8/31/2016 G.R.No.

115349

TodayisWednesday,August31,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
BaguioCity

THIRDDIVISION

G.R.No.115349April18,1997

COMMISSIONEROFINTERNALREVENUE,petitioner,
vs.
THECOURTOFAPPEALS,THECOURTOFTAXAPPEALSandATENEODEMANILAUNIVERSITY,
respondents.

PANGANIBAN,J.:

In conducting researches and studies of social organizations and cultural values thru its Institute of Philippine
Culture, is the Ateneo de Manila University performing the work of an independent contractor and thus taxable
withinthepurviewofthenSection205oftheNationalInternalRevenueCodelevyingathreepercentcontractor's
tax?ThisquestionisanswerbytheCourtinthenegativeasitresolvesthispetitionassailingtheDecision 1ofthe
RespondentCourtofAppeals 2inCAG.R.SPNo.31790promulgatedonApril27,1994affirmingthatoftheCourtofTax
Appeals.3

TheAntecedentFacts

The antecedents as found by the Court of Appeals are reproduced hereinbelow, the same being largely
undisputedbytheparties.

Privaterespondentisanonstock,nonprofiteducationalinstitutionwithauxiliaryunitsandbranches
alloverthePhilippines.OnesuchauxiliaryunitistheInstituteofPhilippineCulture(IPC),whichhas
nolegalpersonalityseparateanddistinctfromthatofprivaterespondent.TheIPCisaPhilippineunit
engaged in social science studies of Philippine society and culture. Occasionally, it accepts
sponsorships for its research activities from international organizations, private foundations and
governmentagencies.

On July 8, 1983, private respondent received from petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue a
demandletterdatedJune3,1983,assessingprivaterespondentthesumofP174,043.97foralleged
deficiency contractor's tax, and an assessment dated June 27, 1983 in the sum of P1,141,837 for
alleged deficiency income tax, both for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1978. Denying said tax
liabilities, private respondent sent petitioner a letterprotest and subsequently filed with the latter a
memorandumcontestingthevalidityoftheassessments.

On March 17, 1988, petitioner rendered a letterdecision canceling the assessment for deficiency
income tax but modifying the assessment for deficiency contractor's tax by increasing the amount
due to P193,475.55. Unsatisfied, private respondent requested for a reconsideration or
reinvestigation of the modified assessment. At the same time, it filed in the respondent court a
petitionforreviewofthesaidletterdecisionofthepetitioner.Whilethepetitionwaspendingbefore
the respondent court, petitioner issued a final decision dated August 3, 1988 reducing the
assessmentfordeficiencycontractor'staxfromP193,475.55toP46,516.41,exclusiveofsurcharge
andinterest.

OnJuly12,1993,therespondentcourtrenderedthequestioneddecisionwhichdispositivelyreads:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent's decision is SET ASIDE. The

deficiency contractor's tax assessment in the amount of P46,516.41 exclusive of
surchargeandinterestforthefiscalyearendedMarch31,1978isherebyCANCELED.
Nopronouncementastocost.

SOORDERED.

Notinaccordwithsaiddecision,petitionerhascometothisCourtviathepresentpetitionforreviewraising
thefollowingissues:

1) WHETHER OR NOT PRIVATE RESPONDENT FALLS UNDER THE PURVIEW OF

INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR PURSUANT TO SECTION 205 OF THE TAX CODE
and

2)WHETHERORNOTPRIVATERESPONDENTISSUBJECTTO3%CONTRACTOR'S
TAXUNDERSECTION205OFTHETAXCODE.

