 of the Tax Code, we find that the first imposes an income tax; the second, a percentage tax. The legislature clearly intended two different taxes. The FWT is a tax on passive income, while the GRT is on business.[83] The withholding of one

is not equivalent to the payment of the other. Non-Exemption of FWT from GRT: Neither Unjust nor Absurd Taxing the people and their property is essential to the very existence of government. Certainly, one of the highest attributes of sovereignty is the power of taxation,[84] which may legitimately be exercised on the objects to which it is applicable to the utmost extent as the government may choose.[85] Being an incident of sovereignty, such power is coextensive with that to which it is an incident.[86] The interest on deposits and yield on deposit substitutes of financial institutions, on the one hand, and their business as such, on the other, are the two objects over which the State has chosen to extend its sovereign power. Those not so chosen are, upon the soundest principles, exempt from taxation.[87] While courts will not enlarge by construction the government's power of taxation,[88] neither will they place upon tax laws so loose a construction as to permit evasions, merely on the basis of fanciful and insubstantial distinctions.[89] When the legislature imposes a tax on income and another on business, the imposition must be respected. The Tax Code should be so construed, if need be, as to avoid empty declarations or possibilities of crafty tax evasion schemes. We have consistently ruled thus: "x x x [I]t is upon taxation that the [g]overnment chiefly relies to obtain the means to

carry on its operations, and it is of the utmost importance that the modes adopted to enforce the collection of the taxes levied should be summary and interfered with as little as possible. x x x."[90] "Any delay in the proceedings of the officers, upon whom the duty is devolved of collecting the taxes, may derange the operations of government, and thereby cause serious detriment to the public."[91] "No government could exist if all litigants were permitted to delay the collection of its taxes."[92] A taxing act will be construed, and the intent and meaning of the legislature ascertained, from its language. [93] Its clarity and implied intent must exist to uphold the taxes as against a taxpayer in whose favor doubts will be resolved.[94] No such doubts exist with respect to the Tax Code, because the income and percentage taxes we have cited earlier have been imposed in clear and express language for that purpose.[95] This Court has steadfastly adhered to the doctrine that its first and fundamental duty is the application of the law according to its express terms -- construction and interpretation being called for only when such literal application is impossible or inadequate without them.[96] In Quijano v. Development Bank of the Philippines,[97] we stressed as follows:

"No process of interpretation or construction need be resorted to where a provision of law peremptorily calls for application." [98] A literal application of any part of a statute is to be rejected if it will operate unjustly, lead to absurd results, or contradict the evident meaning of the statute taken as a whole. [99] Unlike the CA, we find that the literal application of the aforesaid sections of the Tax Code and its implementing regulations does not operate unjustly or contradict the evident meaning of the statute taken as a whole. Neither does it lead to absurd results. Indeed, our courts are not to give words meanings that would lead to absurd or unreasonable consequences. [100] We have repeatedly held thus: "x x x [S]tatutes should receive a sensible construction, such as will give effect to the legislative intention and so as to avoid an unjust or an absurd conclusion."[101] "While it is true that the contemporaneous construction placed upon a statute by executive officers whose duty is to enforce it should be given great weight by the courts, still if such construction is so erroneous, x x x the same must be declared as null and void."[102] It does not even matter that the CTA, like in China Banking Corporation,[103] relied erroneously on Manila Jockey Club. Under our tax system, the CTA acts as a highly specialized body specifically created for the purpose of reviewing tax cases.[104] Because of its recognized expertise, its findings of fact will ordinarily not be reviewed, absent any showing of gross error

