G.R. No.

119286

October 13, 2004

PASEO REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, COURT OF TAX APPEALS and COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, respondents. DECISION TINGA, J.: The changes in the reportorial requirements and payment schedules of corporate income taxes from 1 annual to quarterly have created problems, especially on the matter of tax refunds. In this case, the Court is called to resolve the question of whether alleged excess taxes paid by a corporation during a taxable year should be refunded or credited against its tax liabilities for the succeeding year. Paseo Realty and Development Corporation, a domestic corporation engaged in the lease of two (2) 2 parcels of land at Paseo de Roxas in Makati City, seeks a review of the Decision of the Court of Appeals 3 dismissing its petition for review of the resolution of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) which, in turn, denied its claim for refund. The factual antecedents are as follows: On April 16, 1990, petitioner filed its Income Tax Return for the calendar year 1989 declaring a gross income of P1,855,000.00, deductions of P1,775,991.00, net income of P79,009.00, an income tax due thereon in the amount of P27,653.00, prior years excess credit of P146,026.00, and creditable taxes withheld in 1989 of P54,104.00 or a total tax credit of P200,130.00 and credit balance of P172,477.00. On November 14, 1991, petitioner filed with respondent a claim for "the refund of excess creditable withholding and income taxes for the years 1989 and 1990 in the aggregate amount of P147,036.15." On December 27, 1991 alleging that the prescriptive period for refunds for 1989 would expire on December 30, 1991 and that it was necessary to interrupt the prescriptive period, petitioner filed with the respondent Court of Tax Appeals a petition for review praying for the refund of "P54,104.00 representing creditable taxes withheld from income payments of petitioner for the calendar year ending December 31, 1989." On February 25, 1992, respondent Commissioner filed an Answer and by way of special and/or affirmative defenses averred the following: a) the petition states no cause of action for failure to allege the dates when the taxes sought to be refunded were paid; b) petitioners claim for refund is still under investigation by respondent Commissioner; c) the taxes claimed are deemed to have been paid and collected in accordance with law and existing pertinent rules and regulations; d) petitioner failed to allege that it is entitled to t he refund or deductions claimed; e) petitioners contention that it has available tax credit for the current and prior year is gratuitous and does not ipso facto warrant the refund; f) petitioner failed to show that it has complied with the provision of Section 230 in relation to Section 204 of the Tax Code. After trial, the respondent Court rendered a decision ordering respondent Commissioner "to refund in favor of petitioner the amount of P54,104.00, representing excess creditable withholding taxes paid for January to July1989."
4

Respondent Commissioner moved for reconsideration of the decision, alleging that the P54,104.00 ordered to be refunded "has already been included and is part and parcel of the P172,477.00 which petitioner automatically applied as tax credit for the succeeding taxable year 1990." In a resolution dated October 21, 1993 Respondent Court reconsidered its decision of July 29, 1993 and dismissed the petition for review, stating that it has "overlooked the fact that the petitioners 1989 Corporate Income Tax Return (Exh. "A") indicated that the amount of P54,104.00 subject of petitioners claim for refund has already been included as part and parcel of the P172,477.00 which the petitioner automatically applied as tax credit for the succeeding taxable year 1990." Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied by respondent Court on March 10, 5 1994. Petitioner filed a Petition for Review dated April 3, 1994 with the Court of Appeals. Resolving the twin issues of whether petitioner is entitled to a refund of P54,104.00 representing creditable taxes withheld in 1989 and whether petitioner applied such creditable taxes withheld to its 1990 income tax liability, the appellate court held that petitioner is not entitled to a refund because it had already elected to apply the total amount of P172,447.00, which includes the P54,104.00 refund claimed, against its income tax liability for 1990. The appellate court elucidated on the reason for its dismissal of petitioners claim fo r refund, thus: In the instant case, it appears that when petitioner filed its income tax return for the year 1989, it filled up the box stating that the total amount of P172,477.00 shall be applied against its income tax liabilities for the succeeding taxable year. Petitioner did not specify in its return the amount to be refunded and the amount to be applied as tax credit to the succeeding taxable year, but merely marked an "x" to the box indicating "to be applied as tax credit to the succeeding taxable year." Unlike what petitioner had done when it filed its income tax return for the year 1988, it specifically stated that out of the P146,026.00 the entire refundable amount, only P64,623.00 will be made available as tax credit, while the amount of P81,403.00 will be refunded. In its 1989 income tax return, petitioner filled up the box "to be applied as tax credit to succeeding taxable year," which signified that instead of refund, petitioner will apply the total amount of P172,447.00, which includes the amount of P54,104.00 sought to be refunded, as tax credit for its tax liabilities in 1990. Thus, there is really nothing left to be refunded to petitioner for the year 1989. To grant petitioners claim for refund is tantamount to granting twice the refund her ein sought to be refunded, to the prejudice of the Government. The Court of Appeals denied petitioners Motion for Reconsideration dated November 8, 1994 in its 8 Resolution dated February 21, 1995 because the motion merely restated the grounds which have 9 already been considered and passed upon in its Decision. Petitioner thus filed the instant Petition for Review dated April 14, 1995 arguing that the evidence presented before the lower courts conclusively shows that it did not apply the P54,104.00 to its 1990 11 income tax liability; that the Decision subject of the instant petition is inconsistent with a final decision of the Sixteenth Division of the appellate court in C.A.-G.R. Sp. No. 32890 involving the same parties and subject matter; and that the affirmation of the questioned Decision would lead to absurd results in the manner of claiming refunds or in the application of prior years excess tax credits. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a Comment dated May 16, 1996 on behalf of respondents asserting that the claimed refund of P54,104.00 was, by petitioners election in its Corporate
12 10 7 6

Annual Income Tax Return for 1989, to be applied against its tax liability for 1990. Not having submitted its tax return for 1990 to show whether the said amount was indeed applied against its tax liability for 1990, petitioners election in its tax return stands. The OSG also contends that petitioners election to apply its overpaid income tax as tax credit against its tax liabilities for the succeeding taxable year is mandatory and irrevocable. On September 2, 1997, petitioner filed a Reply dated August 31, 1996 insisting that the issue in this case is not whether the amount of P54,104.00 was included as tax credit to be applied against its 1990 income tax liability but whether the same amount was actually applied as tax credit for 1990. Petitioner claims that there is no need to show that the amount of P54,104.00 had not been automatically applied against its 1990 income tax liability because the appellate courts decision in C.A.-G.R. Sp. No. 32890 clearly held that petitioner charged its 1990 income tax liability against its tax credit for 1988 and not 1989. Petitioner also disputes the OSGs assertion that the taxpayers election as to the application of excess taxes is irrevocable averring that there is nothing in the law that prohibits a taxpayer from changing its mind especially if subsequent events leave the latter no choice but to change its election. The OSG filed a Rejoinder dated March 5, 1997 stating that petitioners 1988 tax return shows a prior years excess credit of P81,403.00, creditable tax withheld of P92,750.00 and tax due of P27,127.00. Petitioner indicated that the prior years excess credit of P81,403.00 was to be refunded, while the remaining amount of P64,623.00 (P92,750.00 - P27,127.00) shall be considered as tax credit for 1989. However, in its 1989 tax return, petitioner included the P81,403.00 which had already been segregated * for refund in the computation of its excess credit, and specified that the full amount of P172,479.00 ** *** (P81,403.00 + P64,623.00 + P54,104.00 - P27,653.00 ) be considered as its tax credit for 1990. Considering that it had obtained a favorable ruling for the refund of its excess credit for 1988 in CA-G.R. SP. No. 32890, its remaining tax credit for 1989 should be the excess credit to be applied against its 1990 tax liability. In fine, the OSG argues that by its own election, petitioner can no longer ask for a refund of its creditable taxes withheld in 1989 as the same had been applied against its 1990 tax due. In its Resolution dated July 16, 1997, the Court gave due course to the petition and required the parties to simultaneously file their respective memoranda within 30 days from notice. In compliance with this 16 directive, petitioner submitted its Memorandum dated September 18, 1997 in due time, while the OSG 17 filed its Memorandum dated April 27, 1998 only on April 29, 1998 after several extensions. The petition must be denied. As a matter of principle, it is not advisable for this Court to set aside the conclusion reached by an agency such as the CTA which is, by the very nature of its functions, dedicated exclusively to the study and consideration of tax problems and has necessarily developed an expertise on the subject, unless there 18 has been an abuse or improvident exercise of its authority. This interdiction finds particular application in this case since the CTA, after careful consideration of the merits of the Commissioner of Internal Revenues motion for reconsideration, reconsidered its earlier decision which ordered the latter to refund the amount of P54,104.00 to petitioner. Its resolution cannot be successfully assailed based, as it is, on the pertinent laws as applied to the facts. Petitioners 1989 tax return indicates an aggregate creditable tax of P172,477.00, representing its 1988 excess credit of P146,026.00 and 1989 creditable tax of P54,104.00 less tax due for 1989, which it 19 elected to apply as tax credit for the succeeding taxable year. According to petitioner, it successively utilized this amount when it obtained refunds in CTA Case No. 4439 (C.A.-G.R. Sp. No. 32300) and CTA Case No. 4528 (C.A.-G.R. Sp. No. 32890), and applied its 1990 tax liability, leaving a balance of 20 P54,104.00, the amount subject of the instant claim for refund. Represented mathematically, petitioner accounts for its claim in this wise:
15 14 13

P172,477.00 Amount indicated in petitioners 1989 tax return to be applied as tax credit for the succeeding taxable year - 25,623.00 Claim for refund in CTA Case No. 4439 (C.A.-G.R. Sp. No. 32300)

P146,854.00 Balance as of April 16, 1990 - 59,510.00 P87,344.00 - 33,240.00 P54,104.00 Claim for refund in CTA Case No. 4528 (C.A.-G.R. Sp. No. 32890) Balance as of January 2, 1991 Income tax liability for calendar year 1990 applied as of April 15, 1991 Balance as of April 15, 1991 now subject of the instant claim for 21 refund

Other than its own bare allegations, however, petitioner offers no proof to the effect that its creditable tax of P172,477.00 was applied as claimed above. Instead, it anchors its assertion of entitlement to refund on 22 an alleged finding in C.A.-G.R. Sp. No. 32890 involving the same parties to the effect that petitioner charged its 1990 income tax liability to its tax credit for 1988 and not its 1989 tax credit. Hence, its excess creditable taxes withheld of P54,104.00 for 1989 was left untouched and may be refunded. Note should be taken, however, that nowhere in the case referred to by petitioner did the Court of Appeals make a categorical determination that petitioners tax liability for 1990 was applied against its 1988 tax credit. The statement adverted to by petitioner was actually presented in the appellate cou rts decision in CA-G.R. Sp No. 32890 as part of petitioners own narration of facts. The pertinent portion of the decision reads: It would appear from petitioners submission as follows: x x x since it has already applied to its prior years excess credit of P81,403.00 (which petitioner wanted refunded when it filed its 1988 Income Tax Return on April 14, 1989) the income tax liability for 1988 of P28,127.00 and the income tax liability for 1989 of P27,653.00, leaving a balance refundable of P25,623.00 subject of C.T.A. Case No. 4439, the P92,750.00 (P64,623.00 plus P28,127.00, since this second amount was already applied to the amount refundable of P81,403.00) should be the refundable amount. But since the taxpayer again used part of it to satisfy its income tax liability of P33,240.00 for 1990, the amount refundable was P59,510.00, which is the amount prayed for in the claim for refund and also in the petitioner (sic) for review. That the present claim for refund already consolidates its claims for refund for 1988, 1989, and 1990, when it filed a claim for refund of P59,510.00 in this case (CTA Case No. 4528). Hence, the 23 present claim should be resolved together with the previous claims. The confusion as to petitioners entitlement to a refund could altogether have been avoided had it presented its tax return for 1990. Such return would have shown whether petitioner actually applied its 1989 tax credit of P172,477.00, which includes the P54,104.00 creditable taxes withheld for 1989 subject of the instant claim for refund, against its 1990 tax liability as it had elected in its 1989 return, or at least, whether petitioners tax credit of P172,477.00 was applied to its approved refunds as it claims. The return would also have shown whether there remained an excess credit refundable to petitioner after deducting its tax liability for 1990. As it is, we only have petitioners allegation that its tax due for 1990 was P33,240.00 and that this was applied against its remaining tax credits using its own "first in, first out" method of computation.

It would have been different had petitioner not included the P54,104.00 creditable taxes for 1989 in the total amount it elected to apply against its 1990 tax liabilities. Then, all that would have been required of petitioner are: proof that it filed a claim for refund within the two (2)-year prescriptive period provided under Section 230 of the NIRC; evidence that the income upon which the taxes were withheld was included in its return; and to establish the fact of withholding by a copy of the statement (BIR Form No. 24 1743.1) issued by the payor to the payee showing the amount paid and the amount of tax withheld therefrom. However, since petitioner opted to apply its aggregate excess credits as tax credit for 1990, it was incumbent upon it to present its tax return for 1990 to show that the claimed refund had not been automatically credited and applied to its 1990 tax liabilities. The grant of a refund is founded on the assumption that the tax return is valid, i.e., that the facts stated 25 therein are true and correct. Without the tax return, it is error to grant a refund since it would be virtually impossible to determine whether the proper taxes have been assessed and paid. Why petitioner failed to present such a vital piece of evidence confounds the Court. Petitioner could very well have attached a copy of its final adjustment return for 1990 when it filed its claim for refund on 26 November 13, 1991. Annex "B" of its Petition for Review dated December 26, 1991 filed with the CTA, in fact, states that its annual tax return for 1990 was submitted in support of its claim. Yet, petitioners tax return for 1990 is nowhere to be found in the records of this case. Had petitioner presented its 1990 tax return in refutation of respondent Commissioners allegation that it did not present evidence to prove that its claimed refund had already been automatically credited against its 1990 tax liability, the CTA would not have reconsidered its earlier Decision. As it is, the absence of petitioners 1990 tax return was the principal basis of the CTAs Resolution reconsidering its earlier Decision to grant petitioners claim for refund. Petitioner could even still have attached a copy of its 1990 tax return to its petition for review before the Court of Appeals. The appellate court, being a trier of facts, is authorized to receive it in evidence and would likely have taken it into account in its disposition of the petition. In BPI-Family Savings Bank v. Court of Appeals, although petitioner failed to present its 1990 tax return, it presented other evidence to prove its claim that it did not apply and could not have applied the amount in dispute as tax credit. Importantly, petitioner therein attached a copy of its final adjustment return for 1990 to its motion for reconsideration before the CTA buttressing its claim that it incurred a net loss and is thus entitled to refund. Considering this fact, the Court held that there is no reason for the BIR to withhold the tax refund. In this case, petitioners failure to present sufficient evidence to prove its claim for refund is fatal to its cause. After all, it is axiomatic that a claimant has the burden of proof to establish the factual basis of his or her claim for tax credit or refund. Tax refunds, like tax exemptions, are construed strictly against the 28 taxpayer. Section 69, Chapter IX, Title II of the National Internal Revenue Code of the Philippines (NIRC) provides: Sec. 69. Final Adjustment Return.Every corporation liable to tax under Section 24 shall file a final adjustment return covering the total net income for the preceding calendar or fiscal year. If the sum of the quarterly tax payments made during the said taxable year is not equal to the total tax due on the entire taxable net income of that year the corporation shall either: (a) Pay the excess tax still due; or (b) Be refunded the excess amount paid, as the case may be.
27

In case the corporation is entitled to a refund of the excess estimated quarterly income taxes paid, the refundable amount shown on its final adjustment return may be credited against the estimated quarterly income tax liabilities for the taxable quarters of the succeeding taxable year. [Emphasis supplied] Revenue Regulation No. 10-77 of the Bureau of Internal Revenue clarifies: SEC. 7. Filing of final or adjustment return and final payment of income tax. A final or an adjustment return on B.I.R. Form No. 1702 covering the total taxable income of the corporation for the preceding calendar or fiscal year shall be filed on or before the 15th day of the fourth month following the close of the calendar or fiscal year. The return shall include all the items of gross income and deductions for the taxable year. The amount of income tax to be paid shall be the balance of the total income tax shown on the final or adjustment return after deducting therefrom the total quarterly income taxes paid during the preceding first three quarters of the same calendar or fiscal year. Any excess of the total quarterly payments over the actual income tax computed and shown in the adjustment or final corporate income tax return shall either (a) be refunded to the corporation, or (b) may be credited against the estimated quarterly income tax liabilities for the quarters of the succeeding taxable year. The corporation must signify in its annual corporate adjustment return its intention whether to request for refund of the overpaid income tax or claim for automatic credit to be applied against its income tax liabilities for the quarters of the succeeding taxable year by filling up the appropriate box on the corporate tax return (B.I.R. Form No. 1702). [Emphasis supplied] As clearly shown from the above-quoted provisions, in case the corporation is entitled to a refund of the excess estimated quarterly income taxes paid, the refundable amount shown on its final adjustment return may be credited against the estimated quarterly income tax liabilities for the taxable quarters of the succeeding year. The carrying forward of any excess or overpaid income tax for a given taxable year is limited to the succeeding taxable year only. In the recent case of AB Leasing and Finance Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, where the Court declared that "[T]he carrying forward of any excess or overpaid income tax for a given taxable year then is limited to the succeeding taxable year only," we ruled that since the case involved a claim for refund of overpaid taxes for 1993, petitioner could only have applied the 1993 excess tax credits to its 1994 income tax liabilities. To further carry-over to 1995 the 1993 excess tax credits is violative of Section 69 of the NIRC. In this case, petitioner included its 1988 excess credit of P146,026.00 in the computation of its total excess credit for 1989. It indicated this amount, plus the 1989 creditable taxes withheld of P54,104.00 or a total of P172,477.00, as its total excess credit to be applied as tax credit for 1990. By its own disclosure, petitioner effectively combined its 1988 and 1989 tax credits and applied its 1990 tax due of P33,240.00 against the total, and not against its creditable taxes for 1989 only as allowed by Section 69. This is a clear admission that petitioners 1988 tax credit was incorrectly and illegally applied against its 1990 tax liabilities. Parenthetically, while a taxpayer is given the choice whether to claim for refund or have its excess taxes applied as tax credit for the succeeding taxable year, such election is not final. Prior verification and approval by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue is required. The availment of the remedy of tax credit is not absolute and mandatory. It does not confer an absolute right on the taxpayer to avail of the tax credit scheme if it so chooses. Neither does it impose a duty on the part of the government to sit back and 30 allow an important facet of tax collection to be at the sole control and discretion of the taxpayer.
29

Contrary to petitioners assertion however, the taxpayers election, signified by the ticking of boxes in Item 10 of BIR Form No. 1702, is not a mere technical exercise. It aids in the proper management of claims for refund or tax credit by leading tax authorities to the direction they should take in addressing the claim. The amendment of Section 69 by what is now Section 76 of Republic Act No. 8424 emphasizes that it is imperative to indicate in the tax return or the final adjustment return whether a tax credit or refund is sought by making the taxpayers choice irrevocable. Section 76 provides: SEC. 76. Final Adjustment Return.Every corporation liable to tax under Section 27 shall file a final adjustment return covering the total taxable income for the preceding calendar or fiscal year. If the sum of the quarterly tax payments made during the said taxable year is not equal to the total tax due on the entire taxable income of that year, the corporation shall either: (A) Pay the balance of the tax still due; or (B) Carry-over the excess credit; or (C) Be credited or refunded with the excess amount paid, as the case may be. In case the corporation is entitled to a tax credit or refund of the excess estimated quarterly income taxes paid, the excess amount shown on its final adjustment return may be carried over and credited against the estimated quarterly income tax liabilities for the taxable quarters of the succeeding taxable years. Once the option to carry-over and apply the excess quarterly income tax against income tax due for the taxable quarters of the succeeding taxable years has been made, such option shall be considered irrevocable for that taxable period and no application for cash refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate shall be allowed therefore. [Emphasis supplied] As clearly seen from this provision, the taxpayer is allowed three (3) options if the sum of its quarterly tax payments made during the taxable year is not equal to the total tax due for that year: (a) pay the balance of the tax still due; (b) carry-over the excess credit; or (c) be credited or refunded the amount paid. If the taxpayer has paid excess quarterly income taxes, it may be entitled to a tax credit or refund as shown in its final adjustment return which may be carried over and applied against the estimated quarterly income tax liabilities for the taxable quarters of the succeeding taxable years. However, once the taxpayer has exercised the option to carry-over and to apply the excess quarterly income tax against income tax due for the taxable quarters of the succeeding taxable years, such option is irrevocable for that taxable period and no application for cash refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate shall be allowed. Had this provision been in effect when the present claim for refund was fil ed, petitioners excess credits for 1988 could have been properly applied to its 1990 tax liabilities. Unfortunately for petitioner, this is not the case. Taxation is a destructive power which interferes with the personal and property rights of the people and takes from them a portion of their property for the support of the government. And since taxes are what we pay for civilized society, 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 taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing authority. A claim of refund or exemption from tax payments must be clearly shown and be based on language in the law too plain to be mistaken. Elsewise stated, taxation is 32 the rule, exemption therefrom is the exception. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The challenged decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs.
31

SO ORDERED. Puno, Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr., and Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur. 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 1 March 1995 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 20, dismissing the petition for declaratory relief in Civil Case No. CEB-16900 entitled "Mactan Cebu International Airport 2 Authority vs. City of Cebu", and its order of 4, May 1995 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 3 effect on January 1, 1992. The petition for declaratory relief was docketed as Civil Case No. CEB-16900. In its decision of 22 March 1995, wit:
4

the trial court dismissed the petition in light of its findings, to

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 selfreliant 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 5 government units. . . . 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 6 governmental functions primarily to promote certain aspects of the economic life of the people. 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 7 accelerating the development of the means of transportation and communication in the country," and that it is an attached agency of the Department of Transportation and Communication 8 (DOTC), 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. 9 Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation; 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 10 power is guaranteed by the Constitution and enhanced further by the LGC. While it may be true 11 that under its Charter the petitioner was exempt from the payment of realty taxes, 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 governmentowned 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 12 corporation, 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 13 Constitutions. Our Constitution, for instance, provides that the rule of taxation shall be uniform 14 and equitable and Congress shall evolve a progressive system of taxation. So potent indeed is 15 the power that it was once opined that "the power to tax involves the power to destroy." 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 16 17 liberally in favor of the taxpayer. But since taxes are what we pay for civilized society, 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 18 the taxing authority. A claim of exemption from tax payment must be clearly shown and based 19 on language in the law too plain to be mistaken. Elsewise stated, taxation is the rule, exemption 20 therefrom is the exception. 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 21 the course of its operations. 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, 22 but pursuant to direct authority conferred by Section 5, Article X of the Constitution. 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 23 is thus covered by the non-impairment clause of the Constitution. 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 24 regulation or inspection of business activity, while "charges" are pecuniary liabilities such as 25 rents or fees against person or property. 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 environmental protection. used for pollution control and

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 26 corporations are withdrawn upon the effectivity of the Code. 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 governmentowned or controlled corporations, except as provided in the said section, and the petitioner is, undoubtedly, a government-owned 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, 27 municipal or barangay subdivision or other forms of local government." These autonomous 28 regions, provincial, city, municipal or barangay subdivisions" are the political subdivision. On the other hand, "National Government" refers "to the entire machinery of the central 29 government, as distinguished from the different forms of local Governments." The National Government then is composed of the three great departments the executive, the legislative and 30 the judicial. 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 31 local government or a distinct unit therein;" 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 32 regulatory agencies, chartered institutions and government-owned and controlled corporations". 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 government-owned 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 33 considerations are consistent with the State policy to ensure autonomy to local governments 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 34 partners in the attainment of national goals. 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 35 otherwise, by paying the taxes and other charges due from them.