ThepertinentportionsofSection205oftheNationalInternalRevenueCode,asamended,provide:

Sec.205.Contractor,proprietorsoroperatorsofdockyards,andothers.Acontractor'staxofthree
percentumofthegrossreceiptsisherebyimposedonthefollowing:

xxxxxxxxx

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1997/apr1997/gr_115349_1997.html 1/6
8/31/2016 G.R.No.115349

(16) Business agents and other independent contractors except persons, associations
andcorporationsundercontractforembroideryandapparelforexport,aswellastheir
agents and contractors and except gross receipts of or from a pioneer industry
registeredwiththeBoardofInvestmentsunderRepublicActNo.5186:

xxxxxxxxx

The term "independent contractors" include persons (juridical or natural) not

enumerated above (but not including individuals subject to the occupation tax under
Section 12 of the Local Tax Code) whose activity consists essentially of the sale of all
kindsofservicesforafeeregardlessofwhetherornottheperformanceoftheservice
calls for the exercise or use of the physical or mental faculties of such contractors or
theiremployees.

xxxxxxxxx

Petitioner contends that the respondent court erred in holding that private respondent is not an
"independentcontractor"withinthepurviewofSection205oftheTaxCode.Topetitioner,theterm
"independentcontractor",asdefinedbytheCode,encompassesallkindsofservicesrenderedfora
feeandthattheonlyexceptionsarethefollowing:

a.Persons,associationandcorporationsundercontractforembroideryandapparelforexportand
gross receipts of or from pioneer industry registered with the Board of Investment under R.A. No.
5186

b.IndividualsoccupationtaxunderSection12oftheLocalTaxCode(undertheoldSection182[b]
oftheTaxCode)and

c. Regional or area headquarters established in the Philippines by multinational corporations,

including their alien executives, and which headquarters do not earn or derive income from the
Philippinesandwhichactassupervisory,communicationandcoordinatingcentersfortheiraffiliates,
subsidiariesorbranchesintheAsiaPacificRegion(Section205oftheTaxCode).

Petitioner thus submits that since private respondent falls under the definition of an "independent
contractor"andisnotamongtheaforementionedexceptions,privaterespondentisthereforesubject
tothe3%contractor'staximposedunderthesameCode.4

TheCourtofAppealsdisagreedwiththePetitionerCommissionerofInternalRevenueandaffirmedtheassailed
decisionoftheCourtofTaxAppeals.Unfazed,petitionernowasksustoreversetheCAthroughthispetitionfor
review.

TheIssues

Petitionersubmitsbeforeusthefollowingissues:

1)Whetherornotprivaterespondentfallsunderthepurviewofindependentcontractorpursuantto
Section205oftheTaxCode.

2)Whetherornotprivaterespondentissubjectto3%contractor'staxunderSection205oftheTax
Code.5

Infine,thesemaybereducedtoasingleissue:IsAteneodeManilaUniversity,throughitsauxiliaryunitorbranch
theInstituteofPhilippineCultureperformingtheworkofanindependentcontractorand,thus,subjecttothe
threepercentcontractor'staxleviedbythenSection205oftheNationalInternalRevenueCode?

TheCourt'sRuling

Thepetitionisunmeritorious.

InterpretationofTaxLaws

ThepartsofthenSection205oftheNationalInternalRevenueCodegermanetothecasebeforeusread:

Sec. 205. Contractors, proprietors or operators of dockyards, and others. A contractor's tax of
threepercentumofthegrossreceiptsisherebyimposedonthefollowing:

xxxxxxxxx

(16) Business agents and other independent contractors, except persons, associations and
corporations under contract for embroidery and apparel for export, as well as their agents and
contractors, and except gross receipts of or from a pioneer industry registered with the Board of
InvestmentsundertheprovisionsofRepublicActNo.5186

xxxxxxxxx

Theterm"independentcontractors"includepersons(juridicalornatural)notenumeratedabove(but
notincludingindividualssubjecttotheoccupationtaxunderSection12oftheLocalTaxCode)whose
activityconsistsessentiallyofthesaleofallkindsofservicesforafeeregardlessofwhetherornot
theperformanceoftheservicecallsfortheexerciseoruseofthephysicalormentalfacultiesofsuch
contractorsortheiremployees.

