Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001674e772775df673412003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/24
11/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 613
* FIRST DIVISION.
639
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001674e772775df673412003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/24
11/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 613
640
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.
Same; Same; Same; An excise tax is an indirect tax where the
burden can be shifted or passed on to the consumer but the tax
liability remains with the manufacturer or seller; Where the
burden of the
641
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001674e772775df673412003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/24
11/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 613
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 purchase price of goods sold or services rendered.
Same; Same; Parties; The proper party to question, or claim a
refund or tax credit of an indirect tax is the statutory taxpayer, as
it is the company on which the tax is imposed by law and which
paid the same even if the burden thereof was shifted or passed on
to another.—
642
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001674e772775df673412003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/24
11/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 613
643
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001674e772775df673412003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/24
11/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 613
644
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001674e772775df673412003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/24
11/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 613
645
Article 4(2) of the Air Transport Agreement between the
Philippines and Singapore, in turn, provides:
“ART. 4. x x x.
xxxx
(2) Fuel, lubricants, spare parts, regular equipment and
aircraft stores introduced into, or taken on board aircraft in the
terri
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001674e772775df673412003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/24
11/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 613
646
In a Decision5 dated July 27, 2006, the CTA First
Division found that petitioner was qualified for tax
exemption under Section 135(b) of the NIRC, as long as the
Republic of Singapore exempts from similar taxes
petroleum products sold to Philippine carriers, entities or
agencies under Article 4(2) of the Air Transport Agreement
quoted above. However, it ruled that petitioner was not
entitled to the excise tax exemption for failure to present
proof that it was authorized to operate in the Philippines
during the period material to the case due to the non
admission of some of its exhibits, which were merely
photocopies, including Exhibit “A” which was petitioner’s
Certificate of Registration with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) and Exhibits “P,” “Q” and “R”
which were its operating permits issued by the Civil
Aeronautics Board (CAB) to fly the SingaporeCebu
Singapore and SingaporeCebuDavaoSingapore routes for
the period October 1999 to October 2000.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but the CTA
First Division denied the same in a Resolution6 dated
January 17, 2007.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001674e772775df673412003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/24
11/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 613
_______________
647
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001674e772775df673412003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/24
11/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 613
_______________
648
I
Whether or not petitioner has substantially proven its authority
to operate in the Philippines.
II
Whether or not petitioner is the proper party to claim for the
refund/tax credit of excise taxes paid on aviation fuel.
Petitioner maintains that it has proven its authority to
operate in the Philippines with the admission of its Foreign
Air Carrier’s Permit (FACP) as Exhibit “B” before the CTA,
which, in part, reads:
Moreover, petitioner argues that Exhibits “P,” “Q” and
“R,” which it previously filed with the CTA, were merely
flight schedules submitted to the CAB, and were not its
operating permits. Petitioner adds that it was through
inadvertence that only photocopies of these exhibits were
introduced during the hearing.
Petitioner also asserts that despite its failure to present
the original copy of its SEC Registration during the
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001674e772775df673412003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/24
11/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 613
_______________
11 Rollo, p. 16.
649
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001674e772775df673412003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/24
11/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 613
_______________
650
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001674e772775df673412003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/24
11/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 613
651
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001674e772775df673412003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/24
11/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 613
652
This Court finds no reason to depart from the foregoing
findings of the CTA En Banc as petitioner itself admitted
on page 914 of its petition for review that “[i]t was through
inadvertence that only photocopies of Exhibits ‘P,’ ‘Q’ and
‘R’ were introduced during the hearing” and that it was
“rather unfortunate that petitioner failed to produce the
original copy of its SEC Registration (Exhibit ‘A’) for
purposes of comparison with the photocopy that was
originally presented.”
Evidently, said documents cannot be admitted in
evidence by the court as the original copies were neither
offered nor presented for comparison and verification
during the trial. Mere identification of the documents and
the markings thereof as exhibits do not confer any
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001674e772775df673412003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/24
11/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 613
_______________
652
Neither could it be said that petitioner’s SEC
Registration and operating permits from the CAB are
documents which are of public knowledge, capable of
unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to the
judges because of their judicial functions, in order to allow
the CTA to take discretionary judicial notice of the said
documents.15
Moreover, Section 3 of the same Rule16 provides that a
hearing is necessary before judicial notice of any matter
may be taken by the court. This requirement of a hearing is
needed so that the parties can be heard thereon if such
matter is decisive of a material issue in the case.
Given the above rules, it is clear that the CTA En Banc
correctly did not admit petitioner’s SEC Registration and
operating permits from the CAB which were merely
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001674e772775df673412003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/24
11/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 613
_______________
654
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001674e772775df673412003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/24
11/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 613
_______________
655
In the second Silkair19 case, the Court explained that an
excise tax is an indirect tax where the burden can be
shifted or passed on to the consumer but the tax liability
remains with the manufacturer or seller. Thus, the
manufacturer or seller has the option of shifting or passing
on the burden of the tax to the buyer. However, where the
burden of the tax is shifted, the amount passed on to the
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001674e772775df673412003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/24
11/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 613
_______________
656
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001674e772775df673412003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/24
11/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 613
Title VI of the NIRC deals with excise taxes on certain
goods. Section 129 reads as follows:
As used in the NIRC, therefore, excise taxes refer to
taxes applicable to certain specified or selected goods or
articles manufactured or produced in the Philippines for
domestic sale or consumption or for any other disposition
and to things imported into the Philippines. These excise
taxes may be considered taxes on production as they are
collected only from manufacturers and producers. Basically
an indirect tax, excise taxes are directly levied upon the
manufacturer or im
_______________
20 G.R. No. 140230, December 15, 2005, 478 SCRA 61, 7172.
657
“[I]ndirect taxes are taxes primarily paid by persons who can shift
the burden upon someone else.” For example, the excise and ad
valorem taxes that 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.”
And as noted by us in the second Silkair23 case
mentioned above:
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001674e772775df673412003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/24
11/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 613
_______________
658
Thus, under Section 130(A)(2) of the NIRC, it is Petron,
the taxpayer, which has the legal personality to claim the
refund or tax credit of any erroneous payment of excise
taxes. Section 130(A)(2) states:
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001674e772775df673412003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 21/24
11/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 613
659
From the foregoing discussion, it is clear that the proper
party to question, or claim a refund or tax credit of an
indirect tax is the statutory taxpayer, which is Petron in
this case, as it is the company on which the tax is imposed
by law and which paid the same even if the burden thereof
was shifted or passed on to another. It bears stressing that
even if Petron shifted or passed on to petitioner the burden
of the tax, the additional amount which petitioner paid is
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001674e772775df673412003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 22/24
11/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 613
_______________
660
This calls for the application of the doctrine, stare decisis
et non quieta movere. Follow past precedents and do not
disturb what has been settled. Once a case has been
decided one way, any other case involving exactly the same
point at issue, as in the case at bar, should be decided in
the same manner.26
WHEREFORE, the instant petition for review is
DENIED. We affirm the assailed Decision dated May 27,
2008 and the Resolution dated September 5, 2008 of the
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001674e772775df673412003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 23/24
11/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 613
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001674e772775df673412003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 24/24