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 36 AirPort in the Province of Cebu", which belonged to the Republic of the Philippines, then under 37 the Air Transportation Office (ATO). 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 38 and/or administered by the airports." 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 39 Amusement and Gaming Corporation 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. L-31156 February 27, 1976 PEPSI-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC., plaintiff-appellant, vs. MUNICIPALITY OF TANAUAN, LEYTE, THE MUNICIPAL MAYOR, ET AL., defendant appellees. Sabido, Sabido & Associates for appellant. Provincial Fiscal Zoila M. Redona & Assistant Provincial Fiscal Bonifacio R Matol and Assistant Solicitor General Conrado T. Limcaoco & Solicitor Enrique M. Reyes for appellees.

MARTIN, J.: This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Leyte in its Civil Case No. 3294, which was certified to Us by the Court of Appeals on October 6, 1969, as involving only pure questions of law, challenging the power of taxation delegated to municipalities under the Local Autonomy Act (Republic Act No. 2264, as amended, June 19, 1959). On February 14, 1963, the plaintiff-appellant, Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company of the Philippines, Inc., commenced a complaint with preliminary injunction before the Court of First Instance of Leyte for that 1 court to declare Section 2 of Republic Act No. 2264. otherwise known as the Local Autonomy Act, unconstitutional as an undue delegation of taxing authority as well as to declare Ordinances Nos. 23 and 27, series of 1962, of the municipality of Tanauan, Leyte, null and void. On July 23, 1963, the parties entered into a Stipulation of Facts, the material portions of which state that, first, both Ordinances Nos. 23 and 27 embrace or cover the same subject matter and the production tax rates imposed therein are practically the same, and second, that on January 17, 1963, the acting Municipal Treasurer of Tanauan, Leyte, as per his letter addressed to the Manager of the Pepsi-Cola Bottling Plant in said municipality, sought to enforce compliance by the latter of the provisions of said Ordinance No. 27, series of 1962. Municipal Ordinance No. 23, of Tanauan, Leyte, which was approved on September 25, 1962, levies and collects "from soft drinks producers and manufacturers a tai of one-sixteenth (1/16) of a centavo for every 2 bottle of soft drink corked." For the purpose of computing the taxes due, the person, firm, company or corporation producing soft drinks shall submit to the Municipal Treasurer a monthly report, of the total 3 number of bottles produced and corked during the month. On the other hand, Municipal Ordinance No. 27, which was approved on October 28, 1962, levies and collects "on soft drinks produced or manufactured within the territorial jurisdiction of this municipality a tax 4 of ONE CENTAVO (P0.01) on each gallon (128 fluid ounces, U.S.) of volume capacity." For the purpose of computing the taxes due, the person, fun company, partnership, corporation or plant producing soft drinks shall submit to the Municipal Treasurer a monthly report of the total number of gallons produced or 5 manufactured during the month. The tax imposed in both Ordinances Nos. 23 and 27 is denominated as "municipal production tax.'

On October 7, 1963, the Court of First Instance of Leyte rendered judgment "dismissing the complaint and upholding the constitutionality of [Section 2, Republic Act No. 2264] declaring Ordinance Nos. 23 and 27 legal and constitutional; ordering the plaintiff to pay the taxes due under the oft the said Ordinances; and to pay the costs." From this judgment, the plaintiff Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company appealed to the Court of Appeals, which, in turn, elevated the case to Us pursuant to Section 31 of the Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended. There are three capital questions raised in this appeal: 1. Is Section 2, Republic Act No. 2264 an undue delegation of power, confiscatory and oppressive? 2. Do Ordinances Nos. 23 and 27 constitute double taxation and impose percentage or specific taxes? 3. Are Ordinances Nos. 23 and 27 unjust and unfair? 1. The power of taxation is an essential and inherent attribute of sovereignty, belonging as a matter of 6 right to every independent government, without being expressly conferred by the people. It is a power that is purely legislative and which the central legislative body cannot delegate either to the executive or judicial department of the government without infringing upon the theory of separation of powers. The exception, however, lies in the case of municipal corporations, to which, said theory does not apply. 7 Legislative powers may be delegated to local governments in respect of matters of local concern. This is 8 sanctioned by immemorial practice. By necessary implication, the legislative power to create political corporations for purposes of local self-government carries with it the power to confer on such local 9 governmental agencies the power to tax. Under the New Constitution, local governments are granted the autonomous authority to create their own sources of revenue and to levy taxes. Section 5, Article XI provides: "Each local government unit shall have the power to create its sources of revenue and to levy taxes, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law." Withal, it cannot be said that Section 2 of Republic Act No. 2264 emanated from beyond the sphere of the legislative power to enact and vest in local governments the power of local taxation. The plenary nature of the taxing power thus delegated, contrary to plaintiff-appellant's pretense, would not suffice to invalidate the said law as confiscatory and oppressive. In delegating the authority, the State is not limited 6 the exact measure of that which is exercised by itself. When it is said that the taxing power may be delegated to municipalities and the like, it is meant that there may be delegated such measure of power to impose and collect taxes as the legislature may deem expedient. Thus, municipalities may be permitted to tax subjects which for reasons of public policy the State has not deemed wise to tax for more 10 general purposes. This is not to say though that the constitutional injunction against deprivation of property without due process of law may be passed over under the guise of the taxing power, except when the taking of the property is in the lawful exercise of the taxing power, as when (1) the tax is for a public purpose; (2) the rule on uniformity of taxation is observed; (3) either the person or property taxed is within the jurisdiction of the government levying the tax; and (4) in the assessment and collection of 11 certain kinds of taxes notice and opportunity for hearing are provided. Due process is usually violated where the tax imposed is for a private as distinguished from a public purpose; a tax is imposed on property outside the State, i.e., extraterritorial taxation; and arbitrary or oppressive methods are used in assessing and collecting taxes. But, a tax does not violate the due process clause, as applied to a particular taxpayer, although the purpose of the tax will result in an injury rather than a benefit to such taxpayer. Due process does not require that the property subject to the tax or the amount of tax to be raised should be determined by judicial inquiry, and a notice and hearing as to the amount of the tax and 12 the manner in which it shall be apportioned are generally not necessary to due process of law.

There is no validity to the assertion that the delegated authority can be declared unconstitutional on the theory of double taxation. It must be observed that the delegating authority specifies the limitations and 13 enumerates the taxes over which local taxation may not be exercised. The reason is that the State has exclusively reserved the same for its own prerogative. Moreover, double taxation, in general, is not forbidden by our fundamental law, since We have not adopted as part thereof the injunction against 14 double taxation found in the Constitution of the United States and some states of the Union. Double taxation becomes obnoxious only where the taxpayer is taxed twice for the benefit of the same 15 16 governmental entity or by the same jurisdiction for the same purpose, but not in a case where one 17 tax is imposed by the State and the other by the city or municipality. 2. The plaintiff-appellant submits that Ordinance No. 23 and 27 constitute double taxation, because these two ordinances cover the same subject matter and impose practically the same tax rate. The thesis proceeds from its assumption that both ordinances are valid and legally enforceable. This is not so. As earlier quoted, Ordinance No. 23, which was approved on September 25, 1962, levies or collects from soft drinks producers or manufacturers a tax of one-sixteen (1/16) of a centavo for .every bottle corked, irrespective of the volume contents of the bottle used. When it was discovered that the producer or manufacturer could increase the volume contents of the bottle and still pay the same tax rate, the Municipality of Tanauan enacted Ordinance No. 27, approved on October 28, 1962, imposing a tax of one centavo (P0.01) on each gallon (128 fluid ounces, U.S.) of volume capacity. The difference between the two ordinances clearly lies in the tax rate of the soft drinks produced: in Ordinance No. 23, it was 1/16 of a centavo for every bottle corked; in Ordinance No. 27, it is one centavo (P0.01) on each gallon (128 fluid ounces, U.S.) of volume capacity. The intention of the Municipal Council of Tanauan in enacting Ordinance No. 27 is thus clear: it was intended as a plain substitute for the prior Ordinance No. 23, and 18 operates as a repeal of the latter, even without words to that effect. Plaintiff-appellant in its brief admitted that defendants-appellees are only seeking to enforce Ordinance No. 27, series of 1962. Even the stipulation of facts confirms the fact that the Acting Municipal Treasurer of Tanauan, Leyte sought t6 compel compliance by the plaintiff-appellant of the provisions of said Ordinance No. 27, series of 1962. The aforementioned admission shows that only Ordinance No. 27, series of 1962 is being enforced by defendants-appellees. Even the Provincial Fiscal, counsel for defendants-appellees admits in his brief "that Section 7 of Ordinance No. 27, series of 1962 clearly repeals Ordinance No. 23 as the provisions of the latter are inconsistent with the provisions of the former." That brings Us to the question of whether the remaining Ordinance No. 27 imposes a percentage or a specific tax. Undoubtedly, the taxing authority conferred on local governments under Section 2, Republic Act No. 2264, is broad enough as to extend to almost "everything, accepting those which are mentioned therein." As long as the text levied under the authority of a city or municipal ordinance is not within the exceptions and limitations in the law, the same comes within the ambit of the general rule, pursuant to the 19 rules of exclucion attehus and exceptio firmat regulum in cabisus non excepti The limitation applies, particularly, to the prohibition against municipalities and municipal districts to impose "any percentage tax 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." For purposes of this particular limitation, a municipal ordinance which prescribes a set ratio between the amount of the tax and the volume of sale of the taxpayer imposes a sales tax and is null and void for being outside the power of the 20 municipality to enact. But, the imposition of "a tax of one centavo (P0.01) on each gallon (128 fluid ounces, U.S.) of volume capacity" on all soft drinks produced or manufactured under Ordinance No. 27 does not partake of the nature of a percentage tax on sales, or other taxes in any form based thereon. The tax is levied on the produce (whether sold or not) and not on the sales. The volume capacity of the taxpayer's production of soft drinks is considered solely for purposes of determining the tax rate on the 21 products, but there is not set ratio between the volume of sales and the amount of the tax. Nor can the tax levied be treated as a specific tax. Specific taxes are those imposed on specified articles, such as distilled spirits, wines, fermented liquors, products of tobacco other than cigars and cigarettes, matches firecrackers, manufactured oils and other fuels, coal, bunker fuel oil, diesel fuel oil, 22 cinematographic films, playing cards, saccharine, opium and other habit-forming drugs. Soft drink is not one of those specified.

3. The tax of one (P0.01) on each gallon (128 fluid ounces, U.S.) of volume capacity on all softdrinks, 23 produced or manufactured, or an equivalent of 1- centavos per case, cannot be considered unjust and unfair. 24 an increase in the tax alone would not support the claim that the tax is oppressive, unjust and confiscatory. Municipal corporations are allowed much discretion in determining the reates of imposable taxes. 25 This is in line with the constutional policy of according the widest possible autonomy to local governments in matters of local taxation, an aspect that is given expression in the Local Tax Code (PD No. 231, July 1, 1973). 26 Unless the amount is so excessive as to be prohibitive, courts will go slow in writing off an ordinance as unreasonable. 27 Reluctance should not deter compliance with an ordinance such as Ordinance No. 27 if the purpose of the law to further strengthen local autonomy were to be realized. 28 Finally, the municipal license tax of P1,000.00 per corking machine with five but not more than ten crowners or P2,000.00 with ten but not more than twenty crowners imposed on manufacturers, producers, importers and dealers of soft drinks and/or mineral waters under Ordinance No. 54, series of 29 1964, as amended by Ordinance No. 41, series of 1968, of defendant Municipality, appears not to affect the resolution of the validity of Ordinance No. 27. Municipalities are empowered to impose, not only municipal license taxes upon persons engaged in any business or occupation but also to levy for public purposes, just and uniform taxes. The ordinance in question (Ordinance No. 27) comes within the second power of a municipality. ACCORDINGLY, the constitutionality of Section 2 of Republic Act No. 2264, otherwise known as the Local Autonomy Act, as amended, is hereby upheld and Municipal Ordinance No. 27 of the Municipality of Tanauan, Leyte, series of 1962, re-pealing Municipal Ordinance No. 23, same series, is hereby declared of valid and legal effect. Costs against petitioner-appellant. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. 90776 June 3, 1991 PHILIPPINE PETROLEUM CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. MUNICIPALITY OF PILILLA, RIZAL, Represented by MAYOR NICOMEDES F. PATENIA, respondent. Quiason, Makalintal, Barot, Torres & Ibarra for petitioner.

PARAS, J.:p This is a petition for certiorari seeking to annul and set aside: (a) the March 17, 1989 decision * of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 80, Tanay, Rizal in Civil Case No. 057-T entitled, "Municipality of Pililla, Rizal, represented by Mayor Nicomedes F. Patenia vs. Philippine Petroleum Corporation", (PPC for short) upholding the legality of the taxes, fees and charges being imposed in Pililla under Municipal Tax Ordinance No. 1 and directing the herein petitioner to pay the amount of said taxes, fees and charges due the respondent: and (b) the November 2, 1989 resolution of the same court denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the said decision. The undisputed facts of the case are: Petitioner, Philippine Petroleum Corporation (PPC for short) is a business enterprise engaged in the manufacture of lubricated oil basestock which is a petroleum product, with its refinery plant situated at Malaya, Pililla, Rizal, conducting its business activities within the territorial jurisdiction of the Municipality of Pililla, Rizal and is in continuous operation up to the present ( Rollo p. 60). PPC owns and maintains an

oil refinery including forty-nine storage tanks for its petroleum products in Malaya, Pililla, Rizal ( Rollo, p. 12). Under Section 142 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1939, manufactured oils and other fuels are subject to specific tax. On June 28, 1973, Presidential Decree No. 231, otherwise known as the Local Tax Code was issued by former President Ferdinand E. Marcos governing the exercise by provinces, cities, municipalities and barrios of their taxing and other revenue-raising powers. Sections 19 and 19 (a) thereof, provide among others, that the municipality may impose taxes on business, except on those for which fixed taxes are provided on manufacturers, importers or producers of any article of commerce of whatever kind or nature , including brewers, distillers, rectifiers, repackers, and compounders of liquors, distilled spirits and/or wines in accordance with the schedule listed therein. The Secretary of Finance issued Provincial Circular No. 26-73 dated December 27, 1973, directed to all provincial, city and municipal treasurers to refrain from collecting any local tax imposed in old or new tax ordinances in the business of manufacturing, wholesaling, retailing, or dealing in petroleum products subject to the specific tax under the National Internal Revenue Code ( Rollo, p. 76). Likewise, Provincial Circular No. 26 A-73 dated January 9, 1973 was issued by the Secretary of Finance instructing all City Treasurers to refrain from collecting any local tax imposed in tax ordinances enacted before or after the effectivity of the Local Tax Code on July 1, 1973, on the businesses of manufacturing , wholesaling, retailing, or dealing in, petroleum products subject to the specific tax under the National Internal Revenue Code (Rollo, p. 79). Respondent Municipality of Pililla, Rizal, through Municipal Council Resolution No. 25, S-1974 enacted Municipal Tax Ordinance No. 1, S-1974 otherwise known as "The Pililla Tax Code of 1974" on June 14, 1974, which took effect on July 1, 1974 (Rollo, pp. 181-182). Sections 9 and 10 of the said ordinance imposed a tax on business, except for those for which fixed taxes are provided in the Local Tax Code on manufacturers, importers, or producers of any article of commerce of whatever kind or nature, including brewers, distillers, rectifiers, repackers, and compounders of liquors, distilled spirits and/or wines in accordance with the schedule found in the Local Tax Code, as well as mayor's permit, sanitary inspection fee and storage permit fee for flammable, combustible or explosive substances ( Rollo, pp. 183-187), while Section 139 of the disputed ordinance imposed surcharges and interests on unpaid taxes, fees or charges (Ibid., p. 193). On March 30, 1974, Presidential Decree No. 426 was issued amending certain provisions of P.D. 231 but retaining Sections 19 and 19 (a) with adjusted rates and 22(b). On April 13, 1974, P.D. 436 was promulgated increasing the specific tax on lubricating oils, gasoline, bunker fuel oil, diesel fuel oil and other similar petroleum products levied under Sections 142, 144 and 145 of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and granting provinces, cities and municipalities certain shares in the specific tax on such products in lieu of local taxes imposed on petroleum products. The questioned Municipal Tax Ordinance No. 1 was reviewed and approved by the Provincial Treasurer of Rizal on January 13, 1975 (Rollo, p. 143), but was not implemented and/or enforced by the Municipality of Pililla because of its having been suspended up to now in view of Provincial Circular Nos. 26-73 and 26 A-73. Provincial Circular No. 6-77 dated March 13, 1977 was also issued directing all city and municipal treasurers to refrain from collecting the so-called storage fee on flammable or combustible materials imposed under the local tax ordinance of their respective locality, said fee partaking of the nature of a strictly revenue measure or service charge.