Theterm"independentcontractor"shallnotincluderegionalorareaheadquartersestablishedinthe
Philippinesbymultinationalcorporations,includingtheiralienexecutives,andwhichheadquartersdo
not earn or derive income from the Philippines and which act as supervisory, communications and
coordinatingcentersfortheiraffiliates,subsidiariesorbranchesintheAsiaPacificRegion.

The term "gross receipts" means all amounts received by the prime or principal contractor as the
total contract price, undiminished by amount paid to the subcontractor, shall be excluded from the
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1997/apr1997/gr_115349_1997.html 2/6
8/31/2016 G.R.No.115349

taxablegrossreceiptsofthesubcontractor.

PetitionerCommissionerofInternalRevenuecontendsthatPrivateRespondentAteneodeManilaUniversity"falls
withinthedefinition"ofanindependentcontractorand"isnotoneofthosementionedasexcepted"hence,itis
properlyasubjectofthethreepercentcontractor'staxleviedbytheforegoingprovisionoflaw. 6Petitionerstates
that the "term 'independent contractor' is not specifically defined so as to delimit the scope thereof, so much so that any
person who . . . renders physical and mental service for a fee, is now indubitably considered an independent contractor
liable to 3% contractor's tax." 7 According to petitioner, Ateneo has the burden of proof to show its exemption from the
coverageofthelaw.

We disagree. Petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue erred in applying the principles of tax exemption
withoutfirstapplyingthewellsettleddoctrineofstrictinterpretationintheimpositionoftaxes.Itisobviouslyboth
illogical and impractical to determine who are exempted without first determining who are covered by the
aforesaidprovision.TheCommissionershouldhavedeterminedfirstifprivaterespondentwascoveredbySection
205, applying the rule of strict interpretation of laws imposing taxes and other burdens on the populace, before
askingAteneotoproveitsexemptiontherefrom.TheCourttakesthisoccasiontoreiteratethehornbookdoctrine
intheinterpretationoftaxlawsthat"(a)statutewillnotbeconstruedasimposingataxunlessitdoessoclearly,
expressly,andunambiguously...(A)taxcannotbeimposedwithoutclearandexpresswordsforthatpurpose.
Accordingly, the general rule of requiring adherence to the letter in construing statutes applies with peculiar
strictnesstotaxlawsandtheprovisionsofataxingactarenottobeextendedbyimplication." 8Parenthetically,in
answeringthequestionofwhoissubjecttotaxstatutes,itisbasicthat"incaseofdoubt,suchstatutesaretobeconstrued
most strongly against the government and in favor of the subjects or citizens because burdens are not to be imposed nor
presumedtobeimposedbeyondwhatstatutesexpresslyandclearlyimport."9

To fall under its coverage, Section 205 of the National Internal Revenue Code requires that the independent
contractorbeengagedinthebusinessofsellingitsservices.Hence,toimposethethreepercentcontractor'stax
on Ateneo's Institute of Philippine Culture, it should be sufficiently proven that the private respondent is indeed
sellingitsservicesforafeeinpursuitofanindependentbusiness.Anditisonlyafterprivaterespondenthasbeen
found clearly to be subject to the provisions of Sec. 205 that the question of exemption therefrom would arise.
Onlyaftersuchcoverageisshowndoestheruleofconstructionthattaxexemptionsaretobestrictlyconstrued
againstthetaxpayercomeintoplay,contrarytopetitioner'sposition.Thisisthemainlineofreasoningofthe
CourtofTaxAppealsinitsdecision,10whichwasaffirmedbytheCA.

TheAteneodeManilaUniversityDidNotContract
fortheSaleoftheServiceofitsInstituteofPhilippineCulture

Afterreviewingtherecordsofthiscase,wefindnoevidencethatAteneo'sInstituteofPhilippineCultureeversold
itsservicesforafeetoanyoneorwaseverengagedinabusinessapartfromandindependentlyoftheacademic
purposesoftheuniversity.