or abuse on its part.[105] Such findings are binding on the Court and, absent strong reasons for us to delve into facts, only questions of law are open for determination.[106] Respondent claims that it is entitled to a refund on the basis of excess GRT payments. We disagree. Tax refunds are in the nature of tax exemptions.[107] Such exemptions are strictly construed against the taxpayer, being highly disfavored[108] and almost said "to be odious to the law." Hence, those who claim to be exempt from the payment of a particular tax must do so under clear and unmistakable terms found in the statute. They must be able to point to some positive provision, not merely a vague implication,[109] of the law creating that right.[110] The right of taxation will not be surrendered, except in words too plain to be mistaken. The reason is that the State cannot strip itself of this highest attribute of sovereignty -- its most essential power of taxation -- by vague or ambiguous language. Since tax refunds are in the nature of tax exemptions, these are deemed to be "in derogation of sovereign authority and to be construed strictissimi juris against the person or entity claiming the exemption."[111] No less than our 1987 Constitution provides for the mechanism for granting tax exemptions.[112] They certainly cannot be granted by implication or mere administrative regulation. Thus, when an exemption is claimed, it must indubitably be shown to exist, for every presumption is against

it,[113] and a well-founded doubt is fatal to the claim.[114] In the instant case, respondent has not been able to satisfactorily show that its FWT on interest income is exempt from the GRT. Like China Banking Corporation, its argument creates a tax exemption where none exists.[115] No exemptions are normally allowed when a GRT is imposed. It is precisely designed to maintain simplicity in the tax collection effort of the government and to assure its steady source of revenue even during an economic slump.[116] No Double Taxation We have repeatedly said that the two taxes, subject of this litigation, are different from each other. The basis of their imposition may be the same, but their natures are different, thus leading us to a final point. Is there double taxation? The Court finds none. Double taxation means taxing the same property twice when it should be taxed only once; that is, "x x x taxing the same person twice by the same jurisdiction for the same thing."[117] It is obnoxious when the taxpayer is taxed twice, when it should be but once.[118] Otherwise described as "direct duplicate taxation,"[119] the two taxes must be imposed on the same subject matter, for the same purpose, by the same taxing authority, within the same jurisdiction, during

the same taxing period; and they must be of the same kind or character.[120] First, the taxes herein are imposed on two different subject matters. The subject matter of the FWT is the passive income generated in the form of interest on deposits and yield on deposit substitutes, while the subject matter of the GRT is the privilege of engaging in the business of banking. A tax based on receipts is a tax on business rather than on the property; hence, it is an excise[121] rather than a property tax.[122] It is not an income tax, unlike the FWT. In fact, we have already held that one can be taxed for engaging in business and further taxed differently for the income derived therefrom.[123] Akin to our ruling in Velilla v. Posadas,[124] these two taxes are entirely distinct and are assessed under different provisions. Second, although both taxes are national in scope because they are imposed by the same taxing authority -- the national government under the Tax Code -- and operate within the same Philippine jurisdiction for the same purpose of raising revenues, the taxing periods they affect are different. The FWT is deducted and withheld as soon as the income is earned, and is paid after every calendar quarter in which it is earned. On the other hand, the GRT is neither deducted nor withheld, but is paid only after every taxable quarter in which it is earned. Third, these two taxes are of different kinds or characters. The FWT is an income tax subject to

withholding, while the GRT is a percentage tax not subject to withholding. In short, there is no double taxation, because there is no taxing twice, by the same taxing authority, within the same jurisdiction, for the same purpose, in different taxing periods, some of the property in the territory.[125] Subjecting interest income to a 20% FWT and including it in the computation of the 5% GRT is clearly not double taxation. WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. No costs. SO ORDERED.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. Nos. L-9456 and L-9481 January 6, 1958 THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner, vs. DOMINGO DE LARA, as ancilliary administrator of the estate of HUGO H. MILLER (Deceased), and the COURT OF TAX APPEALS, respondents. Allison J. Gibbs, Zafra, De Leon and Veneracion for Domingo E. de Lara. Assistant Solicitor General Ramon L. Avancena and Cezar L. Kierulf for the Collector of Internal Revenue. MONTEMAYOR, J.: These are two separate appeals, one by the Collector of Internal Revenue, later on referred to as the Collector, and the other by Domingo de Lara as Ancilliary Administrator of the estate of Hugo H. Miller, from the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals of June 25, 1955, with the following dispositive part: WHEREFORE, respondent's assessment for estate and inheritance taxes upon the estate of the decedent Hugo H. Miller is hereby modified in accordance with the computation