On June 3, 1977, P.D. 1158 otherwise known as the National Internal Revenue Code of 1977 was enacted, Section 153 of which specifically imposes specific tax on refined and manufactured mineral oils and motor fuels. Enforcing the provisions of the above-mentioned ordinance, the respondent filed a complaint on April 4, 1986 docketed as Civil Case No. 057-T against PPC for the collection of the business tax from 1979 to 1986; storage permit fees from 1975 to 1986; mayor's permit and sanitary inspection fees from 1975 to 1984. PPC, however, have already paid the last-named fees starting 1985 (Rollo, p. 74). After PPC filed its answer, a pre-trial conference was held on August 24, 1988 where the parties thru their respective counsel, after coming up with certain admissions and stipulations agreed to the submission of the case for decision based on documentary evidence offered with their respective comments ( Rollo, p. 41). On March 17, 1987, the trial court rendered a decision against the petitioner, the dispositive part of which reads as follows: WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court hereby renders judgment in favor of the plaintiffs as against the defendants thereby directing the defendants to 1) pay the plaintiffs the amount of P5,301,385.00 representing the Tax on Business due from the defendants under Sec. 9 (A) of the Municipal Tax Ordinance of the plaintiffs for the period from 1979 to 1983 inclusive plus such amount of tax that may accrue until final determination of case; 2) to pay storage permit fee in the amount of P3,321,730.00 due from the defendants under Sec. 10, par. z (13) (b) (1 C) of the Municipal Tax Ordinance of the plaintiffs for the period from 1975 to 1986 inclusive plus such amount of fee that may accrue until final determination of case; 3) to pay Mayor's Permit Fee due from the defendants under Sec. 10, par. (P) (2) of the Municipal Tax Ordinance of the plaintiffs from 1975 to 1984 inclusive in the amount of P12,120.00 plus such amount of fee that may accrue until final determination of the case; and 4) to pay sanitary inspection fee in the amount of P1,010.00 for the period from 1975 to 1984 plus such amount that may accrue until final determination of case and 5) to pay the costs of suit. SO ORDERED. (Rollo, pp. 49-50) PPC moved for reconsideration of the decision, but this was denied by the lower court in a resolution of November 2, 1989, hence, the instant petition. The Court resolved to give due course to the petition and required both parties to submit simultaneous memoranda (June 21, 1990 Resolution; Rollo, p. 305). PPC assigns the following alleged errors: 1. THE RTC ERRED IN ORDERING THE PAYMENT OF THE BUSINESS TAX UNDER SECTION 9 (A) OF THE TAX ORDINANCE IN THE LIGHT OF PROVINCIAL CIRCULARS NOS. 26-73 AND 26 A-73;. 2. THE RTC ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONER WAS LIABLE FOR THE PAYMENT OF STORAGE PERMIT FEE UNDER SECTION 10 Z (13) (b) (1-c) OF THE TAX ORDINANCE CONSIDERING THE ISSUANCE OF PROVINCIAL CIRCULAR NO. 6-77; 3. THE RTC ERRED IN FAILING TO HOLD THAT RESPONDENTS COMPUTATION OF TAX LIABILITY HAS ABSOLUTELY NO BASIS;

4. THE RTC ERRED IN ORDERING THE PAYMENT OF MAYOR'S PERMIT AND SANITARY INSPECTION FEES CONSIDERING THAT THE SAME HAS BEEN VALIDLY AND LEGALLY WAIVED BY THE MAYOR; 5. THE RTC ERRED IN FAILING TO HOLD THAT THE TAXES AND DUTIES NOT COLLECTED FROM PETITIONER PRIOR TO THE FIVE (5) YEAR PERIOD FROM THE FILING OF THIS CASE ON APRIL 4, 1986 HAS ALREADY PRESCRIBED. The crucial issue in this case is whether or not petitioner PPC whose oil products are subject to specific tax under the NIRC, is still liable to pay (a) tax on business and (b) storage fees, considering Provincial Circular No. 6-77; and mayor's permit and sanitary inspection fee unto the respondent Municipality of Pililla, Rizal, based on Municipal Ordinance No. 1. Petitioner PPC contends that: (a) Provincial Circular No. 2673 declared as contrary to national economic policy the imposition of local taxes on the manufacture of petroleum products as they are already subject to specific tax under the National Internal Revenue Code; (b) the above declaration covers not only old tax ordinances but new ones, as well as those which may be enacted in the future; (c) both Provincial Circulars (PC) 26-73 and 26 A-73 are still effective, hence, unless and until revoked, any effort on the part of the respondent to collect the suspended tax on business from the petitioner would be illegal and unauthorized; and (d) Section 2 of P.D. 436 prohibits the imposition of local taxes on petroleum products. PC No. 26-73 and PC No. 26 A-73 suspended the effectivity of local tax ordinances imposing a tax on business under Section 19 (a) of the Local Tax Code (P.D. No. 231), with regard to manufacturers, retailers, wholesalers or dealers in petroleum products subject to the specific tax under the National Internal Revenue Code NIRC, in view of Section 22 (b) of the Code regarding non-imposition by municipalities of taxes on articles, subject to specific tax under the provisions of the NIRC. There is no question that Pililla's Municipal Tax Ordinance No. 1 imposing the assailed taxes, fees and charges is valid especially Section 9 (A) which according to the trial court "was lifted in toto and/or is a literal reproduction of Section 19 (a) of the Local Tax Code as amended by P.D. No. 426." It conforms with the mandate of said law. But P.D. No. 426 amending the Local Tax Code is deemed to have repealed Provincial Circular Nos. 2673 and 26 A-73 issued by the Secretary of Finance when Sections 19 and 19 (a), were carried over into P.D. No. 426 and no exemptions were given to manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers, or dealers in petroleum products. Well-settled is the rule that administrative regulations must be in harmony with the provisions of the law. In case of discrepancy between the basic law and an implementing rule or regulation, the former prevails (Shell Philippines, Inc. v. Central Bank of the Philippines, 162 SCRA 628 [1988]). As aptly held by the court a quo: Necessarily, there could not be any other logical conclusion than that the framers of P.D. No. 426 really and actually intended to terminate the effectivity and/or enforceability of Provincial Circulars Nos. 26-73 and 26 A-73 inasmuch as clearly these circulars are in contravention with Sec. 19 (a) of P.D. 426-the amendatory law to P.D. No. 231. That intention to terminate is very apparent and in fact it is expressed in clear and unequivocal terms in the effectivity and repealing clause of P.D. 426 . . . Furthermore, while Section 2 of P.D. 436 prohibits the imposition of local taxes on petroleum products, said decree did not amend Sections 19 and 19 (a) of P.D. 231 as amended by P.D. 426, wherein the municipality is granted the right to levy taxes on business of manufacturers, importers, producers of any article of commerce of whatever kind or nature. A tax on business is distinct from a tax on the article itself.

Thus, if the imposition of tax on business of manufacturers, etc. in petroleum products contravenes a declared national policy, it should have been expressly stated in P.D. No. 436. The exercise by local governments of the power to tax is ordained by the present Constitution. To allow the continuous effectivity of the prohibition set forth in PC No. 26-73 (1) would be tantamount to restricting their power to tax by mere administrative issuances. Under Section 5, Article X of the 1987 Constitution, only guidelines and limitations that may be established by Congress can define and limit such power of local governments. Thus: Each local government unit shall have the power to create its own sources of revenues and to levy taxes, fees, and charges subject to such guidelines and limitations as the Congress may provide, consistent with the basic policy of local autonomy . . . Provincial Circular No. 6-77 enjoining all city and municipal treasurers to refrain from collecting the socalled storage fee on flammable or combustible materials imposed in the local tax ordinance of their respective locality frees petitioner PPC from the payment of storage permit fee. The storage permit fee being imposed by Pililla's tax ordinance is a fee for the installation and keeping in storage of any flammable, combustible or explosive substances. Inasmuch as said storage makes use of tanks owned not by the municipality of Pililla, but by petitioner PPC, same is obviously not a charge for any service rendered by the municipality as what is envisioned in Section 37 of the same Code. Section 10 (z) (13) of Pililla's Municipal Tax Ordinance No. 1 prescribing a permit fee is a permit fee allowed under Section 36 of the amended Code. As to the authority of the mayor to waive payment of the mayor's permit and sanitary inspection fees, the trial court did not err in holding that "since the power to tax includes the power to exempt thereof which is essentially a legislative prerogative, it follows that a municipal mayor who is an executive officer may not unilaterally withdraw such an expression of a policy thru the enactment of a tax." The waiver partakes of the nature of an exemption. It is an ancient rule that exemptions from taxation are construed in strictissimi juris against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing authority (Esso Standard Eastern, Inc. v. Acting Commissioner of Customs, 18 SCRA 488 [1966]). Tax exemptions are looked upon with disfavor (Western Minolco Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 124 SCRA 121 [1983]). Thus, in the absence of a clear and express exemption from the payment of said fees, the waiver cannot be recognized. As already stated, it is the law-making body, and not an executive like the mayor, who can make an exemption. Under Section 36 of the Code, a permit fee like the mayor's permit, shall be required before any individual or juridical entity shall engage in any business or occupation under the provisions of the Code. However, since the Local Tax Code does not provide the prescriptive period for collection of local taxes, Article 1143 of the Civil Code applies. Said law provides that an action upon an obligation created by law prescribes within ten (10) years from the time the right of action accrues. The Municipality of Pililla can therefore enforce the collection of the tax on business of petitioner PPC due from 1976 to 1986, and NOT the tax that had accrued prior to 1976. PREMISES CONSIDERED, with the MODIFICATION that business taxes accruing PRIOR to 1976 are not to be paid by PPC (because the same have prescribed) and that storage fees are not also to be paid by PPC (for the storage tanks are owned by PPC and not by the municipality, and therefore cannot be a charge for service by the municipality), the assailed DECISION is hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.

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. Angara, Abello, Concepcion & Cruz for respondent Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation. Siguion Reyna, Montecillo & Ongsiako for Caltex.

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 1 time. Unfazed by the Decision We promulgated on May 31, 1991 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 2 Philippines. The sum of P250,000.00 was appropriated out of the funds in the Philippine Treasury for the 3 purpose of organizing the NPC and conducting its preliminary work. The main source of funds for the 4 NPC was the flotation of bonds in the capital markets 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 5 upon the face of said bonds. . . . . 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 6 construction of any hydraulic power project was to be decided by the NPC Board. 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 7 principal and interest in "gold coins" but adding that payment could be made in United States dollars. 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 8 guarantee, absolutely and unconditionally, as primary obligor, the payment of any and all NPC loans. He

was also authorized to contract on behalf of the NPC with the International Bank for Reconstruction and 9 Development (IBRD) for NPC loans for the accomplishment of NPC's corporate objectives and for the 10 reconstruction and development of the economy of the country. 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 11 municipalities. On the same date, R.A. No. 358 was enacted expressly authorizing the NPC, for the first time, to incur 12 other types of indebtedness, aside from indebtedness incurred by flotation of bonds. 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 13 the Philippines, its provinces, cities and municipalities. 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 Export14 Import Bank of of Washigton, D.C., U.S.A., or any other international financial institution. 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 15 municipalities. On September 8, 1955, R.A. No. 1397 was enacted directing that the NPC projects to be funded by the 16 increased indebtedness 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 17 authorized to incur to US$100,000,000.00 from the US$50,000,000.00 ceiling in R.A. No. 357. 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. All laws or provisions of laws and executive orders contrary to said R.A. No. 2058 were expressly 19 repealed.
18

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 20 par value of P100.00 each, with said capital stock wholly subscribed to by the Government. 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 21 to P250,000,000.00 with the increase to be wholly subscribed by the Government. 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 22 incorporated in said Act.

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 23 agencies of the government, including the financial institutions. 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 24 bonds. . . . 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 25 Republic of the Philippines, or any of its agencies and political subdivisions. 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 26 electric power. 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 27 implementing agency of the State. 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 28 embraced by any grid set up by the NPC. On January 22, 1974, P.D. No. 380 was issued giving extra powers to the NPC to enable it to fulfill its role 29 under aforesaid P.D. No. 40. Its authorized capital stock was raised to P2,000,000,000.00, its total 30 domestic indebtedness was pegged at a maximum of P3,000,000,000.00 at any one time, and the NPC 31 was authorized to borrow a total of US$1,000,000,000.00 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 32 Philippines, or any of its agencies and political subdivisions. (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 33 Corporation in the generation, transmission, utilization and sale of electric power. (Emphasis supplied)

On February 26, 1970, P.D. No. 395 was issued removing certain restrictions in the NPC's sale of 34 electricity to its different customers. 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 35 particular purpose. 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 36 insufficient; 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 37 taxing agencies of the government on said provisions; 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 38 become imperative; Thus NPC's capital stock was raised to P8,000,000,000.00, the total domestic indebtedness ceiling was 40 41 increased to P12,000,000,000.00, the total foreign loan ceiling was raised to US$4,000,000,000.00 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 42 bonds, supersedeas bonds, in any court or administrative proceedings. 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
39

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 43 long-term plan and of a long-term budget program. 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 44 shall automatically be considered as both revenue and expenditure of the General Fund. 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 45 accordingly. 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 46 government; 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 47 otherwise, by paying the duties, taxes and other charges due from them. 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 upon the promulgation of the rules and regulations, to 49 be issued by the Ministry of Finance. Said rules and regulations were promulgated and published in the Official Gazette 50 on February 23, 1987. These became effective on the 15th day after promulgation in the Official 51 Gasetter, which 15th day was March 10, 1987.
48

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 52 the tariff and customs indirect taxes (import duties, special import tax and other dues) 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 53 and 938 were issued by one man, acting as such the Executive and Legislative. 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. 54 938 if his intention were to preserve the indirect tax exemption of NPC.

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 55 up 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 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 57 Republic of the Philippines, or any of its agencies and political subdivisions. 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
56

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 58 Philippines, or any of its agencies and political subdivisions. (Emphasis supplied) P.D. No. 938 did not amend the same 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 60 government receipts and expenditures by formulating and implementing a National Budget. 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 61 tax exemption privileges by P.D. No. 1177 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 62 opinion No. 133 (S '77). 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 63 64 exemption privileges. Applying by analogy Pulido vs. Pablo, the court declares that the matter of P.D. 65 No. 1177 abolishing NPC's tax exemption privileges was not seasonably invoked 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
59

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 governmentowned 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 66 and liabilities under the former act or acts are preserved and may be enforced. 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 67 exemption privileges, which, it did, and the same were granted under FIRB Resolutions Nos. 10-85 and 68 1-86 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 69 exemption status but merely restored it. Some quarters have expressed the view that P.D. No. 1931 was illegally issued under the now rather 70 infamous Amendment No. 6 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 71 immediate action' to meet the 'exigency'. 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) 72 months after the Philippines unilaterally declared a moratorium on its foreign debt payments as a result of the economic crisis triggered by loss of confidence in the government brought about by the Aquino 73 assassination. The Philippines was then trying to reschedule its debt payments. One of the big 74 borrowers was the NPC which had a US$ 2.1 billion white elephant of a Bataan Nuclear Power Plant 75 on its back. From all indications, it must have been this grave emergency of a debt rescheduling which 76 compelled Marcos to issue P.D. No. 1931, under his Amendment 6 power. The rule, therefore, that under the 1973 Constitution "no law granting a tax exemption shall be passed 77 without the concurrence of a majority of all the members of the Batasang Pambansa" 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 78 same was granted under FIRB Resolution No. 17-87 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. 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 80 Appeals when the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources approved a decision earlier rendered 81 82 by him when he was the Director of Mines, and in Anzaldo vs. Clave where Presidential Executive Assistant Clave affirmed, on appeal to Malacaang, his own decision as Chairman of the Civil Service 83 Commission.
79

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 84 were recommended by him in his capacity as Chairman of the Fiscal Incentives Review Board. In Zambales Chromite and Anzaldo, two (2) different parties were involved: mining groups and scientistdoctors, 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 85 out and it fixed the standard to which the delegate had to conform in the performance of his functions, 86 87 both qualities having been enunciated by this Court in Pelaez vs. Auditor General. 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, 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
88

probably pays for the specific, ad valorem and other taxes which theses suppliers do not charge the AFP 89 Commissaries. 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 90 opinion, 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 91 the period from October 31, 1984 to April 27, 1985. 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 92 FIRB Resolution No. 10-85. 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 93 correspondingly. 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 94 (Phils) Inc.

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, correctly issued the Tax Credit Memo in view of NPC's indirect tax exemption.
95

the Commissioner

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 96 from June 11, 1984 to the early part of 1986. 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 97 of Assignment 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.

G.R. No. 87479 June 4, 1990 NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. THE PROVINCE OF ALBAY, ALBAY GOVERNOR ROMEO R. SALALIMA, and ALBAY PROVINCIAL TREASURER ABUNDIO M. NUEZ, respondents. Romulo L. Ricafort and Jesus R. Cornago for respondents.

SARMIENTO, J.: The National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR) questions the power of the provincial government of Albay to collect real property taxes on its properties located at Tiwi, Albay, amassed between June 11, 1984 up to March 10, 1987. It appears that on March 14 and 15, 1989, the respondents caused the publication of a notice of auction sale involving the properties of NAPOCOR and the Philippine Geothermal Inc. consisting of buildings, machines, and similar improvements standing on their offices at Tiwi, Albay. The amounts to be realized from this advertised auction sale are supposed to be applied to the tax delinquencies claimed, as and for, as we said, real property taxes. The back taxes NAPOCOR has supposedly accumulated were computed at P214,845,184.76. NAPOCOR opposed the sale, interposing in support of its non-liability Resolution No. 17-87, of the Fiscal Incentives Review Board (FIRB), which provides as follows: 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 1 effective March 10, 1987, subject to the following conditions: as well as the Memorandum of Executive Secretary Catalino Macaraig, which also states thus: Pursuant to Sections 1 (f) and 2 (e) of Executive Order No. 93, series of 1986, FIRB Resolution No. 17-87, series of 1987, restoring, subject to certain conditions prescribed therein, the tax and duty exemption privileges of NPC as provided under Commonwealth 2 Act No. 120, as amended, effective March 10, 1987, is hereby confirmed and approved. On March 10, 1989, the Court resolved to issue a temporary restraining order directing the Albay provincial government "to CEASE AND DESIST from selling and disposing of the NAPOCOR properties 3 subject matter of this petition. It appears, however, that "the temporary restraining order failed to reach respondents before the scheduled bidding at 10:00 a.m. on March 30, 1989 ... [h]ence, the respondents 4 proceeded with the bidding wherein the Province of Albay was the highest bidder.

The Court gathers from the records that: (1) Under Section 13, of Republic Act No. 6395, amending Commonwealth Act No. 120 (charter of NAPOCOR): Section 13. Non-profit Character of the Corporation; Exemption from All Taxes, Duties, Fees, Imposts and Other Charges by the Government and Government Instrumentalities. 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 5 bonds, supersedeas bonds, in any court or administrative proceedings. (2) On August 24, 1975, Presidential Decree No. 776 was promulgated, creating the Fiscal Incentives Review Board (FIRB). Among other things, the Board was tasked as follows: Section 2. A Fiscal Incentives Review Board is hereby created for the purpose of determining what subsidies and tax exemptions should be modified, withdrawn, revoked or 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 abovestated statutory subsidies 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 6 Board shall meet once a month, or oftener at the call of the Secretary of Finance. (3) On June 11, 1984, Presidential Decree No. 1931 was promulgated, prescribing, among other things, that: Section 1. The provisions of special or general law to the contrary notwithstanding, all exemptions from the payment of duties, taxes, fees, impost and other charges heretofore granted in favor of government-owned or controlled corporations including their 7 subsidiaries are hereby withdrawn. (4) Meanwhile, FIRB Resolution No. 10-85 was issued, "restoring" NAPOCOR's tax exemption effective June 11, 1984 to June 30, 1985; (5) Thereafter, FIRB Resolution No. 1-86 was issued, granting tax exemption privileges to NAPOCOR from July 1, 1985 and indefinitely thereafter; (6) Likewise, FIRB Resolution No. 17-87 was promulgated, giving NAPOCOR tax exemption privileges 8 effective until March 10, 1987;

(7) On December 17, 1986, Executive Order No. 93 was promulgated by President Corazon Aquino, providing, among other things, as follows: SECTION 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 9 withdrawn, except. and SECTION 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 or 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 commitments of the Philippines and the necessary precautions such that the grant of subsidies does not become the basis for countervailing 10 action. (8) On October 5, 1987, the Office of the President issued the Memorandum, confirming NAPOCOR's tax 11 exemption aforesaid. The provincial government of Albay now defends the auction sale in question on the theory that the various FIRB issuances constitute an undue delegation of the taxing Power and hence, null and void, under the Constitution. It is also contended that, insofar as Executive Order No. 93 authorizes the FIRB to grant tax exemptions, the same is of no force and effect under the constitutional provision allowing the legislature alone to accord tax exemption privileges. It is to be pointed out that under Presidential Decree No. 776, the power of the FIRB was merely to "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 subsidies or tax exemption grants, except those granted by the Constitution." It has no authority to impose taxes or revoke existing ones, which, after all, under the Constitution, only the 12 legislature may accomplish. The question therefore is whether or not the various tax exemptions granted by virtue of FIRB Resolutions Nos. 10-85, 1-86, and 17-87 are valid and constitutional. We shall deal with FIRB No. 17-87 later, but with respect to FIRB Resolutions Nos. 10- 85 and 1-86, we sustain the provincial government of Albay. As we said, the FIRB, under its charter, Presidential Decree No. 776, had been empowered merely to "recommend" tax exemptions. By itself, it could not have validly prescribed exemptions or restore taxability. Hence, as of June 11, 1984 (promulgation of Presidential Decree No. 1931), NAPOCOR had ceased to enjoy tax exemption privileges.