Stressingthat"itisnottheAteneodeManilaUniversitypersewhichisbeingtaxed,"PetitionerCommissionerof
InternalRevenuecontendsthat"thetaxisdueonitsactivityofconductingresearchesforafee.Thetaxisdueon
thegrossreceiptsmadeinfavorofIPCpursuanttothecontractsthelatterenteredtoconductresearchesforthe
benefitprimarilyofitsclients.Thetaxisimposedontheexerciseofataxableactivity....[T]hesaleofservicesof
privaterespondentismadeunderacontractandthevariouscontractsenteredintobetweenprivaterespondent
anditsclientsarealmostofthesameterms,showing,amongothers,thecompensationandtermsofpayment."
11(Emphasissupplied.)

Intheory,theCommissionerofInternalRevenuemaybecorrect.However,therecordsdonotshowthatAteneo's
IPCinfactcontractedtosellitsresearchservicesforafee.Clearlythen,asfoundbytheCourtofAppealsandthe
Court of Tax Appeals, petitioner's theory is inapplicable to the established factual milieu obtaining in the instant
case.

Inthefirstplace,thepetitionerhaspresentednoevidencetoproveitsbarecontentionthat,indeed,contractsfor
saleofserviceswereeverenteredintobytheprivaterespondent.Asappropriatelypointedoutbythelatter:

AnexaminationoftheCommissioner'sWrittenFormalOfferofEvidenceintheCourtofTaxAppeals
showsthatonlythefollowingdocumentaryevidencewaspresented:

Exhibit1BIRletterofauthorityno.331844

2Examiner'sFieldAuditReport

3AdjustmentstoSales/Receipts

4LetterdecisionofBIRCommissionerBienvenidoA.TanJr.

None of the foregoing evidence even comes close to purport to be contracts between private
respondentandthirdparties.12

Moreover,theCourtofTaxAppealsaccuratelyandcorrectlydeclaredthatthe"fundsreceivedbytheAteneode
ManilaUniversityaretechnicallynotafee.Theymayhoweverfallasgiftsordonationswhicharetaxexempt"as
shownbyprivaterespondent'scompliancewiththerequirementofSection123oftheNationalInternalRevenue
Codeprovidingfortheexemptionofsuchgiftstoaneducationalinstitution.13

RespondentCourtofAppealselucidatedontherulingoftheCourtofTaxAppeals:

Toourmind,privaterespondenthardlyfitsintothedefinitionofan"independentcontractor".

Forone,theestablishedfactsshowthatIPC,asaunitoftheprivaterespondent,isnotengagedin
business. Undisputedly, private respondent is mandated by law to undertake research activities to
maintainitsuniversitystatus.Infact,theresearchactivitiesbeingcarriedoutbytheIPCisfocused
notonbusinessorprofitbutonsocialsciencesstudiesofPhilippinesocietyandculture.Sinceitcan
only finance a limited number of IPC's research projects, private respondent occasionally accepts
sponsorshipforunfundedIPCresearchprojectsfrominternationalorganizations,privatefoundations
andgovernmentalagencies.However,suchsponsorshipsaresubjecttoprivaterespondent'sterms

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1997/apr1997/gr_115349_1997.html 3/6
8/31/2016 G.R.No.115349

andconditions,amongwhichare,thattheresearchisconfinedtotopicsconsistentwiththeprivate
respondent's academic agenda that no proprietary or commercial purpose research is done and
that private respondent retains not only the absolute right to publish but also the ownership of the
resultsoftheresearchconductedbytheIPC.Quiteclearly,theaforementionedtermsandconditions
belietheallegationthatprivaterespondentisacontractororisengagedinbusiness.