attached as Annex "A" of this decision. Petitioner is hereby ordered to pay the amount of P2,047.22 representing estate taxes due, together with the interests and other increments. In case of failure to pay the amount of P2,047.22 within thirty (30) days from the time this decision has become final, the 5 per cent surcharge and the corresponding interest due thereon shall be paid as a part of the tax. The facts in the case gathered from the record and as found by the Court of Tax Appeals may be briefly stated as follows: Hugo H. Miller, an American citizen, was born in Santa Cruz, California, U.S.A., in 1883. In 1905, he came to the Philippines. From 1906 to 1917, he was connected with the public school system, first as a teacher and later as a division superintendent of schools, later retiring under the Osmeiia Retirement Act. After his retirement, Miller accepted an executive position in the local branch of Ginn & Co., book publishers with principal offices in New York and Boston, U.S.A., up to the outbreak of the Pacific War. From 1922 up to December 7, 1941, he was stationed in the Philippines as Oriental representative of Ginn & Co., covering not only the Philippines, but also China and Japan. His principal work was selling books specially written for Philippine schools. In or about the year 1922, Miller lived at the Manila Hotel. His wife remained at their home in Ben-Lomond, Santa Cruz, California, but she used to come to the Philippines for brief visits with Miller, staying three or four months. Miller also used to visit his wife in California. He never lived in any residential house in the Philippines. After the death of his wife in 1931, he transferred from the Manila Hotel to the Army and Navy Club, where he was staying at the outbreak of the Pacific War. On January 17, 1941, Miller executed his last will and testament in Santa Cruz, California, in which he declared

that he was "of Santa Cruz, California". On December 7, 1941, because of the Pacific War, the office of Ginn & Co. was closed, and Miller joined the Board of Censors of the United States Navy. During the war, he was taken prisoner by the Japanese forces in Leyte, and in January, 1944, he was transferred to Catbalogan, Samar, where he was reported to have been executed by said forces on March 11, 1944, and since then, nothing has been heard from him. At the time of his death in 1944, Miller owned the following properties: Real Property situated in Ben-Lomond, Santa Cruz, California valued at ......................................................................

P 5,000.00

Real property situated in Burlingame, San Mateo, California valued at ........................................................................................ 16,200.00 Tangible Personal property, worth............................................. Cash in the banks in the United States.................................... Accounts Receivable from various persons in the United 2,140.00 21,178.20 36,062.74

States including notes ............................................................... Stocks in U.S. Corporations and U.S. Savings Bonds, valued at ........................................................................................ 123,637.16 Shares of stock in Philippine Corporations, valued at .......... 51,906.45

Testate proceedings were instituted before the Court of California in Santa Cruz County, in the course of which Miller's will of January 17, 1941 was admitted to probate on May 10, 1946. Said court subsequently issued an order and decree of settlement of final account and final distribution, wherein it found that Miller was a "resident of the County of Santa Cruz, State of California" at the time of his death in 1944. Thereafter ancilliary proceedings were filed by the executors of the will before the Court of First Instance of Manila, which court by order of November 21, 1946, admitted to probate the will of Miller was probated in the California court, also found that Miller was a resident of Santa Cruz, California, at the time of his death. On July 29, 1949, the Bank of America, National Trust and Savings Association of San Francisco California, co-executor named in Miller's will, filed an estate and inheritance tax return with the Collector, covering only the shares of stock issued by Philippines corporations, reporting a liability of P269.43 for taxes and P230.27 for inheritance taxes. After due investigation, the