The fact that under Executive Order No. 93, the FIRB has been given the prerogative to "restore tax 13 and/or duty exemptions withdrawn hereunder in whole or in part," and "impose conditions for ... tax 14 and/or duty exemption" is of no moment. These provisions are prospective in character and can not affect the Board's past acts. The Court is aware that in its preamble, Executive Order No. 93 states: WHEREAS, a number of affected entities, government and private were able to get back their tax and duty exemption privileges through the review mechanism implemented by the Fiscal Incentives Review 15 Board (FIRB); but by no means can we say that it has "ratified" the acts of FIRB. It is to misinterpret the scope of FIRB's powers under Presidential Decree No. 776 to say that it has. Apart from that, Section 2 of the Executive Order was clearly intended to amend Presidential Decree No. 776, which means, mutatis mutandis, that FIRB did not have the right, in the first place, to grant tax exemptions or withdraw existing ones. Does Executive Order No. 93 constitute an unlawful delegation of legislative power? It is to be stressed that the provincial government of Albay admits that as of March 10, 1987 (the date Resolution No. 17-87 was affirmed by the Memorandum of the Office of the President, dated October 5, 1987), NAPOCOR's exemption had been validly restored. What it questions is NAPOCOR's liability in the interregnum between June 11, 1984, the date its tax privileges were withdrawn, and March 10, 1987, the date they were purportedly restored. To be sure, it objects to Executive Order No. 93 as alledgedly a delegation of legislative power, but only insofar as its (NAPOCOR's) June 11, 1984 to March 10, 1987 tax accumulation is concerned. We therefore leave the issue of "delegation" to the future and its constitutionality when the proper case arises. For the nonce, we leave Executive Order No. 93 alone, and so also, its validity as far as it grants tax exemptions (through the FIRB) beginning December 17, 1986, the date of its promulgation. NAPOCOR must then be held liable for the intervening years aforesaid. So it has been held: xxx xxx xxx The last issue to be resolved is whether or not the private-respondent is liable for the fixed and deficiency percentage taxes in the amount of P3,025.96 (i.e. for the period from January 1, 1946 to February 29, 1948) before the approval of its municipal franchises. As aforestated, the franchises were approved by the President only on February 24,1948. Therefore, before the said date, the private respondent was liable for the payment of percentage and fixed taxes as seller of light, heat, and power which, as the petitioner claims, amounted to P3,025.96. The legislative franchise (R.A. No. 3843) exempted the grantee from all kinds of taxes other than the 2% tax from the date the original franchise was granted. The exemption, therefore, did not cover the period before the franchise was 16 granted, i.e. before February 24, 1948. ... 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, Thus: SEC. 86. Distribution of proceeds. (a) The proceeds of the real property tax, except as otherwise provided in this Code, shall accrue to 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. (b) Barrio shares in real property tax collections. The annual shares of the barrios in real property tax collections shall be as follows:

(1) Five per cent of the real property tax collections of the province and another five percent of the collections of the municipality shall accrue to the barrio where the property subject to the tax is situated. (2) In the case of the city, ten per cent of the collections of the tax shag likewise accrue to the barrio where the property is situated. Thirty per cent of the barrio shares herein referred to may be spent for salaries or per diems of the barrio officials and other administrative expenses, while the remaining seventy per cent shall be utilized for development projects approved by the Secretary of Local Government and Community Development or by such committee created, or representatives designated, by him. SEC. 87. Application of proceeds. (a) The proceeds of the real property tax pertaining to the city and to the municipality shall accrue entirely to their respective general funds. In the case of the province, one-fourth thereof shall accrue to its road and bridge fund and the remaining three-fourths, to its general fund. (b) The entire proceeds of the additional one per cent real property tax levied for the Special Education Fund created under R.A. No. 5447 collected in the province or city on real property situated in their respective territorial jurisdictions shall be distributed as follows: (1) Collections in the provinces: Fifty per cent shall accrue to the municipality where the property subject to the tax is situated; twenty per cent shall accrue to the province; and thirty per cent shall be remitted to the Treasurer of the Philippines to be expended exclusively for stabilizing the Special Education Fund in municipalities, cities and provinces in accordance with the provisions of Section seven of R.A. No. 5447. (2) Collections in the cities: Sixty per cent shall be retained by the city; and forty per cent shall be remitted to the Treasurer of the Philippines to be expended exclusively for stabilizing the special education fund in municipalities, cities and provinces as provided under Section 7 of R.A. No. 5447. However, any increase in the shares of provinces, cities and municipalities from said additional tax accruing to their respective local school boards commencing with fiscal year 1973-74 over what has been actually realized during the fiscal year 1971-72 which, for purposes of this Code, shall remain as the based year, shall be divided equally between the general fund and the special education fund of the local government units concerned. The Secretary of Finance may, however, at his discretion, increase to not more than seventy-five per cent the amount that shall accrue annually to the local general fund. (c) The proceeds of all delinquent taxes and penalties, as well as the income realized from the use, lease or other disposition of real property acquired by the province or city at a public auction in accordance with the provisions of this Code, and the proceeds of the sale of the delinquent real property or, of the redemption thereof shall accrue to the province, city or municipality in the same manner and proportion as if the tax or taxes had been paid in regular course. (d) The proceeds of the additional real property tax on Idle private lands shall accrue to the respective general funds of the province, city and municipality where the land subject 17 to the tax is situated.

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. As a rule finally, claims of tax exemption are construed strongly against the claimant. They must also 19 be shown to exist clearly and categorically, and supported by clear legal provisions. Taxes are the lifeblood of the nation. Their primary purpose is to generate funds for the State to finance the needs of the citizenry and to advance the common weal. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. No costs. The auction sale of the petitioner's properties to answer for real estate taxes accumulated between June 11, 1984 through March 10, 1987 is hereby declared valid. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. L-49529 March 31, 1989 VALLEY TRADING CO., INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ISABELA, BRANCH II; DR. CARLOS UY (in his capacity as Mayor of Cauayan, Isabela); MOISES BALMACEDA (in his capacity as Municipal Treasurer of Cauayan, Isabela); and SANGGUNIANG BAYAN of Cauayan, Isabela, respondents. Jesus M. Aguas for petitioner. The Solicitor General for respondents.
20 18

REGALADO, J.: Challenged in this petition for certiorari are the orders of the then Court of First Instance of Isabela, 1 dated October 13, 1978 and November 17, 1978, denying petitioner's prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction in Special Civil Action Br. II-61. 2 The records show that petitioner Valley Trading Co., Inc. filed a complaint in the court a quo seeking a declaration of the supposed nullity of Section 2B.02, Sub-paragraph 1, Letter (A), Paragraph 2 of Ordinance No. T-1, Revenue Code of Cauayan, Isabela, which imposed a graduated tax on retailers, independent wholesalers and distributors; and for the refund of P23,202.12, plus interest of 14 % per annum thereon, which petitioner had paid pursuant to said ordinance. Petitioner likewise prayed for the issuance of a writ of preliminary prohibitory injunction to enjoin the collection of said tax. 3 Defendants in said case were Dr. Carlos A. Uy and Moises Balmaceda, who were sued in their capacity as Mayor and Municipal Treasurer of Cauayan, Isabela, respectively, together with the Sangguniang Bayan of the same town. Petitioner takes the position that said ordinance imposes a "graduated fixed tax based on Sales" that "in effect imposes a sales tax in contravention of Sec. 5, Charter I, par. (L) of P.D. 231 amended by P.D. 426 otherwise known as the Local Tax Code " 4 which prohibits a municipality from imposing a percentage tax on sales. Respondents, on the other hand, claim in their answer that the tax is an annual fixed business tax, not a percentage tax on sales, imposable by a municipality under Section 19(A-1) of the Local Tax Code. They cited the ruling of the Acting Secretary of Finance, in his letter of April 14, 1977, upholding the validity of

said tax on the ground that the same is an annual graduated fixed tax imposed on the privilege to engage in business, and not a percentage tax on sales which consists of a fixed percentage of the proceeds realized out of every sale transaction of taxable items sold by the taxpayer. 5 After a reply to the answer had been filed, the trial court set the case for a pre-trial conference. 6 However, on October 13, 1978, the court issued an order terminating the pre-trial and reset the hearing on the merits for failure of the parties to arrive at an amicable settlement. In the same order, the trial court also denied the prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction on the ground that "the collection of taxes cannot be enjoined". 7 Petitioner moved for the reconsideration of the order, contending that a hearing is mandatory before action may be taken on the motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, 8 but the court below denied said motion and reiterated its previous order. 9 At the center of this controversy is the submission of the petitioner that a hearing on the merits is necessary before a motion for a writ of preliminary injunction may be denied. Petitioner supports its contention by invoking Section 7, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court which provides that "(a)fter hearing on the merits the court may grant or refuse, continue, modify or dissolve the injunction as justice may require." Petitioner maintains that Section 6 of Rule 58 relied upon by respondents refers to the objections that might be interposed to the issuance of the writ or the justification for the dissolution of an injunction previously issued ex parte, but that nowhere is it mentioned that a hearing is not necessary. The weakness of petitioner's position is easily discernible. While it correctly pointed out that Section 6 of Rule 58 provides for the grounds for objection to an injunction, petitioner ignores the circumstances under which these objections may be appreciated by the trial court. Thus, if the ground is the insufficiency of the complaint, the same is apparent from the complaint itself and preliminary injunction may be refused outright, with or without notice to the adverse party. In fact, under said section, the court may also refuse an injunction on other grounds on the basis of affidavits which may have been submitted by the parties in connection with such application. In the foregoing instances, a hearing is not necessary. The reliance of the petitioner on Section 7 of Rule 58 is misplaced. This section merely specifies the actions that the court may take on the application for the writ if there is a hearing on the merits; it does not declare that such hearing is mandatory or a prerequisite therefor. Otherwise, we may have a situation where courts will be forced to conduct a hearing even if from a consideration of the pleadings alone it can readily be ascertained that the movant is not entitled to the writ. In fine, it will thereby entail a useless exercise and unnecessary waste of judicial time. It would be different, of course, it there is a prima facie showing on the face of the motion and/or pleadings that the grant of preliminary injunction may be proper, in which case notice to the opposing party would be necessary since the grant of such writ on an ex parte proceeding is now proscribed. 10 A hearing should be conducted since, under such circumstances, only in case of extreme urgency will the writ issue prior to a final hearing.11 Such requirement for prior notice and hearing underscores the necessity that a writ of preliminary injunction is to be dispensed with circumspection both sides should be heard whenever possible. 12 It does not follow, however, that such a hearing is indispensable where right at the outset the court is reasonably convinced that the writ will not lie. What was then discouraged, and is now specifically prohibited, is the issuance of the writ without notice and hearing. An opinion has been expressed that injunction is available as an ancillary remedy in actions to determine the construction or validity of a local tax ordinance. 13 Unlike the National Internal Revenue Code, the Local Tax Code does not contain any specific provision prohibiting courts from enjoining the collection of local taxes. Such Statutory lapse or intent, however it may be viewed, may have allowed preliminary injunction where local taxes are involved but cannot negate the procedural rules and requirements under Rule 58.

The issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction in the present case, as in any other case, is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, conditioned on the existence of a clear and positive right of the movant which should be protected. It is an extraordinary peremptory remedy available only on the grounds expressly provided by law, specifically Section 3 of Rule 58 of the Rules of Court. The circumstances required for the writ to issue do not obtain in the case at bar. The damage that may be caused to the petitioner will not, of course, be irrepairable; where so indicated by subsequent events favorable to it, whatever it shall have paid is easily refundable. Besides, the damage to its property rights must perforce take a back seat to the paramount need of the State for funds to sustain governmental functions. Compared to the damage to the State which may be caused by reduced financial resources, the damage to petitioner is negligible. The policy of the law is to discountenance any delay in the collection of taxes because of the oft-repeated but unassailable consideration that taxes are the lifeblood of the Government and their prompt and certain availability is an imperious need. Equally pertinent is the rule that courts should avoid issuing a writ of preliminary injunction which, in effect, would dispose of the main case without trial. 14 In the present case, it is evident that the only ground relied upon for injunction relief is the alleged patent nullity of the ordinance. 15 If the court should issue the desired writ, premised on that sole justification therefor of petitioner, it would be a virtual acceptance of his claim that the imposition is patently invalid or, at the very least, that the ordinance is of doubtful validity. There would, in effect, be a prejudgment of the main case and a reversal of the rule on the burden of proof since it would assume the proposition which the petitioner is inceptively duty bound to prove. Furthermore, such action will run counter to the well settled rule that laws are presumed to be valid unless and until the courts declare the contrary in clear and unequivocal terms. A court should issue a writ of preliminary injunction only when the petitioner assailing a statute has made out a case of unconstitutionality or invalidity strong enough to overcome, in the mind of the judge, the presumption of validity, aside from a showing of a clear legal right to the remedy sought. 16 The case before Us, however, presents no features sufficient to overcome such presumption. This must have been evident to the trial court from the answer of the respondents and the well reasoned ruling of the Acting Secretary of Finance. There mere fact that a statute is alleged to be unconstitutional or invalid will not entitle a party to have its enforcement enjoined. 17 Under the foregoing disquisitions, We see no plausible reason to consider this case as an exception. WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered DISMISSING this petition and SUSTAINING the validity of the questioned orders of the trial court. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. L-28896 February 17, 1988 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner, vs. ALGUE, INC., and THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, respondents. CRUZ, J.: Taxes are the lifeblood of the government and so should be collected without unnecessary hindrance On the other hand, such collection should be made in accordance with law as any arbitrariness will negate the very reason for government itself. It is therefore necessary to reconcile the apparently conflicting interests of the authorities and the taxpayers so that the real purpose of taxation, which is the promotion of the common good, may be achieved.

The main issue in this case is whether or not the Collector of Internal Revenue correctly disallowed the P75,000.00 deduction claimed by private respondent Algue as legitimate business expenses in its income tax returns. The corollary issue is whether or not the appeal of the private respondent from the decision of the Collector of Internal Revenue was made on time and in accordance with law. We deal first with the procedural question. The record shows that on January 14, 1965, the private respondent, a domestic corporation engaged in engineering, construction and other allied activities, received a letter from the petitioner assessing it in the 1 total amount of P83,183.85 as delinquency income taxes for the years 1958 and 1959. On January 18, 1965, Algue flied a letter of protest or request for reconsideration, which letter was stamp received on the 2 same day in the office of the petitioner. On March 12, 1965, a warrant of distraint and levy was presented to the private respondent, through its counsel, Atty. Alberto Guevara, Jr., who refused to 3 receive it on the ground of the pending protest. A search of the protest in the dockets of the case proved fruitless. Atty. Guevara produced his file copy and gave a photostat to BIR agent Ramon Reyes, who 4 deferred service of the warrant. On April 7, 1965, Atty. Guevara was finally informed that the BIR was not taking any action on the protest and it was only then that he accepted the warrant of distraint and levy 5 earlier sought to be served. Sixteen days later, on April 23, 1965, Algue filed a petition for review of the 6 decision of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue with the Court of Tax Appeals. The above chronology shows that the petition was filed seasonably. According to Rep. Act No. 1125, the 7 appeal may be made within thirty days after receipt of the decision or ruling challenged. It is true that as 8 a rule the warrant of distraint and levy is "proof of the finality of the assessment" and renders hopeless a 9 request for reconsideration," being "tantamount to an outright denial thereof and makes the said request 10 deemed rejected." But there is a special circumstance in the case at bar that prevents application of this accepted doctrine. The proven fact is that four days after the private respondent received the petitioner's notice of assessment, it filed its letter of protest. This was apparently not taken into account before the warrant of distraint and levy was issued; indeed, such protest could not be located in the office of the petitioner. It was only after Atty. Guevara gave the BIR a copy of the protest that it was, if at all, considered by the tax authorities. During the intervening period, the warrant was premature and could therefore not be served. As the Court of Tax Appeals correctly noted," the protest filed by private respondent was not pro forma and was based on strong legal considerations. It thus had the effect of suspending on January 18, 1965, when it was filed, the reglementary period which started on the date the assessment was received, viz., January 14, 1965. The period started running again only on April 7, 1965, when the private respondent was definitely informed of the implied rejection of the said protest and the warrant was finally served on it. Hence, when the appeal was filed on April 23, 1965, only 20 days of the reglementary period had been consumed. Now for the substantive question. The petitioner contends that the claimed deduction of P75,000.00 was properly disallowed because it was not an ordinary reasonable or necessary business expense. The Court of Tax Appeals had seen it differently. Agreeing with Algue, it held that the said amount had been legitimately paid by the private respondent for actual services rendered. The payment was in the form of promotional fees. These were collected by the Payees for their work in the creation of the Vegetable Oil Investment Corporation of the Philippines and its subsequent purchase of the properties of the Philippine Sugar Estate Development Company. Parenthetically, it may be observed that the petitioner had Originally claimed these promotional fees to be 12 personal holding company income but later conformed to the decision of the respondent court rejecting 13 this assertion. In fact, as the said court found, the amount was earned through the joint efforts of the
11

persons among whom it was distributed It has been established that the Philippine Sugar Estate Development Company had earlier appointed Algue as its agent, authorizing it to sell its land, factories and oil manufacturing process. Pursuant to such authority, Alberto Guevara, Jr., Eduardo Guevara, Isabel Guevara, Edith, O'Farell, and Pablo Sanchez, worked for the formation of the Vegetable Oil Investment 14 Corporation, inducing other persons to invest in it. Ultimately, after its incorporation largely through the 15 promotion of the said persons, this new corporation purchased the PSEDC properties. For this sale, Algue received as agent a commission of P126,000.00, and it was from this commission that the 16 P75,000.00 promotional fees were paid to the aforenamed individuals. There is no dispute that the payees duly reported their respective shares of the fees in their income tax 17 returns and paid the corresponding taxes thereon. The Court of Tax Appeals also found, after 18 examining the evidence, that no distribution of dividends was involved. The petitioner claims that these payments are fictitious because most of the payees are members of the same family in control of Algue. It is argued that no indication was made as to how such payments were made, whether by check or in cash, and there is not enough substantiation of such payments. In short, the petitioner suggests a tax dodge, an attempt to evade a legitimate assessment by involving an imaginary deduction. We find that these suspicions were adequately met by the private respondent when its President, Alberto Guevara, and the accountant, Cecilia V. de Jesus, testified that the payments were not made in one lump 19 sum but periodically and in different amounts as each payee's need arose. It should be remembered that this was a family corporation where strict business procedures were not applied and immediate issuance of receipts was not required. Even so, at the end of the year, when the books were to be closed, each payee made an accounting of all of the fees received by him or her, to make up the total of 20 P75,000.00. Admittedly, everything seemed to be informal. This arrangement was understandable, however, in view of the close relationship among the persons in the family corporation. We agree with the respondent court that the amount of the promotional fees was not excessive. The total commission paid by the Philippine Sugar Estate Development Co. to the private respondent was 21 P125,000.00. After deducting the said fees, Algue still had a balance of P50,000.00 as clear profit from the transaction. The amount of P75,000.00 was 60% of the total commission. This was a reasonable proportion, considering that it was the payees who did practically everything, from the formation of the Vegetable Oil Investment Corporation to the actual purchase by it of the Sugar Estate properties. This finding of the respondent court is in accord with the following provision of the Tax Code: SEC. 30. Deductions from gross income.--In computing net income there shall be allowed as deductions (a) Expenses: (1) In general.--All the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business, including a reasonable allowance for 22 salaries or other compensation for personal services actually rendered; ... and Revenue Regulations No. 2, Section 70 (1), reading as follows: SEC. 70. Compensation for personal services.--Among the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred in carrying on any trade or business may be included a reasonable allowance for salaries or other compensation for personal services actually rendered. The test of deductibility in the case of compensation payments is whether they are reasonable and are, in fact, payments purely for service. This test and deductibility in the case of compensation payments is whether they are reasonable and are, in fact,

payments purely for service. This test and its practical application may be further stated and illustrated as follows: Any amount paid in the form of compensation, but not in fact as the purchase price of services, is not deductible. (a) An ostensible salary paid by a corporation may be a distribution of a dividend on stock. This is likely to occur in the case of a corporation having few stockholders, Practically all of whom draw salaries. If in such a case the salaries are in excess of those ordinarily paid for similar services, and the excessive payment correspond or bear a close relationship to the stockholdings of the officers of employees, it would seem likely that the salaries are not paid wholly for services rendered, but the excessive payments are a distribution of earnings upon the stock. . . . (Promulgated Feb. 11, 1931, 30 O.G. No. 18, 325.) It is worth noting at this point that most of the payees were not in the regular employ of Algue nor were 23 they its controlling stockholders. The Solicitor General is correct when he says that the burden is on the taxpayer to prove the validity of the claimed deduction. In the present case, however, we find that the onus has been discharged satisfactorily. The private respondent has proved that the payment of the fees was necessary and reasonable in the light of the efforts exerted by the payees in inducing investors and prominent businessmen to venture in an experimental enterprise and involve themselves in a new business requiring millions of pesos. This was no mean feat and should be, as it was, sufficiently recompensed. It is said that taxes are what we pay for civilization society. Without taxes, the government would be paralyzed for lack of the motive power to activate and operate it. Hence, despite the natural reluctance to surrender part of one's hard earned income to the taxing authorities, every person who is able to must contribute his share in the running of the government. The government for its part, is expected to respond in the form of tangible and intangible benefits intended to improve the lives of the people and enhance their moral and material values. This symbiotic relationship is the rationale of taxation and should dispel the erroneous notion that it is an arbitrary method of exaction by those in the seat of power. But even as we concede the inevitability and indispensability of taxation, it is a requirement in all democratic regimes that it be exercised reasonably and in accordance with the prescribed procedure. If it is not, then the taxpayer has a right to complain and the courts will then come to his succor. For all the awesome power of the tax collector, he may still be stopped in his tracks if the taxpayer can demonstrate, as it has here, that the law has not been observed. We hold that the appeal of the private respondent from the decision of the petitioner was filed on time with the respondent court in accordance with Rep. Act No. 1125. And we also find that the claimed deduction by the private respondent was permitted under the Internal Revenue Code and should therefore not have been disallowed by the petitioner. ACCORDINGLY, the appealed decision of the Court of Tax Appeals is AFFIRMED in toto, without costs. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. L-25043 April 26, 1968

ANTONIO ROXAS, EDUARDO ROXAS and ROXAS Y CIA., in their own respective behalf and as judicial co-guardians of JOSE ROXAS, petitioners, vs. COURT OF TAX APPEALS and COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, respondents.