For another, it bears stressing that private respondent is a nonstock, nonprofit educational
corporation. The fact that it accepted sponsorship for IPC's unfunded projects is merely incidental.
For,themainfunctionoftheIPCistoundertakeresearchprojectsundertheacademicagendaofthe
private respondent. Moreover the records do not show that in accepting sponsorship of research
work, IPC realized profits from such work. On the contrary, the evidence shows that for about 30
years, IPC had continuously operated at a loss, which means that sponsored funds are less than
actualexpensesforitsresearchprojects.ThatIPChasbeenoperatingatalossloudlybespeaksof
thefactthateducationandnotprofitisthemotiveforundertakingtheresearchprojects.

Then, too, granting arguendo that IPC made profits from the sponsored research projects, the fact
still remains that there is no proof that part of such earnings or profits was ever distributed as
dividendstoanystockholder,asinfactnonewassodistributedbecausetheyaccruedtothebenefit
oftheprivaterespondentwhichisanonprofiteducationalinstitution.14

Therefore,itisclearthatthefundsreceivedbyAteneo'sInstituteofPhilippineCulturearenotgivenintheconcept
ofafeeorpriceinexchangefortheperformanceofaserviceordeliveryofanobject.Rather,theamountsarein
the nature of an endowment or donation given by IPC's benefactors solely for the purpose of sponsoring or
fundingtheresearchwithnostringsattached.Asfoundbythetwocourtsbelow,suchsponsorshipsaresubjectto
IPC'stermsandconditions.Noproprietaryorcommercialresearchisdone,andIPCretainstheownershipofthe
results of the research, including the absolute right to publish the same. The copyrights over the results of the
researchareownedby
Ateneoand,consequently,noportionthereofmaybereproducedwithoutitspermission. 15 The amounts given to
IPC,therefore,maynotbedeemed,itbearsstressingasfeesorgrossreceiptsthatcanbesubjectedtothethreepercent
contractor'stax.

It is also well to stress that the questioned transactions of Ateneo's Institute of Philippine Culture cannot be
deemed either as a contract of sale or a contract of a piece of work. "By the contract of sale, one of the
contractingpartiesobligateshimselftotransfertheownershipofandtodeliveradeterminatething,andtheother
topaythereforapricecertaininmoneyoritsequivalent."16Byitsverynature,acontractofsalerequiresatransferof
ownership. Thus, Article 1458 of the Civil Code "expressly makes the obligation to transfer ownership as an essential
element of the contract of sale, following modern codes, such as the German and the Swiss. Even in the absence of this
express requirement, however, most writers, including Sanchez Roman, Gayoso, Valverde, Ruggiero, Colin and Capitant,
haveconsideredsuchtransferofownershipastheprimarypurposeofsale.PerezandAlguerfollowthesameview,stating
thatthedeliveryofthethingdoesnotmeanamerephysicaltransfer,butisameansoftransmittingownership.Transferof
title or an agreement to transfer it for a price paid or promised to be paid is the essence of sale." 17 In the case of a
contractforapieceofwork,"thecontractorbindshimselftoexecuteapieceofworkfortheemployer,inconsiderationofa
certain price or compensation. . . . If the contractor agrees to produce the work from materials furnished by him, he shall
deliverthethingproducedtotheemployerandtransferdominionoverthething,..." 18Ineludably,whetherthecontractbe
oneofsaleoroneforapieceofwork,atransferofownershipisinvolvedandapartynecessarilywalksawaywithanobject.
19Inthecaseatbench,itisclearfromtheevidenceonrecordthattherewasnosaleeitherofobjectsorservicesbecause,
asadvertedtoearlier,therewasnotransferofownershipovertheresearchdataobtainedortheresultsofresearchprojects
undertakenbytheInstituteofPhilippineCulture.