Collector assessed estate and inheritance taxes, which was received by the said executor on April 3, 1950. The estate of Miller protested the assessment of the liability for estate and inheritance taxes, including penalties and other increments at P77,300.92, as of January 16, 1954. This assessment was appealed by De Lara as Ancilliary Administrator before the Board of Tax Appeals, which appeal was later heard and decided by the Court of Tax Appeals. In determining the "gross estate" of a decedent, under Section 122 in relation to section 88 of our Tax Code, it is first necessary to decide whether the decedent was a resident or a nonresident of the Philippines at the time of his death. The Collector maintains that under the tax laws, residence and domicile have different meanings; that tax laws on estate and inheritance taxes only mention resident and non-resident, and no reference whatsoever is made to domicile except in Section 93 (d) of the Tax Code; that Miller during his long stay in the Philippines had required a "residence" in this country, and was a resident thereof at the time of his death, and consequently, his intangible personal properties situated here as well as in the United States were subject to said taxes. The Ancilliary Administrator, however, equally maintains that for estate and inheritance tax purposes, the term "residence" is synonymous with the term domicile. We agree with the Court of Tax Appeals that at the time that The National Internal Revenue Code was promulgated in 1939, the prevailing construction given by the courts to the "residence" was synonymous with domicile. and that the two were used intercnangeabiy. Cases were cited in support of this view, paricularly that of Velilla vs. Posadas, 62 Phil. 624, wherein this Tribunal used the terms "residence" and "domicile" interchangeably and without distinction, the case involving the application of the term residence employed in the inheritance tax law at

the time (section 1536- 1548 of the Revised Administrative Code), and that consequently, it will be presumed that in using the term residence or resident in the meaning as construed and interpreted by the Court. Moreover, there is reason to believe that the Legislature adopted the American (Federal and State) estate and inheritance tax system (see e.g. Report to the Tax Commision of the Philippines, Vol. II, pages 122-124, cited in I Dalupan, National Internal Revenue Code Annotated, p. 469-470). In the United States, for estate tax purposes, a resident is considered one who at the time of his death had his domicile in the United States, and in American jurisprudence, for purposes of estate and taxation, "residence" is interpreted as synonymous with domicile, and that The incidence of estate and succession has historically been determined by domicile and situs and not by the fact of actual residence. (Bowring vs. Bowers, (1928) 24 F 2d 918, at 921, 6 AFTR 7498, cert. den (1928) 272 U.S.608). We also agree with the Court of Tax Appeals that at the time of his death, Miller had his residence or domicile in Santa Cruz, California. During his country, Miller never acquired a house for residential purposes for he stayed at the Manila Hotel and later on at the Army and Navy Club. Except this wife never stayed in the Philippines. The bulk of his savings and properties were in the United States. To his home in California, he had been sending souvenirs, such as carvings, curios and other similar collections from the Philippines and the Far East. In November, 1940, Miller took out a property insurance policy and indicated therein his address as Santa Cruz, California, this aside from the fact that Miller, as already stated, executed his will in Santa Cruz, California, wherein he stated that he was "of Santa Cruz, California". From the

foregoing, it is clear that as a non-resident of the Philippines, the only properties of his estate subject to estate and inheritance taxes are those shares of stock issued by Philippines corporations, valued at P51,906.45. It is true, as stated by the Tax Court, that while it may be the general rule that personal property, like shares of stock in the Philippines, is taxable at the domicile of the owner (Miller) under the doctrine of mobilia secuuntur persona, nevertheless, when he during his life time, . . . extended his activities with respect to his intangibles, so as to avail himself of the protection and benefits of the laws of the Philippines, in such a way as to bring his person or property within the reach of the Philippines, the reason for a single place of taxation no longer obtains- protection, benefit, and power over the subject matter are no longer confined to California, but also to the Philippines (Wells Fargo Bank & Union Trust Co. vs. Collector (1940), 70 Phil. 325). In the instant case, the actual situs of the shares of stock is in the Philippines, the corporation being domiciled herein: and besides, the right to vote the certificates at stockholders' meetings, the right to collect dividends, and the right to dispose of the shares including the transmission and acquisition thereof by succession, all enjoy the protection of the Philippines, so that the right to collect the estate and inheritance taxes cannot be questioned (Wells Fargo Bank & Union Trust Co. vs. Collector supra). It is recognized that the state may, consistently with due process, impose a tax upon transfer by death of shares of stock in a domestic corporation owned by a decedent whose domicile was outside of the state (Burnett vs. Brooks, 288 U.S. 378; State Commission vs. Aldrich, (1942) 316 U.S. 174, 86 L. Ed. 1358, 62 ALR 1008)." (Brief for the Petitioner, p. 79-80).