Leido, Andrada, Perez and Associates for petitioners. Office of the Solicitor General for respondents. BENGZON, J.P., J.: Don Pedro Roxas and Dona Carmen Ayala, Spanish subjects, transmitted to their grandchildren by hereditary succession the following properties: (1) Agricultural lands with a total area of 19,000 hectares, situated in the municipality of Nasugbu, Batangas province; (2) A residential house and lot located at Wright St., Malate, Manila; and (3) Shares of stocks in different corporations. To manage the above-mentioned properties, said children, namely, Antonio Roxas, Eduardo Roxas and Jose Roxas, formed a partnership called Roxas y Compania. AGRICULTURAL LANDS At the conclusion of the Second World War, the tenants who have all been tilling the lands in Nasugbu for generations expressed their desire to purchase from Roxas y Cia. the parcels which they actually occupied. For its part, the Government, in consonance with the constitutional mandate to acquire big landed estates and apportion them among landless tenants-farmers, persuaded the Roxas brothers to part with their landholdings. Conferences were held with the farmers in the early part of 1948 and finally the Roxas brothers agreed to sell 13,500 hectares to the Government for distribution to actual occupants for a price of P2,079,048.47 plus P300,000.00 for survey and subdivision expenses. It turned out however that the Government did not have funds to cover the purchase price, and so a special arrangement was made for the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation to advance to Roxas y Cia. the amount of P1,500,000.00 as loan. Collateral for such loan were the lands proposed to be sold to the farmers. Under the arrangement, Roxas y Cia. allowed the farmers to buy the lands for the same price but by installment, and contracted with the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation to pay its loan from the proceeds of the yearly amortizations paid by the farmers. In 1953 and 1955 Roxas y Cia. derived from said installment payments a net gain of P42,480.83 and P29,500.71. Fifty percent of said net gain was reported for income tax purposes as gain on the sale of capital asset held for more than one year pursuant to Section 34 of the Tax Code. RESIDENTIAL HOUSE During their bachelor days the Roxas brothers lived in the residential house at Wright St., Malate, Manila, which they inherited from their grandparents. After Antonio and Eduardo got married, they resided somewhere else leaving only Jose in the old house. In fairness to his brothers, Jose paid to Roxas y Cia. rentals for the house in the sum of P8,000.00 a year. ASSESSMENTS On June 17, 1958, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue demanded from Roxas y Cia the payment of real estate dealer's tax for 1952 in the amount of P150.00 plus P10.00 compromise penalty for late payment, and P150.00 tax for dealers of securities for 1952 plus P10.00 compromise penalty for late payment. The assessment for real estate dealer's tax was based on the fact that Roxas y Cia. received house rentals from Jose Roxas in the amount of P8,000.00. Pursuant to Sec. 194 of the Tax Code, an

owner of a real estate who derives a yearly rental income therefrom in the amount of P3,000.00 or more is considered a real estate dealer and is liable to pay the corresponding fixed tax. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue justified his demand for the fixed tax on dealers of securities against Roxas y Cia., on the fact that said partnership made profits from the purchase and sale of securities. In the same assessment, the Commissioner assessed deficiency income taxes against the Roxas Brothers for the years 1953 and 1955, as follows: 1953 P7,010.00 7,281.00 6,323.00 1955 P5,813.00 5,828.00 5,588.00

Antonio Roxas Eduardo Roxas Jose Roxas

The deficiency income taxes resulted from the inclusion as income of Roxas y Cia. of the unreported 50% of the net profits for 1953 and 1955 derived from the sale of the Nasugbu farm lands to the tenants, and the disallowance of deductions from gross income of various business expenses and contributions claimed by Roxas y Cia. and the Roxas brothers. For the reason that Roxas y Cia. subdivided its Nasugbu farm lands and sold them to the farmers on installment, the Commissioner considered the partnership as engaged in the business of real estate, hence, 100% of the profits derived therefrom was taxed. The following deductions were disallowed: ROXAS Y CIA.: 1953 Tickets for Banquet in honor of S. Osmea Gifts of San Miguel beer Contributions to Philippine Air Force Chapel Manila Police Trust Fund Philippines Herald's fund for Manila's neediest families 1955 100.00 150.00 P 40.00 28.00

100.00

Contributions to Contribution to Our Lady of Fatima Chapel, FEU ANTONIO ROXAS:

50.00

1953

Contributions to Pasay City Firemen Christmas Fund 25.00

Pasay City Police Dept. X'mas fund 1955 Contributions to Baguio City Police Christmas fund Pasay City Firemen Christmas fund Pasay City Police Christmas fund EDUARDO ROXAS: 1953 Contributions to Hijas de Jesus' Retiro de Manresa Philippines Herald's fund for Manila's neediest families 1955

50.00

25.00 25.00 50.00

450.00

100.00

Contributions to Philippines Herald's fund for Manila's neediest families JOSE ROXAS:

120.00

1955

Contributions to Philippines Herald's fund for Manila's neediest families

120.00

The Roxas brothers protested the assessment but inasmuch as said protest was denied, they instituted an appeal in the Court of Tax Appeals on January 9, 1961. The Tax Court heard the appeal and rendered judgment on July 31, 1965 sustaining the assessment except the demand for the payment of the fixed tax on dealer of securities and the disallowance of the deductions for contributions to the Philippine Air Force Chapel and Hijas de Jesus' Retiro de Manresa. The Tax Court's judgment reads: WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed with respect to petitioners Antonio Roxas, Eduardo Roxas, and Jose Roxas who are hereby ordered to pay the respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue the amounts of P12,808.00, P12,887.00 and P11,857.00, respectively, as deficiency income taxes for the years 1953 and 1955, plus 5% surcharge and 1% monthly interest as provided for in Sec. 51(a) of the Revenue Code; and modified with respect to the partnership Roxas y Cia. in the sense that it should pay only P150.00, as real estate dealer's tax. With costs against petitioners. Not satisfied, Roxas y Cia. and the Roxas brothers appealed to this Court. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue did not appeal. The issues: (1) Is the gain derived from the sale of the Nasugbu farm lands an ordinary gain, hence 100% taxable?

(2) Are the deductions for business expenses and contributions deductible? (3) Is Roxas y Cia. liable for the payment of the fixed tax on real estate dealers? The Commissioner of Internal Revenue contends that Roxas y Cia. could be considered a real estate dealer because it engaged in the business of selling real estate. The business activity alluded to was the act of subdividing the Nasugbu farm lands and selling them to the farmers-occupants on installment. To bolster his stand on the point, he cites one of the purposes of Roxas y Cia. as contained in its articles of partnership, quoted below: 4. (a) La explotacion de fincas urbanes pertenecientes a la misma o que pueden pertenecer a ella en el futuro, alquilandoles por los plazos y demas condiciones, estime convenientes y vendiendo aquellas que a juicio de sus gerentes no deben conservarse; The above-quoted purpose notwithstanding, the proposition of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue cannot be favorably accepted by Us in this isolated transaction with its peculiar circumstances in spite of the fact that there were hundreds of vendees. Although they paid for their respective holdings in installment for a period of ten years, it would nevertheless not make the vendor Roxas y Cia. a real estate dealer during the ten-year amortization period. It should be borne in mind that the sale of the Nasugbu farm lands to the very farmers who tilled them for generations was not only in consonance with, but more in obedience to the request and pursuant to the policy of our Government to allocate lands to the landless. It was the bounden duty of the Government to pay the agreed compensation after it had persuaded Roxas y Cia. to sell its haciendas, and to subsequently subdivide them among the farmers at very reasonable terms and prices. However, the Government could not comply with its duty for lack of funds. Obligingly, Roxas y Cia. shouldered the Government's burden, went out of its way and sold lands directly to the farmers in the same way and under the same terms as would have been the case had the Government done it itself. For this magnanimous act, the municipal council of Nasugbu passed a resolution expressing the people's gratitude. The power of taxation is sometimes called also the power to destroy. Therefore it should be exercised with caution to minimize injury to the proprietary rights of a taxpayer. It must be exercised fairly, equally and uniformly, lest the tax collector kill the "hen that lays the golden egg". And, in order to maintain the general public's trust and confidence in the Government this power must be used justly and not treacherously. It does not conform with Our sense of justice in the instant case for the Government to persuade the taxpayer to lend it a helping hand and later on to penalize him for duly answering the urgent call. In fine, Roxas y Cia. cannot be considered a real estate dealer for the sale in question. Hence, pursuant to Section 34 of the Tax Code the lands sold to the farmers are capital assets, and the gain derived from the sale thereof is capital gain, taxable only to the extent of 50%. DISALLOWED DEDUCTIONS Roxas y Cia. deducted from its gross income the amount of P40.00 for tickets to a banquet given in honor of Sergio Osmena and P28.00 for San Miguel beer given as gifts to various persons. The deduction were claimed as representation expenses. Representation expenses are deductible from gross income as expenditures incurred in carrying on a trade or business under Section 30(a) of the Tax Code provided the taxpayer proves that they are reasonable in amount, ordinary and necessary, and incurred in connection with his business. In the case at bar, the evidence does not show such link between the expenses and the business of Roxas y Cia. The findings of the Court of Tax Appeals must therefore be sustained.

The petitioners also claim deductions for contributions to the Pasay City Police, Pasay City Firemen, and Baguio City Police Christmas funds, Manila Police Trust Fund, Philippines Herald's fund for Manila's neediest families and Our Lady of Fatima chapel at Far Eastern University. The contributions to the Christmas funds of the Pasay City Police, Pasay City Firemen and Baguio City Police are not deductible for the reason that the Christmas funds were not spent for public purposes but as Christmas gifts to the families of the members of said entities. Under Section 39(h), a contribution to a government entity is deductible when used exclusively for public purposes. For this reason, the disallowance must be sustained. On the other hand, the contribution to the Manila Police trust fund is an allowable deduction for said trust fund belongs to the Manila Police, a government entity, intended to be used exclusively for its public functions. The contributions to the Philippines Herald's fund for Manila's neediest families were disallowed on the ground that the Philippines Herald is not a corporation or an association contemplated in Section 30 (h) of the Tax Code. It should be noted however that the contributions were not made to the Philippines Herald but to a group of civic spirited citizens organized by the Philippines Herald solely for charitable purposes. There is no question that the members of this group of citizens do not receive profits, for all the funds they raised were for Manila's neediest families. Such a group of citizens may be classified as an association organized exclusively for charitable purposes mentioned in Section 30(h) of the Tax Code. Rightly, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue disallowed the contribution to Our Lady of Fatima chapel at the Far Eastern University on the ground that the said university gives dividends to its stockholders. Located within the premises of the university, the chapel in question has not been shown to belong to the Catholic Church or any religious organization. On the other hand, the lower court found that it belongs to the Far Eastern University, contributions to which are not deductible under Section 30(h) of the Tax Code for the reason that the net income of said university injures to the benefit of its stockholders. The disallowance should be sustained. Lastly, Roxas y Cia. questions the imposition of the real estate dealer's fixed tax upon it, because although it earned a rental income of P8,000.00 per annum in 1952, said rental income came from Jose Roxas, one of the partners. Section 194 of the Tax Code, in considering as real estate dealers owners of real estate receiving rentals of at least P3,000.00 a year, does not provide any qualification as to the persons paying the rentals. The law, which states: 1wph1.t . . . "Real estate dealer" includes any person engaged in the business of buying, selling, exchanging, leasing or renting property on his own account as principal and holding himself out as a full or part-time dealer in real estate or as an owner of rental property or properties rented or offered to rent for an aggregate amount of three thousand pesos or more a year : . . . (Emphasis supplied) . is too clear and explicit to admit construction. The findings of the Court of Tax Appeals or, this point is sustained.1wph1.t To Summarize, no deficiency income tax is due for 1953 from Antonio Roxas, Eduardo Roxas and Jose Roxas. For 1955 they are liable to pay deficiency income tax in the sum of P109.00, P91.00 and P49.00, * respectively, computed as follows: ANTONIO ROXAS Net income per return Add: 1/3 share, profits in Roxas y Cia. Less amount declared P 153,249.15 146,135.46 P315,476.59

Amount understated Contributions disallowed

P 7,113.69 115.00 P 7,228.69

Less 1/3 share of contributions amounting to P21,126.06 disallowed from partnership but allowed to partners Net income per review Less: Exemptions Net taxable income Tax due Tax paid Deficiency

7,042.02

186.67 P315,663.26 4,200.00 P311,463.26

154,169.00 154,060.00 P 109.00 ========== EDUARDO ROXAS

Net income per return Add: 1/3 share, profits in Roxas y Cia Less profits declared Amount understated Less 1/3 share in contributions amounting to P21,126.06 disallowed from partnership but allowed to partners Net income per review Less: Exemptions Net taxable income Tax Due Tax paid Deficiency P147,250.00 147,159.00 P91.00 =========== P 153,249.15 146,052.58 P 7,196.57

P 304,166.92

7,042.02

155.55 P304,322.47 4,800.00 P299,592.47

JOSE ROXAS Net income per return Add: 1/3 share, profits in Roxas y Cia. Less amount reported Amount understated Less 1/3 share of contributions disallowed from partnership but allowed as deductions to partners Net income per review Less: Exemption Net income subject to tax Tax due Tax paid Deficiency P102,763.00 102,714.00 P 49.00 =========== P153,429.15 146,135.46 7,113.69 P222,681.76

7,042.02

71.67 P222,753.43 1,800.00 P220,953.43

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is modified. Roxas y Cia. is hereby ordered to pay the sum of P150.00 as real estate dealer's fixed tax for 1952, and Antonio Roxas, Eduardo Roxas and Jose Roxas are ordered to pay the respective sums of P109.00, P91.00 and P49.00 as their individual deficiency income tax all corresponding for the year 1955. No costs. So ordered. G.R. No. L-18330 July 31, 1963

JOSE DE BORJA, petitioner-appellee, vs. VICENTE G. GELLA, ET AL., respondents-appellants. David Guevara for petitioner-appellee. Office of the Solicitor General for respondent-appellant Treasurer of the Philippines. Assistant City Fiscal H. A. Avendano for respondent-appellant Treasurer of Pasay City. BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.: Jose de Borja has been delinquent in the payment of his real estate taxes since 1958 for properties located in the City of Manila and Pasay City and has offered to pay them with two negotiable, certificates of indebtedness Nos. 3064 and 3065 in the amounts of P793.40 and P717.69, respectively. Borja was, however, a mere assignee of the aforesaid negotiable certificates, the applicants for backpay rights covered by them being respectively Rafael Vizcaya and Pablo Batario Luna. The offers to pay the estate taxes in question were rejected by the city treasurers of both Manila and Pasay cities on the ground of their limited negotiability under Section 2, Republic Act No. 304, as

amended by Republic Act 800, and in the case of the city treasurer of Manila on the further ground that he was ordered not to accept them by the city mayor, for which reason Borja was prompted to bring the question to the Treasurer of the Philippines who opined, among others, that the negotiable certificates cannot be accepted as payment of real estate taxes inasmuch as the law provides for their acceptance from their backpay holder only or the original applicant himself, but not his assignee. In his letter of April 29, 1960 to the Treasurer of the Philippines, however, Borja entertained hope that the certificates would be accepted for payment in view of the fact that they are already long past due and redeemable, but his hope was frustrated. So on June 30, 1960, Borja filed an action against the treasurers of both the City of Manila and Pasay City, as well as the Treasurer of the Philippines, to impel them to execute an act which the law allegedly requires them to perform, to wit: to accept the above-mentioned certificates of indebtedness considering that they were already due and redeemable so as not to deprive him illegally of his privilege to pay his obligation to the government thru such means. Respondents in due time filed their answer setting up the reasons for their refusal to accept the certificates, and after the requisite trial was held, the court a quo rendered judgment the dispositive part of which reads: WHEREFORE, the treasurers of the City of Manila and Pasay City, their agents and other persons acting in their behalf are hereby enjoined from including petitioner's properties in the payment of real estate, taxes, and to sell them at public auction and respondent Treasurer of the Philippines, and the treasurers of the City of Manila and Pasay City are hereby ordered to accept petitioner's Negotiable Certificates of Indebtedness Nos. 3064 and 3065 in the sums of P793.40 and P717.39 in payment of real estate taxes of his properties in the City of Manila and Pasay City, respectively, without costs. Respondents took this appeal on purely questions of law.1wph1.t Reduced to bare essentials, the 12 errors assigned by appellants may be boiled down to the following: (a) has appellee the right to apply to the payment of his real estate taxes to the government of Manila and Pasay cities the certificates of indebtedness he holds while appellants have the correlative legal duty to accept the certificates in payment of said taxes?; (b) can compensation be invoked to extinguish appellee's real estate tax liability between the latter's obligation and the credit represented by said certificates of indebtedness? Anent the first issue, the pertinent legal provision to be reckoned with is Section 2 of Republic Act No. 304, as amended by Republic Act No. 800, which in part reads: SEC. 2. The Treasurer of the Philippines shall, upon application, and within one year from the approval of this Act, and under such rules and regulations as may be promulgated by the Secretary of Finance, acknowledge and file requests for the recognition of the right to the salaries and wages as provided in section one hereof, and notice of such acknowledgment shall be issued to the applicant which shall state the total amount of such salaries or wages due to the applicant, and certify that it shall be redeemed by the Government of the Philippines within ten years from the date of their issuance without interest: Provided, that upon application . . . a certificate of indebtedness may be issued by the Treasurer of the Philippines covering the whole or part of the total salaries or wages the right to which has been duly acknowledged and recognized, provided that the face value of such certificate of indebtedness shall not exceed the amount that the applicant may need for the payment of (1) obligations subsisting at the time of the approval of this Act for which the applicant may directly be liable to the Government or to any of its branches or instrumentalities, or the corporations owned or controlled by the Government, or to any citizen of the Philippines, who may be willing to accept the same for such settlement; (2) his taxes; . . . and Provided, also, That any person who is not an alien, bank or other financial institution at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by Filipinos may, notwithstanding any provision of its charter, articles of incorporation, by-laws, or rules and regulations to the contrary, accept or discount at not more than three and one-half per centum per annum for ten years a negotiable

certificate of indebtedness which shall be issued by the Treasurer of the Philippines upon application by a holder of a back pay acknowledgment. . . . . To begin with, it cannot be contended that appellants are in duty bound to accept the negotiable certificates of indebtedness held by appellee in payment of his real estate taxes for the simple reason that they were not obligations subsisting at the time of the approval of Republic Act No. 304 which took effect on June 18, 1948. It should be noted that the real estate taxes in question have reference to those due in 1958 and subsequent years. The law is explicit that in order that a certificate may be used in payment of an obligation the same must be subsisting at the time of its approval even if we hold that a tax partakes of this character, neither can it be contended that appellee can compel the government to accept the alleged certificates of indebtedness in payment of his real estate taxes under proviso No. 2 abovequoted also for the reason that in order that such payment may be allowed the tax must be owed by the applicant himself . This is the correct implication that may be drawn from the use by the law of the words " his taxes". Verily, the right to use the backpay certificate in settlement of taxes is given only to the applicant and not to any holder of any negotiable certificate to whom the law only gives the right to have it discounted by a Filipino citizen or corporation under certain limitations. Here appellee is not himself the applicant of the certificate, in question. He is merely an assignee thereof, or a subsequent holder whose right is at most to have it discounted upon maturity or to negotiate it in the meantime. A fortiori, it may be included that, not having the right to use said certificates to pay his taxes, appellee cannot compel appellants to accept them as he requests in the present petition for mandamus. As a consequence, we cannot but hold that mandamus does not lie against appellants because they have in no way neglected to perform an act enjoined upon them by law as a duty, nor have they unlawfully excluded appellee from the use or 1 enjoyment of a right to which be is entitled. We are aware of the cases cited by the court a quo wherein the government banking institutions were ordered to accept the backpay certificates of petitioners in payment of their indebtedness to them, but they are not here in point because in the cases mentioned the petitioners were applicants and original holders of the corresponding backpay certificates. Here appellee is not. With regard to the second issue, i.e., whether compensation can be invoked insofar as the two obligations are concerned, Articles 1278 and 1279 of the new Civil Code provide: ART. 1278. Compensation shall take place when two persons, in their own right, are creditors and debtors of each other. ART. 1279. In order that compensation may be proper, it is necessary: (1) That each one of the obligors be bound principally, and that he be at the same time a principal creditor of the other; (2) That both debts consist in a sum of money, or if the things due are consumable, they be of the same kind, and also of the same quality if the latter has been stated; (3) That the two debts be due; (4) That they two liquidated and demandable; (5) That over neither of them there be any retention or controversy, commenced by third persons and communicated in due time to the debtor. It is clear from the above legal provisions that compensation cannot be effected with regard to the two obligations in question. In the first place, the debtor insofar as the certificates of indebtedness are concerned is the Republic of the Philippines, whereas the real estate taxes owed by appellee are due to
2

the City of Manila and Pasay City, each one of which having a distinct and separate personality from our Republic. With regard to the certificates, the creditor is the appellee while the debtor is the Republic of the Philippines. And with regard to the taxes, the creditors are the City of Manila and Pasay City while the debtor is the appellee. It appears, therefore, that each one of the obligors concerning the two obligations is not at the same time the principal creditor of the other. It cannot also be said for certain that the certificates are already due. Although on their faces the certificates issued to appellee state that they are redeemable on June 18, 1958, yet the law does not say that they are redeemable from its approval on June 18, 1948 but "within ten years from the date of issuance" of the certificates. There is no certainty, therefore, when the certificates are really redeemable within the meaning of the law. Since the requisites for the accomplishment of legal compensation cannot be fulfilled, the latter cannot take place with regard to the two obligations as found by the court a quo. WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is reversed. The petition for mandamus is dismissed. The injunction issued against respondents-appellants is hereby lifted. No costs. G.R. No. L-31364 March 30, 1979 MISAEL P. VERA, as Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and JAIME ARANETA, as Regional Director, Revenue Region No. 14, Bureau of Internal Revenue, petitioners, vs. HON. JOSE F. FERNANDEZ, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, Branch V, and FRANCIS A. TONGOY, Administrator of the Estate of the late LUIS D. TONGOY respondents.