Furthermore, it is clear that the research activity of the Institute of Philippine Culture is done in pursuance of
maintainingAteneo'suniversitystatusandnotinthecourseofanindependentbusinessofsellingsuchresearch
withprofitinmind.Thisisclearfromareadingoftheregulationsgoverninguniversities:

31. In addition to the legal requisites an institution must meet, among others, the following
requirementsbeforeanapplicationforuniversitystatusshallbeconsidered:

xxxxxxxxx

(e) The institution must undertake research and operate with a competent qualified staff at least
threegraduatedepartmentsinaccordancewiththerulesandstandardsforgraduateeducation.One
ofthedepartmentsshallbescienceandtechnology.Thecompetenceofthestaffshallbejudgedby
their effective teaching, scholarly publications and research activities published in its school journal
aswellastheirleadershipactivitiesintheprofession.

(f) The institution must show evidence of adequate and stable financial resources and support, a
reasonableportionofwhichshouldbedevotedtoinstitutionaldevelopmentandresearch.(emphasis
supplied)

xxxxxxxxx

32. University status may be withdrawn, after due notice and hearing, for failure to maintain
satisfactorilythestandardsandrequirementstherefor.20

Petitioner'scontentionthatitistheInstituteofPhilippineCulturethatisbeingtaxedandnottheAteneoispatently
erroneousbecausetheformerisnotanindependentjuridicalentitythatisseparateanddistinctformthelatter.

FactualFindingsandConclusionsoftheCourtofTaxAppealsAffirmedbytheCourtofAppealsGenerally
Conclusive

In addition, we reiterate that the "Court of Tax Appeals is a highly specialized body specifically created for the
purpose of reviewing tax cases. Through its expertise, it is undeniably competent to determine the issue of
whether" 21 Ateneo de Manila University may be deemed a subject of the three percent contractor's tax "through the
evidencepresentedbeforeit."Consequently,"asamatterofprinciple,thisCourtwillnotsetasidetheconclusionreached
by . . . the Court of Tax Appeals which is, by the very nature of its function, dedicated exclusively to the study and
considerationoftaxproblemsandhasnecessarilydevelopedanexpertiseonthesubjectunlesstherehasbeenanabuseor
improvident exercise of authority . . ." 22 This point becomes more evident in the case before us where the findings and

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1997/apr1997/gr_115349_1997.html 4/6
8/31/2016 G.R.No.115349
conclusions of both the Court of Tax Appeals and the Court of Appeals appear untainted by any abuse of authority, much
less grave abuse of discretion. Thus, we find the decision of the latter affirming that of the former free from any palpable
error.

PublicService,NotProfit,istheMotive

The records show that the Institute of Philippine Culture conducted its research activities at a huge deficit of
P1,624,014.00asshowninitsstatementsoffundanddisbursementsfortheperiod1972to1985.23Infact,itwas
AteneodeManilaUniversityitselfthathadfundedtheresearchprojectsoftheinstitute,anditwasonlywhenAteneocould
no longer produce the needed funds that the institute sought funding from outside. The testimony of Ateneo's Director for
Accounting Services, Ms. Leonor Wijangco, provides significant insight on the academic and nonprofit nature of the
institute'sresearchactivitiesdoneinfurtheranceoftheuniversity'spurposes,asfollows:

QNowitwastestifiedtoearlierbyMissThelmaPadero(OfficeManageroftheInstituteofPhilippine
Culture)thatasfarasgrantsfromsponsoredresearchitispossiblethatthegrantsometimesisless
than the actual cost. Will you please tell us in this case when the actual cost is a lot less than the
grantwhoshoulderstheadditionalcost?

ATheUniversity.

QNow,whyisthisdonebytheUniversity?