The Ancilliary Administrator for purposes of exemption invokes the proviso in Section 122 of the Tax Code, which provides as follows: . . ."And Provided, however, That no tax shall be collected under this Title in respect of intangible personal property (a) if the decedent at the time of his death was a resident of a foreign country which at the time of his death did not impose a transfer tax or death tax of any character in respect of intangible personal property of citizens of the Philippines not residing in that country, or (b) if the laws of the foreign country of which the decedent was resident at the tune of his death allow a similar exemption from transfer taxes or death taxes of every character in respect of intangible personal property owned by citizen, of the Philippine not residing in that foreign country. The Ancilliary Administrator bases his claim of exemption on (a) the exemption of nonresidents from the California inheritance taxes with respect to intangibles, and (b) the exemption by way of reduction of P4,000 from the estates of non-residents, under the United States Federal Estate Tax Law. Section 6 of the California Inheritance Tax Act of 1935, now reenacted as Section 13851, California Revenue and Taxation Code, reads as follows: SEC. 6. The following exemption from the tax are hereby allowed: xxx xxx xxx. (7) The tax imposed by this act in respect of intangible personal property shall not be payable if decedent is a resident of a State or Territory of the United States or a foreign state or country which at the time of his death imposed a legacy, succession of death tax in

respect of intangible personal property within the State or Territory or foreign state or country of residents of the States or Territory or foreign state or country of residence of the decedent at the time of his death contained a reciprocal provision under which nonresidents were exempted from legacy or succession taxes or death taxes of every character in respect of intangible personal property providing the State or Territory or foreign state or country of residence of such non-residents allowed a similar exemption to residents of the State, Territory or foreign state or country of residence of such decedent. Considering the State of California as a foreign country in relation to section 122 of Our Tax Code we beleive and hold, as did the Tax Court, that the Ancilliary Administrator is entitled to exemption from the tax on the intangible personal property found in the Philippines. Incidentally, this exemption granted to non-residents under the provision of Section 122 of our Tax Code, was to reduce the burden of multiple taxation, which otherwise would subject a decedent's intangible personal property to the inheritance tax, both in his place of residence and domicile and the place where those properties are found. As regards the exemption or reduction of P4,000 based on the reduction under the Federal Tax Law in the amount of $2,000, we agree with the Tax Court that the amount of $2,000 allowed under the Federal Estate Tax Law is in the nature of deduction and not of an exemption. Besides, as the Tax Court observes--. . . . this exemption is allowed on all gross estate of non-residents of the United States, who are not citizens thereof, irrespective of whether there is a corresponding or similar exemption from transfer or death taxes of non-residents of the Philippines, who are citizens of the United States; and thirdly, because this exemption is allowed on all gross estates of

non-residents irrespective of whether it involves tangible or intangible, real or personal property; so that for these reasons petitioner cannot claim a reciprocity. . . Furthermore, in the Philippines, there is already a reduction on gross estate tax in the amount of P3,000 under section 85 of the Tax Code, before it was amended, which in part provides as follows: SEC. 85. Rates of estate tax.There shall be levied, assessed, collected, and paid upon the transfer of the net estate of every decedent, whether a resident or non-resident of the Philippines, a tax equal to the sum of the following percentages of the value of the net estate determined as provided in sections 88 and 89: One per centrum of the amount by which the net estate exceeds three thousand pesos and does not exceed ten thousand pesos;. . . It will be noticed from the dispositive part of the appealed decision of the Tax Court that the Ancilliary Administrator was ordered to pay the amount of P2,047.22, representing estate taxes due, together with interest and other increments. Said Ancilliary Administrator invokes the provisions of Republic Act No. 1253, which was passed for the benefit of veterans, guerrillas or victims of Japanese atrocities who died during the Japanese occupation. The provisions of this Act could not be invoked during the hearing before the Tax Court for the reason that said Republic Act was approved only on June 10, 1955. We are satisfied that inasmuch as Miller, not only suffered deprivation of the war, but was killed by the Japanese military forces, his estate is entitled to the benefits of this Act. Consequently, the interests and other increments provided in

the appealed judgment should not be paid by his estate. With the above modification, the appealed decision of the Court of Tax Appeals is hereby affirmed. We deem it unnecessary to pass upon the other points raised in the appeal. No costs.