DE CASTRO, J.: Appeal from two orders of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, Branch V in Special Proceedings No. 7794, entitled: "Intestate Estate of Luis D. Tongoy," the first dated July 29, 1969 dismissing the Motion for Allowance of Claim and for an Order of Payment of Taxes by the Government of the Republic of the Philippines against the Estate of the late Luis D. Tongoy, for deficiency income taxes for the years 1963 and 1964 of the decedent in the total amount of P3,254.80, inclusive 5% surcharge, 1% monthly interest and compromise penalties, and the second, dated October 7, 1969, denying the Motion for reconsideration of the Order of dismissal. The Motion for allowance of claim and for payment of taxes dated May 28, 1969 was filed on June 3, 1969 in the abovementioned special proceedings, (par. 3, Annex A, Petition, pp. 1920, Rollo). The claim represents the indebtedness to the Government of the late Luis D. Tongoy for deficiency income taxes in the total sum of P3,254.80 as above stated, covered by Assessment Notices Nos. 11-50-29-1-11061-2163 and 11-50-291-1 10875-64, to which motion was attached Proof of Claim (Annex B, Petition, pp. 2122, Rollo). The Administrator opposed the motion solely on the ground that the claim was barred under Section 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court (par. 4, Opposition to Motion for Allowance of Claim, pp. 23-24, Rollo). Finding the opposition well-founded, the respondent Judge, Jose F. Fernandez, dismissed the motion for allowance of claim filed by herein petitioner, Regional Director of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, in an order dated July 29, 1969 (Annex D, Petition, p. 26, Rollo). On September 18, 1969, a motion for reconsideration was filed, of the order of July 29, 1969, but was denied in an Order dated October 7, 1969. Hence, this appeal on certiorari, petitioner assigning the following errors: 1. The lower court erred in holding that the claim for taxes by the government against the estate of Luis D. Tongoy was filed beyond the period provided in Section 2, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court.

2. The lower court erred in holding that the claim for taxes of the government was already barred under Section 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court. which raise the sole issue of whether or not the statute of non-claims Section 5, Rule 86 of the New Rule of Court, bars claim of the government for unpaid taxes, still within the period of limitation prescribed in Section 331 and 332 of the National Internal Revenue Code. Section 5, Rule 86, as invoked by the respondent Administrator in hid Oppositions to the Motion for Allowance of Claim, etc. of the petitioners reads as follows: All claims for money against the decedent, arising from contracts, express or implied, whether the same be due, not due, or contingent, all claims for funeral expenses and expenses for the last sickness of the decedent, and judgment for money against the decedent, must be filed within the time limited in they notice; otherwise they are barred forever, except that they may be set forth as counter claims in any action that the executor or administrator may bring against the claimants. Where the executor or administrator commence an action, or prosecutes an action already commenced by the deceased in his lifetime, the debtor may set forth may answer the claims he has against the decedents, instead of presenting them independently to the court has herein provided, and mutual claims may be set off against each other in such action; and in final judgment is rendered in favored of the decedent, the amount to determined shall be considered the true balance against the estate, as though the claim has been presented directly before the court in the administration proceedings. Claims not yet due, or contingent may be approved at their present value. A perusal of the aforequoted provisions shows that it makes no mention of claims for monetary obligation of the decedent created by law, such as taxes which is entirely of different character from the claims expressly enumerated therein, such as: "all claims for money against the decedent arising from contract, express or implied, whether the same be due, not due or contingent, all claim for funeral expenses and expenses for the last sickness of the decedent and judgment for money against the decedent." Under the familiar rule of statutory construction of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, the mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another thing not mentioned. Thus, if a statute enumerates the things upon which it is to operate, everything else must necessarily, and by implication be excluded from its operation and effect (Crawford, Statutory Construction, pp. 334-335). In the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Ilagan Electric & Ice Plant, et al. , G.R. No. L-23081, December 30, 1969, it was held that the assessment, collection and recovery of taxes, as well as the matter of prescription thereof are governed by the provisions of the National Internal revenue Code, particularly Sections 331 and 332 thereof, and not by other provisions of law. (See also Lim Tio, Dy Heng and Dee Jue vs. Court of Tax Appeals & Collector of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. L-10681, March 29, 1958). Even without being specifically mentioned, the provisions of Section 2 of Rule 86 of the Rules of Court may reasonably be presumed to have been also in the mind of the Court as not affecting the aforecited Section of the National Internal Revenue Code. In the case of Pineda vs. CFI of Tayabas, 52 Phil. 803, it was even more pointedly held that "taxes assessed against the estate of a deceased person ... need not be submitted to the committee on claims in the ordinary course of administration. In the exercise of its control over the administrator, the court may direct the payment of such taxes upon motion showing that the taxes have been assessed against the estate." The abolition of the Committee on Claims does not alter the basic ruling laid down giving exception to the claim for taxes from being filed as the other claims mentioned in the Rule should be filed before the Court. Claims for taxes may be collected even after the distribution of the decedent's estate among his heirs who shall be liable therefor in proportion of their share in the inheritance. (Government of the Philippines vs. Pamintuan, 55 Phil. 13).

The reason for the more liberal treatment of claims for taxes against a decedent's estate in the form of exception from the application of the statute of non-claims, is not hard to find. Taxes are the lifeblood of the Government and their prompt and certain availability are imperious need. (Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Pineda, G. R. No. L-22734, September 15, 1967, 21 SCRA 105). Upon taxation depends the Government ability to serve the people for whose benefit taxes are collected. To safeguard such interest, neglect or omission of government officials entrusted with the collection of taxes should not be allowed to bring harm or detriment to the people, in the same manner as private persons may be made to suffer individually on account of his own negligence, the presumption being that they take good care of their personal affairs. This should not hold true to government officials with respect to matters not of their own personal concern. This is the philosophy behind the government's exception, as a general rule, from the operation of the principle of estoppel. (Republic vs. Caballero, L-27437, September 30, 1977, 79 SCRA 177; Manila Lodge No. 761, Benevolent and Protective Order of the Elks Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, L41001, September 30, 1976, 73 SCRA 162; Sy vs. Central Bank of the Philippines, L-41480, April 30,1976, 70 SCRA 571; Balmaceda vs. Corominas & Co., Inc., 66 SCRA 553; Auyong Hian vs. Court of Tax Appeals, 59 SCRA 110; Republic vs. Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc., 66 SCRA 553; Republic vs. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, L-18841, January 27, 1969, 26 SCRA 620; Zamora vs. Court of Tax Appeals, L-23272, November 26, 1970, 36 SCRA 77; E. Rodriguez, Inc. vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, L- 23041, July 31, 1969, 28 SCRA 119.) As already shown, taxes may be collected even after the distribution of the estate of the decedent among his heirs (Government of the Philippines vs. Pamintuan, supra; Pineda vs. CFI of Tayabas, supra Clara Diluangco Palanca vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G. R. No. L-16661, January 31, 1962). Furthermore, as held in Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Pineda, supra, citing the last paragraph of Section 315 of the Tax Code payment of income tax shall be a lien in favor of the Government of the Philippines from the time the assessment was made by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue until paid with interests, penalties, etc. By virtue of such lien, this court held that the property of the estate already in the hands of an heir or transferee may be subject to the payment of the tax due the estate. A fortiori before the inheritance has passed to the heirs, the unpaid taxes due the decedent may be collected, even without its having been presented under Section 2 of Rule 86 of the Rules of Court. It may truly be said that until the property of the estate of the decedent has vested in the heirs, the decedent, represented by his estate, continues as if he were still alive, subject to the payment of such taxes as would be collectible from the estate even after his death. Thus in the case above cited, the income taxes sought to be collected were due from the estate, for the three years 1946, 1947 and 1948 following his death in May, 1945. Even assuming arguendo that claims for taxes have to be filed within the time prescribed in Section 2, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court, the claim in question may be filed even after the expiration of the time originally fixed therein, as may be gleaned from the italicized portion of the Rule herein cited which reads: Section 2. Time within which claims shall be filed. - In the notice provided in the preceding section, the court shall state the time for the filing of claims against the estate, which shall not be more than twelve (12) nor less than six (6) months after the date of the first publication of the notice. However, at any time before an order of distribution is entered, on application of a creditor who has failed to file his claim within the time previously limited the court may, for cause shown and on such terms as are equitable, allow such claim to be flied within a time not exceeding one (1) month. (Emphasis supplied) In the instant case, petitioners filed an application (Motion for Allowance of Claim and for an Order of Payment of Taxes) which, though filed after the expiration of the time previously limited but before an order of the distribution is entered, should have been granted by the respondent court, in the absence of any valid ground, as none was shown, justifying denial of the motion, specially considering that it was for allowance Of claim for taxes due from the estate, which in effect represents a claim of the people at large, the only reason given for the denial that the claim was filed out of the previously limited period, sustaining thereby private respondents' contention, erroneously as has been demonstrated.

WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is reverse. Since the Tax Commissioner's assessment in the total amount of P3,254.80 with 5 % surcharge and 1 % monthly interest as provided in the Tax Code is a final one and the respondent estate's sole defense of prescription has been herein overruled, the Motion for Allowance of Claim is herein granted and respondent estate is ordered to pay and discharge the same, subject only to the limitation of the interest collectible thereon as provided by the Tax Code. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. 92585 May 8, 1992 CALTEX PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COMMISSION ON AUDIT, HONORABLE COMMISSIONER BARTOLOME C. FERNANDEZ and HONORABLE COMMISSIONER ALBERTO P. CRUZ, respondents.

DAVIDE, JR., J.: This is a petition erroneously brought under Rule 44 of the Rules of Court questioning the authority of the Commission on Audit (COA) in disallowing petitioner's claims for reimbursement from the Oil Price Stabilization Fund (OPSF) and seeking the reversal of said Commission's decision denying its claims for recovery of financing charges from the Fund and reimbursement of underrecovery arising from sales to the National Power Corporation, Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation (ATLAS) and Marcopper Mining Corporation (MAR-COPPER), preventing it from exercising the right to offset its remittances against its reimbursement vis-a-vis the OPSF and disallowing its claims which are still pending resolution before the Office of Energy Affairs (OEA) and the Department of Finance (DOF). Pursuant to the 1987 Constitution, any decision, order or ruling of the Constitutional Commissions may be brought to this Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty (30) days from receipt of a copy thereof. The certiorari referred to is the special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of 4 Court. Considering, however, that the allegations that the COA acted with: (a) total lack of jurisdiction in completely ignoring and showing absolutely no respect for the findings and rulings of the administrator of the fund itself and in disallowing a claim which is still pending resolution at 5 the OEA level, and (b) "grave abuse of discretion and completely without jurisdiction" in declaring that petitioner cannot avail of the right to offset any amount that it may be required under the law to remit to the OPSF against any amount that it may receive by way of reimbursement therefrom are sufficient to bring this petition within Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, and, considering further the importance of the issues raised, the error in the designation of the remedy pursued will, in this instance, be excused. The issues raised revolve around the OPSF created under Section 8 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1956, as amended by Executive Order (E.O.) No. 137. As amended, said Section 8 reads as follows: Sec. 8 . There is hereby created a Trust Account in the books of accounts of the Ministry of Energy to be designated as Oil Price Stabilization Fund (OPSF) for the purpose of minimizing frequent price changes brought about by exchange rate adjustments and/or changes in world market prices of crude oil and imported petroleum products. The Oil Price Stabilization Fund may be sourced from any of the following:
2 3 1

a) Any increase in the tax collection from ad valorem tax or customs duty imposed on petroleum products subject to tax under this Decree arising from exchange rate adjustment, as may be determined by the Minister of Finance in consultation with the Board of Energy; b) Any increase in the tax collection as a result of the lifting of tax exemptions of government corporations, as may be determined by the Minister of Finance in consultation with the Board of Energy; c) Any additional amount to be imposed on petroleum products to augment the resources of the Fund through an appropriate Order that may be issued by the Board of Energy requiring payment by persons or companies engaged in the business of importing, manufacturing and/or marketing petroleum products; d) Any resulting peso cost differentials in case the actual peso costs paid by oil companies in the importation of crude oil and petroleum products is less than the peso costs computed using the reference foreign exchange rate as fixed by the Board of Energy. The Fund herein created shall be used for the following: 1) To reimburse the oil companies for cost increases in crude oil and imported petroleum products resulting from exchange rate adjustment and/or increase in world market prices of crude oil; 2) To reimburse the oil companies for possible cost under-recovery incurred as a result of the reduction of domestic prices of petroleum products. The magnitude of the underrecovery, if any, shall be determined by the Ministry of Finance. "Cost underrecovery" shall include the following: i. Reduction in oil company take as directed by the Board of Energy without the corresponding reduction in the landed cost of oil inventories in the possession of the oil companies at the time of the price change; ii. Reduction in internal ad valorem taxes as a result of foregoing government mandated price reductions; iii. Other factors as may be determined by the Ministry of Finance to result in cost underrecovery. The Oil Price Stabilization Fund (OPSF) shall be administered by the Ministry of Energy. The material operative facts of this case, as gathered from the pleadings of the parties, are not disputed. On 2 February 1989, the COA sent a letter to Caltex Philippines, Inc. (CPI), hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, directing the latter to remit to the OPSF its collection, excluding that unremitted for the years 1986 and 1988, of the additional tax on petroleum products authorized under the aforesaid Section 8 of P.D. No. 1956 which, as of 31 December 1987, amounted to P335,037,649.00 and informing it that, 6 pending such remittance, all of its claims for reimbursement from the OPSF shall be held in abeyance.

On 9 March 1989, the COA sent another letter to petitioner informing it that partial verification with the OEA showed that the grand total of its unremitted collections of the above tax is P1,287,668,820.00, broken down as follows: 1986 P233,190,916.00 1987 335,065,650.00 1988 719,412,254.00; directing it to remit the same, with interest and surcharges thereon, within sixty (60) days from receipt of the letter; advising it that the COA will hold in abeyance the audit of all its claims for reimbursement from the OPSF; and directing it to desist from further offsetting the taxes collected against outstanding claims 7 in 1989 and subsequent periods. In its letter of 3 May 1989, petitioner requested the COA for an early release of its reimbursement certificates from the OPSF covering claims with the Office of Energy Affairs since June 1987 up to March 1989, invoking in support thereof COA Circular No. 89-299 on the lifting of pre-audit of government transactions of national government agencies and government-owned or controlled corporations. 8 In its Answer dated 8 May 1989, the COA denied petitioner's request for the early release of the reimbursement certificates from the OPSF and repeated its earlier directive to petitioner to forward payment of the latter's unremitted collections to the OPSF to facilitate COA's audit action on the 9 reimbursement claims. By way of a reply, petitioner, in a letter dated 31 May 1989, submitted to the COA a proposal for the payment of the collections and the recovery of claims, since the outright payment of the sum of P1.287 billion to the OEA as a prerequisite for the processing of said claims against the OPSF will cause a very 10 serious impairment of its cash position. The proposal reads: We, therefore, very respectfully propose the following: (1) Any procedural arrangement acceptable to COA to facilitate monitoring of payments and reimbursements will be administered by the ERB/Finance Dept./OEA, as agencies designated by law to administer/regulate OPSF. (2) For the retroactive period, Caltex will deliver to OEA, P1.287 billion as payment to OPSF, similarly OEA will deliver to Caltex the same amount in cash reimbursement from OPSF. (3) The COA audit will commence immediately and will be conducted expeditiously. (4) The review of current claims (1989) will be conducted expeditiously to preclude further accumulation of reimbursement from OPSF. On 7 June 1989, the COA, with the Chairman taking no part, handed down Decision No. 921 accepting the above-stated proposal but prohibiting petitioner from further offsetting remittances and 11 reimbursements for the current and ensuing years. Decision No. 921 reads: This pertains to the within separate requests of Mr. Manuel A. Estrella, President, Petron Corporation, and Mr. Francis Ablan, President and Managing Director, Caltex (Philippines) Inc., for reconsideration of this Commission's adverse action embodied in its letters dated February 2, 1989 and March 9, 1989, the former directing immediate

remittance to the Oil Price Stabilization Fund of collections made by the firms pursuant to P.D. 1956, as amended by E.O. No. 137, S. 1987, and the latter reiterating the same directive but further advising the firms to desist from offsetting collections against their claims with the notice that "this Commission will hold in abeyance the audit of all . . . claims for reimbursement from the OPSF." It appears that under letters of authority issued by the Chairman, Energy Regulatory Board, the aforenamed oil companies were allowed to offset the amounts due to the Oil Price Stabilization Fund against their outstanding claims from the said Fund for the calendar years 1987 and 1988, pending with the then Ministry of Energy, the government entity charged with administering the OPSF. This Commission, however, expressing serious doubts as to the propriety of the offsetting of all types of reimbursements from the OPSF against all categories of remittances, advised these oil companies that such offsetting was bereft of legal basis. Aggrieved thereby, these companies now seek reconsideration and in support thereof clearly manifest their intent to make arrangements for the remittance to the Office of Energy Affairs of the amount of collections equivalent to what has been previously offset, provided that this Commission authorizes the Office of Energy Affairs to prepare the corresponding checks representing reimbursement from the OPSF. It is alleged that the implementation of such an arrangement, whereby the remittance of collections due to the OPSF and the reimbursement of claims from the Fund shall be made within a period of not more than one week from each other, will benefit the Fund and not unduly jeopardize the continuing daily cash requirements of these firms. Upon a circumspect evaluation of the circumstances herein obtaining, this Commission perceives no further objectionable feature in the proposed arrangement, provided that 15% of whatever amount is due from the Fund is retained by the Office of Energy Affairs, the same to be answerable for suspensions or disallowances, errors or discrepancies which may be noted in the course of audit and surcharges for late remittances without prejudice to similar future retentions to answer for any deficiency in such surcharges, and provided further that no offsetting of remittances and reimbursements for the current and ensuing years shall be allowed. Pursuant to this decision, the COA, on 18 August 1989, sent the following letter to Executive Director 12 Wenceslao R. De la Paz of the Office of Energy Affairs: Dear Atty. dela Paz: Pursuant to the Commission on Audit Decision No. 921 dated June 7, 1989, and based on our initial verification of documents submitted to us by your Office in support of Caltex (Philippines), Inc. offsets (sic) for the year 1986 to May 31, 1989, as well as its outstanding claims against the Oil Price Stabilization Fund (OPSF) as of May 31, 1989, we are pleased to inform your Office that Caltex (Philippines), Inc. shall be required to remit to OPSF an amount of P1,505,668,906, representing remittances to the OPSF which were offset against its claims reimbursements (net of unsubmitted claims). In addition, the Commission hereby authorize (sic) the Office of Energy Affairs (OEA) to cause payment of P1,959,182,612 to Caltex, representing claims initially allowed in audit, the details of which are presented hereunder: . . . As presented in the foregoing computation the disallowances totalled P387,683,535, which included P130,420,235 representing those claims disallowed by OEA, details of which is (sic) shown in Schedule 1 as summarized as follows:

Disallowance of COA Particulars Amount Recovery of financing charges P162,728,475 /a Product sales 48,402,398 /b Inventory losses Borrow loan arrangement 14,034,786 /c Sales to Atlas/Marcopper 32,097,083 /d Sales to NPC 558 P257,263,300 Disallowances of OEA 130,420,235 Total P387,683,535 The reasons for the disallowances are discussed hereunder: a. Recovery of Financing Charges Review of the provisions of P.D. 1596 as amended by E.O. 137 seems to indicate that recovery of financing charges by oil companies is not among the items for which the OPSF may be utilized. Therefore, it is our view that recovery of financing charges has no legal basis. The mechanism for such claims is provided in DOF Circular 1-87. b. Product Sales Sales to International Vessels/Airlines BOE Resolution No. 87-01 dated February 7, 1987 as implemented by OEA Order No. 87-03-095 indicating that (sic) February 7, 1987 as the effectivity date that ( sic) oil companies should pay OPSF impost on export sales of petroleum products. Effective February 7, 1987 sales to international vessels/airlines should not be included as part of its domestic sales. Changing the effectivity date of the resolution from February 7, 1987 to October 20, 1987 as covered by subsequent ERB Resolution No. 88-12 dated November 18, 1988 has allowed Caltex to include in their domestic sales volumes to international vessels/airlines and claim the corresponding reimbursements from OPSF during the period. It is our opinion that the effectivity of the said resolution should be February 7, 1987. c. Inventory losses Settlement of Ad Valorem We reviewed the system of handling Borrow and Loan (BLA) transactions including the related BLA agreement, as they affect the claims for reimbursements of ad valorem taxes. We observed that oil companies immediately settle ad valorem taxes for BLA transaction (sic). Loan balances therefore are not tax paid inventories of Caltex subject to reimbursements but those of the borrower. Hence, we recommend reduction of the claim for July, August, and November, 1987 amounting to P14,034,786. d. Sales to Atlas/Marcopper LOI No. 1416 dated July 17, 1984 provides that "I hereby order and direct the suspension of payment of all taxes, duties, fees, imposts and other charges whether direct or indirect due and payable by the copper mining companies in distress to the national and local

governments." It is our opinion that LOI 1416 which implements the exemption from payment of OPSF imposts as effected by OEA has no legal basis. Furthermore, we wish to emphasize that payment to Caltex (Phil.) Inc., of the amount as herein authorized shall be subject to availability of funds of OPSF as of May 31, 1989 and applicable auditing rules and regulations. With regard to the disallowances, it is further informed that the aggrieved party has 30 days within which to appeal the decision of the Commission in accordance with law. On 8 September 1989, petitioner filed an Omnibus Request for the Reconsideration of the decision based 13 on the following grounds: A) COA-DISALLOWED CLAIMS ARE AUTHORIZED UNDER EXISTING RULES, ORDERS, RESOLUTIONS, CIRCULARS ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND THE ENERGY REGULATORY BOARD PURSUANT TO EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 137. xxx xxx xxx B) ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATIONS IN THE COURSE OF EXERCISE OF EXECUTIVE POWER BY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ENERGY REGULATORY BOARD ARE LEGAL AND SHOULD BE RESPECTED AND APPLIED UNLESS DECLARED NULL AND VOID BY COURTS OR REPEALED BY LEGISLATION. xxx xxx xxx C) LEGAL BASIS FOR RETENTION OF OFFSET ARRANGEMENT, AS AUTHORIZED BY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT, REMAINS VALID. xxx xxx xxx On 6 November 1989, petitioner filed with the COA a Supplemental Omnibus Request for 14 Reconsideration. On 16 February 1990, the COA, with Chairman Domingo taking no part and with Commissioner Fernandez dissenting in part, handed down Decision No. 1171 affirming the disallowance for recovery of financing charges, inventory losses, and sales to MARCOPPER and ATLAS, while allowing the recovery 15 of product sales or those arising from export sales. Decision No. 1171 reads as follows: Anent the recovery of financing charges you contend that Caltex Phil. Inc. has the .authority to recover financing charges from the OPSF on the basis of Department of Finance (DOF) Circular 1-87, dated February 18, 1987, which allowed oil companies to "recover cost of financing working capital associated with crude oil shipments," and provided a schedule of reimbursement in terms of peso per barrel. It appears that on November 6, 1989, the DOF issued a memorandum to the President of the Philippines explaining the nature of these financing charges and justifying their reimbursement as follows: As part of your program to promote economic recovery, . . . oil companies (were authorized) to refinance their imports of crude oil and petroleum products from the normal trade credit of 30 days up to 360 days from date of loading . . . Conformably . . ., the oil companies deferred their foreign exchange remittances for purchases by refinancing

their import bills from the normal 30-day payment term up to the desired 360 days. This refinancing of importations carried additional costs (financing charges) which then became, due to government mandate, an inherent part of the cost of the purchases of our country's oil requirement. We beg to disagree with such contention. The justification that financing charges increased oil costs and the schedule of reimbursement rate in peso per barrel (Exhibit 1) used to support alleged increase (sic) were not validated in our independent inquiry. As manifested in Exhibit 2, using the same formula which the DOF used in arriving at the reimbursement rate but using comparable percentages instead of pesos, the ineluctable conclusion is that the oil companies are actually gaining rather than losing from the extension of credit because such extension enables them to invest the collections in marketable securities which have much higher rates than those they incur due to the extension. The Data we used were obtained from CPI (CALTEX) Management and can easily be verified from our records. With respect to product sales or those arising from sales to international vessels or airlines, . . ., it is believed that export sales (product sales) are entitled to claim refund from the OPSF. As regard your claim for underrecovery arising from inventory losses, . . . It is the considered view of this Commission that the OPSF is not liable to refund such surtax on inventory losses because these are paid to BIR and not OPSF, in view of which CPI (CALTEX) should seek refund from BIR. . . . Finally, as regards the sales to Atlas and Marcopper, it is represented that you are entitled to claim recovery from the OPSF pursuant to LOI 1416 issued on July 17, 1984, since these copper mining companies did not pay CPI (CALTEX) and OPSF imposts which were added to the selling price. Upon a circumspect evaluation, this Commission believes and so holds that the CPI (CALTEX) has no authority to claim reimbursement for this uncollected OPSF impost because LOI 1416 dated July 17, 1984, which exempts distressed mining companies from "all taxes, duties, import fees and other charges" was issued when OPSF was not yet in existence and could not have contemplated OPSF imposts at the time of its formulation. Moreover, it is evident that OPSF was not created to aid distressed mining companies but rather to help the domestic oil industry by stabilizing oil prices. Unsatisfied with the decision, petitioner filed on 28 March 1990 the present petition wherein it imputes to 16 the COA the commission of the following errors: I RESPONDENT COMMISSION ERRED IN DISALLOWING RECOVERY OF FINANCING CHARGES FROM THE OPSF. II RESPONDENT COMMISSION ERRED IN DISALLOWING 17 CPI's CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF UNDERRECOVERY ARISING FROM SALES TO NPC.

III RESPONDENT COMMISSION ERRED IN DENYING CPI's CLAIMS FOR REIMBURSEMENT ON SALES TO ATLAS AND MARCOPPER. IV RESPONDENT COMMISSION ERRED IN PREVENTING CPI FROM EXERCISING ITS LEGAL RIGHT TO OFFSET ITS REMITTANCES AGAINST ITS REIMBURSEMENT VISA-VIS THE OPSF. V RESPONDENT COMMISSION ERRED IN DISALLOWING CPI's CLAIMS WHICH ARE STILL PENDING RESOLUTION BY (SIC) THE OEA AND THE DOF. In the Resolution of 5 April 1990, this Court required the respondents to comment on the petition within 18 ten (10) days from notice. On 6 September 1990, respondents COA and Commissioners Fernandez and Cruz, assisted by the 19 Office of the Solicitor General, filed their Comment. This Court resolved to give due course to this petition on 30 May 1991 and required the parties to file their 20 respective Memoranda within twenty (20) days from notice. In a Manifestation dated 18 July 1991, the Office of the Solicitor General prays that the Comment filed on 21 6 September 1990 be considered as the Memorandum for respondents. Upon the other hand, petitioner filed its Memorandum on 14 August 1991. I. Petitioner dwells lengthily on its first assigned error contending, in support thereof, that: (1) In view of the expanded role of the OPSF pursuant to Executive Order No. 137, which added a second purpose, to wit: 2) To reimburse the oil companies for possible cost underrecovery incurred as a result of the reduction of domestic prices of petroleum products. The magnitude of the underrecovery, if any, shall be determined by the Ministry of Finance. "Cost underrecovery" shall include the following: i. Reduction in oil company take as directed by the Board of Energy without the corresponding reduction in the landed cost of oil inventories in the possession of the oil companies at the time of the price change; ii. Reduction in internal ad valorem taxes as a result of foregoing government mandated price reductions; iii. Other factors as may be determined by the Ministry of Finance to result in cost underrecovery. the "other factors" mentioned therein that may be determined by the Ministry (now Department) of Finance may include financing charges for "in essence, financing charges constitute unrecovered cost of

acquisition of crude oil incurred by the oil companies," as explained in the 6 November 1989 Memorandum to the President of the Department of Finance; they "directly translate to cost underrecovery in cases where the money market placement rates decline and at the same time the tax on interest income increases. The relationship is such that the presence of underrecovery or overrecovery is directly dependent on the amount and extent of financing charges." (2) The claim for recovery of financing charges has clear legal and factual basis; it was filed on the basis of Department of Finance Circular No. 1-87, dated 18 February 1987, which provides: To allow oil companies to recover the costs of financing working capital associated with crude oil shipments, the following guidelines on the utilization of the Oil Price Stabilization Fund pertaining to the payment of the foregoing (sic) exchange risk premium and recovery of financing charges will be implemented: 1. The OPSF foreign exchange premium shall be reduced to a flat rate of one (1) percent for the first (6) months and 1/32 of one percent per month thereafter up to a maximum period of one year, to be applied on crude oil' shipments from January 1, 1987. Shipments with outstanding financing as of January 1, 1987 shall be charged on the basis of the fee applicable to the remaining period of financing. 2. In addition, for shipments loaded after January 1987, oil companies shall be allowed to recover financing charges directly from the OPSF per barrel of crude oil based on the following schedule: F i n a n c i n g P e r i o d R e i m b u r s e m e n

t R a t e P e s o s p e r B a r r e l Less than 180 days None 180 days to 239 days 1.90 241 (sic) days to 299 4.02 300 days to 369 (sic) days 6.16 360 days or more 8.28 The above rates shall be subject to review every sixty 22 days. Pursuant to this circular, the Department of Finance, in its letter of 18 February 1987, advised the Office of Energy Affairs as follows: HON. VICENTE T. PATERNO Deputy Executive Secretary For Energy Affairs Office of the President Makati, Metro Manila Dear Sir: This refers to the letters of the Oil Industry dated December 4, 1986 and February 5, 1987 and subsequent discussions held by the Price Review committee on February 6, 1987. On the basis of the representations made, the Department of Finance recognizes the necessity to reduce the foreign exchange risk premium accruing to the Oil Price Stabilization Fund (OPSF). Such a reduction would allow the industry to recover partly associated financing charges on crude oil imports. Accordingly, the OPSF foreign exchange risk fee shall be reduced to a flat charge of 1% for the first six (6) months plus 1/32% of 1% per month thereafter up to a maximum period of one year, effective January

1, 1987. In addition, since the prevailing company take would still leave unrecovered financing charges, reimbursement may be secured from the OPSF in accordance with 23 the provisions of the attached Department of Finance circular. Acting on this letter, the OEA issued on 4 May 1987 Order No. 87-05-096 which contains the guidelines for the computation of the foreign exchange risk fee and the recovery of financing charges from the OPSF, to wit: B. FINANCE CHARGES 1. Oil companies shall be allowed to recover financing charges directly from the OPSF for both crude and product shipments loaded after January 1, 1987 based on the following rates: F i n a n c i n g P e r i o d R e i m b u r s e m e n t R a t e ( P B b l

. ) Less than 180 days None 180 days to 239 days 1.90 240 days to 229 (sic) days 4.02 300 days to 359 days 6.16 360 days to more 8.28 2. The above rates shall be subject to review every sixty days.
24

Then on 22 November 1988, the Department of Finance issued Circular No. 4-88 imposing further guidelines on the recoverability of financing charges, to wit: Following are the supplemental rules to Department of Finance Circular No. 1-87 dated February 18, 1987 which allowed the recovery of financing charges directly from the Oil Price Stabilization Fund. (OPSF): 1. The Claim for reimbursement shall be on a per shipment basis. 2. The claim shall be filed with the Office of Energy Affairs together with the claim on peso cost differential for a particular shipment and duly certified supporting documents provided for under Ministry of Finance No. 11-85. 3. The reimbursement shall be on the form of reimbursement certificate (Annex A) to be issued by the Office of Energy Affairs. The said certificate may be used to offset against amounts payable to the OPSF. The oil companies may also redeem said certificates in cash if not 25 utilized, subject to availability of funds. The OEA disseminated this Circular to all oil companies in its Memorandum Circular No. 88-12-017.
26

The COA can neither ignore these issuances nor formulate its own interpretation of the laws in the light of the determination of executive agencies. The determination by the Department of Finance and the OEA 27 that financing charges are recoverable from the OPSF is entitled to great weight and consideration. The function of the COA, particularly in the matter of allowing or disallowing certain expenditures, is limited to the promulgation of accounting and auditing rules for, among others, the disallowance of irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or unconscionable expenditures, or uses of government funds and 28 properties. (3) Denial of petitioner's claim for reimbursement would be inequitable. Additionally, COA's claim that petitioner is gaining, instead of losing, from the extension of credit, is belatedly raised and not supported by expert analysis. In impeaching the validity of petitioner's assertions, the respondents argue that: 1. The Constitution gives the COA discretionary power to disapprove irregular or unnecessary government expenditures and as the monetary claims of petitioner are not allowed by law, the COA acted within its jurisdiction in denying them; 2. P.D. No. 1956 and E.O. No. 137 do not allow reimbursement of financing charges from the OPSF;

3. Under the principle of ejusdem generis, the "other factors" mentioned in the second purpose of the OPSF pursuant to E.O. No. 137 can only include "factors which are of the same nature or analogous to those enumerated;" 4. In allowing reimbursement of financing charges from OPSF, Circular No. 1-87 of the Department of Finance violates P.D. No. 1956 and E.O. No. 137; and 5. Department of Finance rules and regulations implementing P.D. No. 1956 do not likewise allow reimbursement of financing 29 charges. We find no merit in the first assigned error. As to the power of the COA, which must first be resolved in view of its primacy, We find the theory of petitioner that such does not extend to the disallowance of irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or unconscionable expenditures, or use of government funds and properties, but only to the promulgation of accounting and auditing rules for, among others, such disallowance to be untenable in the light of the provisions of the 1987 Constitution and related laws. Section 2, Subdivision D, Article IX of the 1987 Constitution expressly provides: Sec. 2(l). The Commission on Audit shall have the power, authority, and duty to examine, audit, and settle all accounts pertaining to the revenue and receipts of, and expenditures or uses of funds and property, owned or held in trust by, or pertaining to, the Government, or any of its subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities, including government-owned and controlled corporations with original charters, and on a post-audit basis: (a) constitutional bodies, commissions and offices that have been granted fiscal autonomy under this Constitution; (b) autonomous state colleges and universities; (c) other government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries; and (d) such non-governmental entities receiving subsidy or equity, directly or indirectly, from or through the government, which are required by law or the granting institution to submit to such audit as a condition of subsidy or equity. However, where the internal control system of the audited agencies is inadequate, the Commission may adopt such measures, including temporary or special pre-audit, as are necessary and appropriate to correct the deficiencies. It shall keep the general accounts, of the Government and, for such period as may be provided by law, preserve the vouchers and other supporting papers pertaining thereto. (2) The Commission shall have exclusive authority, subject to the limitations in this Article, to define the scope of its audit and examination, establish the techniques and methods required therefor, and promulgate accounting and auditing rules and regulations, including those for the prevention and disallowance of irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or, unconscionable expenditures, or uses of government funds and properties. These present powers, consistent with the declared independence of the Commission, are broader and more extensive than that conferred by the 1973 Constitution. Under the latter, the Commission was empowered to: Examine, audit, and settle, in accordance with law and regulations, all accounts pertaining to the revenues, and receipts of, and expenditures or uses of funds and property, owned or held in trust by, or pertaining to, the Government, or any of its subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities including government-owned or controlled corporations, keep the general accounts of the Government and, for such period as may
30

be provided by law, preserve the vouchers pertaining thereto; and promulgate accounting and auditing rules and regulations including those for the prevention of irregular, 31 unnecessary, excessive, or extravagant expenditures or uses of funds and property. Upon the other hand, under the 1935 Constitution, the power and authority of the COA's precursor, the General Auditing Office, were, unfortunately, limited; its very role was markedly passive. Section 2 of Article XI thereof provided: Sec. 2. The Auditor General shall examine, audit, and settle all accounts pertaining to the revenues and receipts from whatever source, including trust funds derived from bond issues; and audit, in accordance with law and administrative regulations, all expenditures of funds or property pertaining to or held in trust by the Government or the provinces or municipalities thereof. He shall keep the general accounts of the Government and the preserve the vouchers pertaining thereto. It shall be the duty of the Auditor General to bring to the attention of the proper administrative officer expenditures of funds or property which, in his opinion, are irregular, unnecessary, excessive, or extravagant. He shall also perform such other functions as may be prescribed by law. As clearly shown above, in respect to irregular, unnecessary, excessive or extravagant expenditures or uses of funds, the 1935 Constitution did not grant the Auditor General the power to issue rules and regulations to prevent the same. His was merely to bring that matter to the attention of the proper administrative officer. The ruling on this particular point, quoted by petitioner from the cases of Guevarra vs. Gimenez and 33 Ramos vs. Aquino, are no longer controlling as the two (2) were decided in the light of the 1935 Constitution. There can be no doubt, however, that the audit power of the Auditor General under the 1935 Constitution and the Commission on Audit under the 1973 Constitution authorized them to disallow illegal expenditures of funds or uses of funds and property. Our present Constitution retains that same power and authority, further strengthened by the definition of the COA's general jurisdiction in Section 26 of the 34 35 Government Auditing Code of the Philippines and Administrative Code of 1987. Pursuant to its power to promulgate accounting and auditing rules and regulations for the prevention of irregular, unnecessary, 36 excessive or extravagant expenditures or uses of funds, the COA promulgated on 29 March 1977 COA Circular No. 77-55. Since the COA is responsible for the enforcement of the rules and regulations, it goes without saying that failure to comply with them is a ground for disapproving the payment of the proposed expenditure. As observed by one of the Commissioners of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, Fr. 37 Joaquin G. Bernas: It should be noted, however, that whereas under Article XI, Section 2, of the 1935 Constitution the Auditor General could not correct "irregular, unnecessary, excessive or extravagant" expenditures of public funds but could only "bring [the matter] to the attention of the proper administrative officer," under the 1987 Constitution, as also under the 1973 Constitution, the Commission on Audit can "promulgate accounting and auditing rules and regulations including those for the prevention and disallowance of irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or unconscionable expenditures or uses of government funds and properties." Hence, since the Commission on Audit must ultimately be responsible for the enforcement of these rules and regulations, the failure to comply with these regulations can be a ground for disapproving the payment of a proposed expenditure. Indeed, when the framers of the last two (2) Constitutions conferred upon the COA a more active role and invested it with broader and more extensive powers, they did not intend merely to make the COA a
32

toothless tiger, but rather envisioned a dynamic, effective, efficient and independent watchdog of the Government. The issue of the financing charges boils down to the validity of Department of Finance Circular No. 1-87, Department of Finance Circular No. 4-88 and the implementing circulars of the OEA, issued pursuant to Section 8, P.D. No. 1956, as amended by E.O. No. 137, authorizing it to determine "other factors" which may result in cost underrecovery and a consequent reimbursement from the OPSF. The Solicitor General maintains that, following the doctrine of ejusdem generis, financing charges are not included in "cost underrecovery" and, therefore, cannot be considered as one of the "other factors." Section 8 of P.D. No. 1956, as amended by E.O. No. 137, does not explicitly define what "cost underrecovery" is. It merely states what it includes. Thus: . . . "Cost underrecovery" shall include the following: i. Reduction in oil company takes as directed by the Board of Energy without the corresponding reduction in the landed cost of oil inventories in the possession of the oil companies at the time of the price change; ii. Reduction in internal ad valorem taxes as a result of foregoing government mandated price reductions; iii. Other factors as may be determined by the Ministry of Finance to result in cost underrecovery. These "other factors" can include only those which are of the same class or nature as the two specifically enumerated in subparagraphs (i) and (ii). A common characteristic of both is that they are in the nature of government mandated price reductions. Hence, any other factor which seeks to be a part of the enumeration, or which could qualify as a cost underrecovery, must be of the same class or nature as those specifically enumerated. Petitioner, however, suggests that E.O. No. 137 intended to grant the Department of Finance broad and unrestricted authority to determine or define "other factors." Both views are unacceptable to this Court. The rule of ejusdem generis states that "[w]here general words follow an enumeration of persons or things, by words of a particular and specific meaning, such general words are not to be construed in their widest extent, but are held to be as applying only to persons or things of the same kind or class as those 38 specifically mentioned. A reading of subparagraphs (i) and (ii) easily discloses that they do not have a common characteristic. The first relates to price reduction as directed by the Board of Energy while the second refers to reduction in internal ad valorem taxes. Therefore, subparagraph (iii) cannot be limited by the enumeration in these subparagraphs. What should be considered for purposes of determining the "other factors" in subparagraph (iii) is the first sentence of paragraph (2) of the Section which explicitly allows cost underrecovery only if such were incurred as a result of the reduction of domestic prices of petroleum products. Although petitioner's financing losses, if indeed incurred, may constitute cost underrecovery in the sense that such were incurred as a result of the inability to fully offset financing expenses from yields in money market placements, they do not, however, fall under the foregoing provision of P.D. No. 1956, as amended, because the same did not result from the reduction of the domestic price of petroleum products. Until paragraph (2), Section 8 of the decree, as amended, is further amended by Congress, this Court can do nothing. The duty of this Court is not to legislate, but to apply or interpret the law. Be that as

it may, this Court wishes to emphasize that as the facts in this case have shown, it was at the behest of the Government that petitioner refinanced its oil import payments from the normal 30-day trade credit to a maximum of 360 days. Petitioner could be correct in its assertion that owing to the extended period for payment, the financial institution which refinanced said payments charged a higher interest, thereby resulting in higher financing expenses for the petitioner. It would appear then that equity considerations dictate that petitioner should somehow be allowed to recover its financing losses, if any, which may have been sustained because it accommodated the request of the Government. Although under Section 29 of the National Internal Revenue Code such losses may be deducted from gross income, the effect of that loss would be merely to reduce its taxable income, but not to actually wipe out such losses. The Government then may consider some positive measures to help petitioner and others similarly situated to obtain substantial relief. An amendment, as aforestated, may then be in order. Upon the other hand, to accept petitioner's theory of "unrestricted authority" on the part of the Department of Finance to determine or define "other factors" is to uphold an undue delegation of legislative power, it clearly appearing that the subject provision does not provide any standard for the exercise of the authority. It is a fundamental rule that delegation of legislative power may be sustained only upon the ground that some standard for its exercise is provided and that the legislature, in making the delegation, 39 has prescribed the manner of the exercise of the delegated authority. Finally, whether petitioner gained or lost by reason of the extensive credit is rendered irrelevant by reason of the foregoing disquisitions. It may nevertheless be stated that petitioner failed to disprove COA's claim that it had in fact gained in the process. Otherwise stated, petitioner failed to sufficiently show that it incurred a loss. Such being the case, how can petitioner claim for reimbursement? It cannot have its cake and eat it too. II. Anent the claims arising from sales to the National Power Corporation, We find for the petitioner. The respondents themselves admit in their Comment that underrecovery arising from sales to NPC are reimbursable because NPC was granted full exemption from the payment of taxes; to prove this, 40 respondents trace the laws providing for such exemption. The last law cited is the Fiscal Incentives Regulatory Board's Resolution No. 17-87 of 24 June 1987 which provides, in part, "that the tax and duty exemption privileges of the National Power Corporation, including those pertaining to its domestic purchases of petroleum and petroleum products . . . are restored effective March 10, 1987." In a Memorandum issued on 5 October 1987 by the Office of the President, NPC's tax exemption was confirmed and approved. Furthermore, as pointed out by respondents, the intention to exempt sales of petroleum products to the NPC is evident in the recently passed Republic Act No. 6952 establishing the Petroleum Price Standby 41 Fund to support the OPSF. The pertinent part of Section 2, Republic Act No. 6952 provides: Sec. 2. Application of the Fund shall be subject to the following conditions: (1) That the Fund shall be used to reimburse the oil companies for (a) cost increases of imported crude oil and finished petroleum products resulting from foreign exchange rate adjustments and/or increases in world market prices of crude oil; (b) cost underrecovery incurred as a result of fuel oil sales to the National Power Corporation (NPC); and (c) other cost underrecoveries incurred as may be finally decided by the Supreme Court; . . . Hence, petitioner can recover its claim arising from sales of petroleum products to the National Power Corporation.