ABecauseofourfacultydevelopmentprogramasauniversity,becauseauniversityhastohaveits
ownresearchinstitute.24

So,whyisitthatAteneocontinuestooperateandconductresearchesthroughitsInstituteofPhilippineCulture
whenitundisputedlylosesnotaninsignificantamountintheprocess?Theplainandsimpleansweristhatprivate
respondent is not a contractor selling its services for a fee but an academic institution conducting these
researches pursuant to its commitments to education and, ultimately, to public service. For the institute to have
tenaciouslycontinuedoperatingforsolongdespiteitsaccumulationofsignificantlosses,wecanonlyagreewith
both the Court of Tax Appeals and the Court of Appeals that "education and not profit is [IPC's] motive for
undertakingtheresearch
projects."25

WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,thepetitionisDENIEDandtheassailedDecisionoftheCourtofAppealsis
herebyAFFIRMEDinfull.

SOORDERED.

Narvasa,C.J.,Davide,Jr.,MeloandFranciscoJJ.,concur.

Footnotes

1Rollo,pp.3742.

2PennedbyJ.CancioC.GarciaandconcurredinbyJJ.PedroA.Ramirez,Chairman,andHectorL.
Hofilea.

3InCTACaseNo.4280,pennedbyAssociateJudgeRamonO.deVeyraandconcurredinby
PresidingJudgeErnestoD.AcostaandAssociateJudgeManuelK.Grubarollo,pp.4355.

4CADecision,pp.14rollo,pp.3740.

5Petition,p.8rollo,p13.

6Petitioner'sReply,pp.12rollo,pp.7980.

7Petition,pp.1112rollo,pp.1617.

8MarinduqueIronMinesAgents,Inc.vs.MunicipalCounciloftheMunicipalityofHinabangan,
Samar,11SCRA416,420,June301964,citing82C.J.S.956,30Am.Jur.153,andMcQuillinon
MunicipalCorp.,Vol.16,p.267.SeealsoBenjaminB.Aban,LawofBasicTaxationinthePhilippines,
p.93,FirstEdition,(1994).

9CommissionerofInternalRevenuevs.Fireman'sFundIns.Co.,148SCRA315,324,March9,
1987citingManilaRailroadCo.vs.CollectorofCustoms,52Phil.950,(1929).

10Rollo,pp.4950.

11Petition,pp.2022rollo,pp.2527.

12Comment,p.10rollo,p.71.

13Rollo,p.54

14Ibid.,p,41.

15Comment,pp.67rollo,pp.6768.

16Paragraph1,Article1458,CivilCodeofthePhilippines.

17Tolentino,ArturoM.,CommentariesandJurisprudenceontheCivilCodeofthePhilippines,
VolumeV,pp.12,(1992)citing3Castan1213,Kerr&Co.vs.Lingad,38SCRA524,April30,
1971,andSchmid&Oberlyvs.RJLMartinezFishingCorp.,166SCRA493,October18,1988.

18Articles1713and1714oftheCivilCodeofthePhilippines.

19Villanueva,CesarL.,PhilippineLawonSales,pp.79.(1995)citingCelestinoCo.vs.Collectorof
InternalRevenue,99Phil.841(1956).
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1997/apr1997/gr_115349_1997.html 5/6
8/31/2016 G.R.No.115349

20TheManualforPrivateSchools(adoptedpursuanttotheprovisionsofActNo.2706,asamended
byActNo.3075andCommonwealthActNo.180),citedinprivaterespondent'scomment,pp.45
rollo,pp.6566.

21PhilippineRefiningCompanyvs.CourtofAppeals,CourtofTaxAppealsandCommissionerof
InternalRevenue,256SCRA667,675676,May8,1996citingCommissionerofInternalRevenue
vs.WanderPhilippines,Inc.,etal.,160SCRA573,April15,1988.

22CommissionerofInternalRevenuevs.WanderPhilippines,Inc.,etal.,supracitingReyesvs.
CommissionerofInternalRevenue,24SCRA198,July29,1968.

23Comment,p.7rollo,p.68.

24Ibid.,p.8citingTSN,pp.1213,August25,1989.

25CourtofTaxAppealsDecision,p.10,andCourtofAppealsDecision,p.5(quotedabove)Rollo,
pp.52and41.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1997/apr1997/gr_115349_1997.html 6/6