III. With respect to its claim for reimbursement on sales to ATLAS and MARCOPPER, petitioner relies on Letter of Instruction (LOI) 1416, dated 17 July 1984, which ordered the suspension of payments of all taxes, duties, fees and other charges, whether direct or indirect, due and payable by the copper mining companies in distress to the national government. Pursuant to this LOI, then Minister of Energy, Hon. Geronimo Velasco, issued Memorandum Circular No. 84-11-22 advising the oil companies that Atlas Consolidated Mining Corporation and Marcopper Mining Corporation are among those declared to be in distress. In denying the claims arising from sales to ATLAS and MARCOPPER, the COA, in its 18 August 1989 letter to Executive Director Wenceslao R. de la Paz, states that "it is our opinion that LOI 1416 which 42 implements the exemption from payment of OPSF imposts as effected by OEA has no legal basis;" in its Decision No. 1171, it ruled that "the CPI (CALTEX) (Caltex) has no authority to claim reimbursement for this uncollected impost because LOI 1416 dated July 17, 1984, . . . was issued when OPSF was not 43 yet in existence and could not have contemplated OPSF imposts at the time of its formulation." It is further stated that: "Moreover, it is evident that OPSF was not created to aid distressed mining companies but rather to help the domestic oil industry by stabilizing oil prices." In sustaining COA's stand, respondents vigorously maintain that LOI 1416 could not have intended to exempt said distressed mining companies from the payment of OPSF dues for the following reasons: a. LOI 1416 granting the alleged exemption was issued on July 17, 1984. P.D. 1956 creating the OPSF was promulgated on October 10, 1984, while E.O. 137, amending P.D. 1956, was issued on February 25, 1987. b. LOI 1416 was issued in 1984 to assist distressed copper mining companies in line with the government's effort to prevent the collapse of the copper industry. P.D No. 1956, as amended, was issued for the purpose of minimizing frequent price changes brought about by exchange rate adjustments and/or changes in world market prices of crude oil and imported petroleum product's; and c. LOI 1416 caused the "suspension of all taxes, duties, fees, imposts and other charges, whether direct or indirect, due and payable by the copper mining companies in distress to the Notional and Local Governments . . ." On the other hand, OPSF dues are not payable by (sic) distressed copper companies but by oil companies. It is to be noted that the copper mining companies do not pay OPSF dues. Rather, such imposts are built in or 44 already incorporated in the prices of oil products. Lastly, respondents allege that while LOI 1416 suspends the payment of taxes by distressed mining companies, it does not accord petitioner the same privilege with respect to its obligation to pay OPSF dues. We concur with the disquisitions of the respondents. Aside from such reasons, however, it is apparent 45 that LOI 1416 was never published in the Official Gazette as required by Article 2 of the Civil Code, which reads: Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their publication in the Official Gazette, unless it is otherwise provided. . . . In applying said provision, this Court ruled in the case of Taada vs. Tuvera:
46

WHEREFORE, the Court hereby orders respondents to publish in the Official Gazette all unpublished presidential issuances which are of general application, and unless so published they shall have no binding force and effect.

Resolving the motion for reconsideration of said decision, this Court, in its Resolution promulgated on 29 47 December 1986, ruled: We hold therefore that all statutes, including those of local application and private laws, shall be published as a condition for their effectivity, which shall begin fifteen days after publication unless a different effectivity date is fixed by the legislature. Covered by this rule are presidential decrees and executive orders promulgated by the President in the exercise of legislative powers whenever the same are validly delegated by the legislature or, at present, directly conferred by the Constitution. Administrative rules and regulations must also be published if their purpose is to enforce or implement existing laws pursuant also to a valid delegation. xxx xxx xxx WHEREFORE, it is hereby declared that all laws as above defined shall immediately upon their approval, or as soon thereafter as possible, be published in full in the Official Gazette, to become effective only after fifteen days from their publication, or on another date specified by the legislature, in accordance with Article 2 of the Civil Code. LOI 1416 has, therefore, no binding force or effect as it was never published in the Official Gazette after its issuance or at any time after the decision in the abovementioned cases. Article 2 of the Civil Code was, however, later amended by Executive Order No. 200, issued on 18 June 1987. As amended, the said provision now reads: Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their publication either in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines, unless it is otherwise provided. We are not aware of the publication of LOI 1416 in any newspaper of general circulation pursuant to Executive Order No. 200. Furthermore, even granting arguendo that LOI 1416 has force and effect, petitioner's claim must still fail. Tax exemptions as a general rule are construed strictly against the grantee and liberally in favor of the 48 taxing authority. The burden of proof rests upon the party claiming exemption to prove that it is in fact covered by the exemption so claimed. The party claiming exemption must therefore be expressly mentioned in the exempting law or at least be within its purview by clear legislative intent. In the case at bar, petitioner failed to prove that it is entitled, as a consequence of its sales to ATLAS and MARCOPPER, to claim reimbursement from the OPSF under LOI 1416. Though LOI 1416 may suspend the payment of taxes by copper mining companies, it does not give petitioner the same privilege with respect to the payment of OPSF dues. IV. As to COA's disallowance of the amount of P130,420,235.00, petitioner maintains that the Department of Finance has still to issue a final and definitive ruling thereon; accordingly, it was premature for COA to 49 disallow it. By doing so, the latter acted beyond its jurisdiction. Respondents, on the other hand, 50 contend that said amount was already disallowed by the OEA for failure to substantiate it. In fact, when OEA submitted the claims of petitioner for pre-audit, the abovementioned amount was already excluded. An examination of the records of this case shows that petitioner failed to prove or substantiate its contention that the amount of P130,420,235.00 is still pending before the OEA and the DOF. Additionally,

We find no reason to doubt the submission of respondents that said amount has already been passed upon by the OEA. Hence, the ruling of respondent COA disapproving said claim must be upheld. V. The last issue to be resolved in this case is whether or not the amounts due to the OPSF from petitioner may be offset against petitioner's outstanding claims from said fund. Petitioner contends that it should be allowed to offset its claims from the OPSF against its contributions to the fund as this has been 51 allowed in the past, particularly in the years 1987 and 1988. Furthermore, petitioner cites, as bases for offsetting, the provisions of the New Civil Code on compensation and Section 21, Book V, Title I-B of the Revised Administrative Code which provides for 52 "Retention of Money for Satisfaction of Indebtedness to Government." Petitioner also mentions communications from the Board of Energy and the Department of Finance that supposedly authorize compensation. Respondents, on the other hand, citing Francia vs. IAC and Fernandez, contend that there can be no offsetting of taxes against the claims that a taxpayer may have against the government, as taxes do not arise from contracts or depend upon the will of the taxpayer, but are imposed by law. Respondents also allege that petitioner's reliance on Section 21, Book V, Title I-B of the Revised Administrative Code, is misplaced because "while this provision empowers the COA to withhold payment of a government indebtedness to a person who is also indebted to the government and apply the government indebtedness to the satisfaction of the obligation of the person to the government, like authority or right to 54 make compensation is not given to the private person." The reason for this, as stated in Commissioner 55 of Internal Revenue vs. Algue, Inc., is that money due the government, either in the form of taxes or other dues, is its lifeblood and should be collected without hindrance. Thus, instead of giving petitioner a reason for compensation or set-off, the Revised Administrative Code makes it the respondents' duty to collect petitioner's indebtedness to the OPSF. Refuting respondents' contention, petitioner claims that the amounts due from it do not arise as a result of taxation because "P.D. 1956, amended, did not create a source of taxation; it instead established a 56 special fund . . .," and that the OPSF contributions do not go to the general fund of the state and are not used for public purpose, i.e., not for the support of the government, the administration of law, or the payment of public expenses. This alleged lack of a public purpose behind OPSF exactions distinguishes such from a tax. Hence, the ruling in the Francia case is inapplicable. Lastly, petitioner cites R.A. No. 6952 creating the Petroleum Price Standby Fund to support the OPSF; the said law provides in part that: Sec. 2. Application of the fund shall be subject to the following conditions: xxx xxx xxx (3) That no amount of the Petroleum Price Standby Fund shall be used to pay any oil company which has an outstanding obligation to the Government without said obligation being offset first, subject to the requirements of compensation or offset under the Civil Code. We find no merit in petitioner's contention that the OPSF contributions are not for a public purpose because they go to a special fund of the government. Taxation is no longer envisioned as a measure merely to raise revenue to support the existence of the government; taxes may be levied with a regulatory purpose to provide means for the rehabilitation and stabilization of a threatened industry which is affected 57 with public interest as to be within the police power of the state. There can be no doubt that the oil industry is greatly imbued with public interest as it vitally affects the general welfare. Any unregulated increase in oil prices could hurt the lives of a majority of the people and cause economic crisis of untold proportions. It would have a chain reaction in terms of, among others, demands for wage increases and
53

upward spiralling of the cost of basic commodities. The stabilization then of oil prices is of prime concern which the state, via its police power, may properly address. Also, P.D. No. 1956, as amended by E.O. No. 137, explicitly provides that the source of OPSF is taxation. No amount of semantical juggleries could dim this fact. It is settled that a taxpayer may not offset taxes due from the claims that he may have against the 58 government. Taxes cannot be the subject of compensation because the government and taxpayer are not mutually creditors and debtors of each other and a claim for taxes is not such a debt, demand, 59 contract or judgment as is allowed to be set-off. We may even further state that technically, in respect to the taxes for the OPSF, the oil companies merely act as agents for the Government in the latter's collection since the taxes are, in reality, passed unto the end-users the consuming public. In that capacity, the petitioner, as one of such companies, has the primary obligation to account for and remit the taxes collected to the administrator of the OPSF. This duty stems from the fiduciary relationship between the two; petitioner certainly cannot be considered merely as a debtor. In respect, therefore, to its collection for the OPSF vis-a-vis its claims for reimbursement, no compensation is likewise legally feasible. Firstly, the Government and the petitioner cannot be said to be mutually debtors and creditors of each other. Secondly, there is no proof that petitioner's claim is already due and liquidated. Under Article 1279 of the Civil Code, in order that compensation may be proper, it is necessary that: (1) each one of the obligors be bound principally, and that he be at the same time a principal creditor of the other; (2) both debts consist in a sum of :money, or if the things due are consumable, they be of the same kind, and also of the same quality if the latter has been stated; (3) the two (2) debts be due; (4) they be liquidated and demandable; (5) over neither of them there be any retention or controversy, commenced by third persons and communicated in due time to the debtor. That compensation had been the practice in the past can set no valid precedent. Such a practice has no legal basis. Lastly, R.A. No. 6952 does not authorize oil companies to offset their claims against their OPSF contributions. Instead, it prohibits the government from paying any amount from the Petroleum Price Standby Fund to oil companies which have outstanding obligations with the government, without said obligation being offset first subject to the rules on compensation in the Civil Code. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered AFFIRMING the challenged decision of the Commission on Audit, except that portion thereof disallowing petitioner's claim for reimbursement of underrecovery arising from sales to the National Power Corporation, which is hereby allowed. With costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. L-7859 December 22, 1955

WALTER LUTZ, as Judicial Administrator of the Intestate Estate of the deceased Antonio Jayme Ledesma, plaintiff-appellant, vs. J. ANTONIO ARANETA, as the Collector of Internal Revenue, defendant-appellee. Ernesto J. Gonzaga for appellant. Office of the Solicitor General Ambrosio Padilla, First Assistant Solicitor General Guillermo E. Torres and Solicitor Felicisimo R. Rosete for appellee.

REYES, J.B L., J.: This case was initiated in the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental to test the legality of the taxes imposed by Commonwealth Act No. 567, otherwise known as the Sugar Adjustment Act. Promulgated in 1940, the law in question opens (section 1) with a declaration of emergency, due to the threat to our industry by the imminent imposition of export taxes upon sugar as provided in the TydingsMcDuffe Act, and the "eventual loss of its preferential position in the United States market"; wherefore, the national policy was expressed "to obtain a readjustment of the benefits derived from the sugar industry by the component elements thereof" and "to stabilize the sugar industry so as to prepare it for the eventuality of the loss of its preferential position in the United States market and the imposition of the export taxes." In section 2, Commonwealth Act 567 provides for an increase of the existing tax on the manufacture of sugar, on a graduated basis, on each picul of sugar manufactured; while section 3 levies on owners or persons in control of lands devoted to the cultivation of sugar cane and ceded to others for a consideration, on lease or otherwise a tax equivalent to the difference between the money value of the rental or consideration collected and the amount representing 12 per centum of the assessed value of such land. According to section 6 of the law SEC. 6. All collections made under this Act shall accrue to a special fund in the Philippine Treasury, to be known as the 'Sugar Adjustment and Stabilization Fund,' and shall be paid out only for any or all of the following purposes or to attain any or all of the following objectives, as may be provided by law. First, to place the sugar industry in a position to maintain itself, despite the gradual loss of the preferntial position of the Philippine sugar in the United States market, and ultimately to insure its continued existence notwithstanding the loss of that market and the consequent necessity of meeting competition in the free markets of the world; Second, to readjust the benefits derived from the sugar industry by all of the component elements thereof the mill, the landowner, the planter of the sugar cane, and the laborers in the factory and in the field so that all might continue profitably to engage therein;lawphi1.net Third, to limit the production of sugar to areas more economically suited to the production thereof; and Fourth, to afford labor employed in the industry a living wage and to improve their living and working conditions: Provided, That the President of the Philippines may, until the adjourment of

the next regular session of the National Assembly, make the necessary disbursements from the fund herein created (1) for the establishment and operation of sugar experiment station or stations and the undertaking of researchers (a) to increase the recoveries of the centrifugal sugar factories with the view of reducing manufacturing costs, (b) to produce and propagate higher yielding varieties of sugar cane more adaptable to different district conditions in the Philippines, (c) to lower the costs of raising sugar cane, (d) to improve the buying quality of denatured alcohol from molasses for motor fuel, (e) to determine the possibility of utilizing the other by-products of the industry, (f) to determine what crop or crops are suitable for rotation and for the utilization of excess cane lands, and (g) on other problems the solution of which would help rehabilitate and stabilize the industry, and (2) for the improvement of living and working conditions in sugar mills and sugar plantations, authorizing him to organize the necessary agency or agencies to take charge of the expenditure and allocation of said funds to carry out the purpose hereinbefore enumerated, and, likewise, authorizing the disbursement from the fund herein created of the necessary amount or amounts needed for salaries, wages, travelling expenses, equipment, and other sundry expenses of said agency or agencies. Plaintiff, Walter Lutz, in his capacity as Judicial Administrator of the Intestate Estate of Antonio Jayme Ledesma, seeks to recover from the Collector of Internal Revenue the sum of P14,666.40 paid by the estate as taxes, under section 3 of the Act, for the crop years 1948-1949 and 1949-1950; alleging that such tax is unconstitutional and void, being levied for the aid and support of the sugar industry exclusively, which in plaintiff's opinion is not a public purpose for which a tax may be constitutioally levied. The action having been dismissed by the Court of First Instance, the plaintifs appealed the case directly to this Court (Judiciary Act, section 17). The basic defect in the plaintiff's position is his assumption that the tax provided for in Commonwealth Act No. 567 is a pure exercise of the taxing power. Analysis of the Act, and particularly of section 6 (heretofore quoted in full), will show that the tax is levied with a regulatory purpose, to provide means for the rehabilitation and stabilization of the threatened sugar industry. In other words, the act is primarily an exercise of the police power. This Court can take judicial notice of the fact that sugar production is one of the great industries of our nation, sugar occupying a leading position among its export products; that it gives employment to thousands of laborers in fields and factories; that it is a great source of the state's wealth, is one of the important sources of foreign exchange needed by our government, and is thus pivotal in the plans of a regime committed to a policy of currency stability. Its promotion, protection and advancement, therefore redounds greatly to the general welfare. Hence it was competent for the legislature to find that the general welfare demanded that the sugar industry should be stabilized in turn; and in the wide field of its police power, the lawmaking body could provide that the distribution of benefits therefrom be readjusted among its components to enable it to resist the added strain of the increase in taxes that it had to sustain (Sligh vs. Kirkwood, 237 U. S. 52, 59 L. Ed. 835; Johnson vs. State ex rel. Marey, 99 Fla. 1311, 128 So. 853; Maxcy Inc. vs. Mayo, 103 Fla. 552, 139 So. 121). As stated in Johnson vs. State ex rel. Marey, with reference to the citrus industry in Florida 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. (128 Sp. 857). Once it is conceded, as it must, that the protection and promotion of the sugar industry is a matter of public concern, it follows that the Legislature may determine within reasonable bounds what is necessary for its protection and expedient for its promotion. Here, the legislative discretion must be allowed fully play, subject only to the test of reasonableness; and it is not contended that the means provided in section 6 of the law (above quoted) bear no relation to the objective pursued or are oppressive in character. If objective and methods are alike constitutionally valid, no reason is seen why the state may

not levy taxes to raise funds for their prosecution and attainment. Taxation may be made the implement of the state's police power (Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co. vs. Grosjean, 301 U. S. 412, 81 L. Ed. 1193; U. S. vs. Butler, 297 U. S. 1, 80 L. Ed. 477; M'Culloch vs. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 4 L. Ed. 579). That the tax to be levied should burden the sugar producers themselves can hardly be a ground of complaint; indeed, it appears rational that the tax be obtained precisely from those who are to be benefited from the expenditure of the funds derived from it. 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" (Carmichael vs. Southern Coal & Coke Co., 301 U. S. 495, 81 L. Ed. 1245, citing numerous authorities, at p. 1251). From the point of view we have taken it appears of no moment that the funds raised under the Sugar Stabilization Act, now in question, should be exclusively spent in aid of the sugar industry, since it is that very enterprise that is being protected. It may be that other industries are also in need of similar protection; that the legislature is not required by the Constitution to adhere to a policy of "all or none." As ruled in Minnesota ex rel. Pearson vs. Probate Court, 309 U. S. 270, 84 L. Ed. 744, "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;" and that "the legislative authority, exerted within its proper field, need not embrace all the evils within its reach" (N. L. R. B. vs. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. 301 U. S. 1, 81 L. Ed. 893). Even from the standpoint that the Act is a pure tax measure, it cannot be said that the devotion of tax money to experimental stations to seek increase of efficiency in sugar production, utilization of byproducts and solution of allied problems, as well as to the improvements of living and working conditions in sugar mills or plantations, without any part of such money being channeled directly to private persons, constitutes expenditure of tax money for private purposes, (compare Everson vs. Board of Education, 91 L. Ed. 472, 168 ALR 1392, 1400). The decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs against appellant. So ordered. G.R. No. L-12695 March 23, 1959

CITY OF ILOILO, plaintiff-appellee, vs. REMEDIOS SIAN VILLANUEVA and EUSEBIO VILLANUEVA, defendants-appellants. City Fiscal Filemon R. Consolacion and Assistant City Fiscal Enrique I. Soriano, Jr. for appellee. Rodegilio M. Jalandomi, for appellant. BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.: Remedios Sian Villanueva and Eusebio Villanueva, spouses, are the owners of four apartment houses for rent situated in Iloilo City, to wit: the first house consists of 11 apartments situated at the corner of Iznart and Aldeguer Sts.; the second consists of 14 apartments situated at Aldeguer St.; the third consists of 7 apartments situated at the corner of Aldeguer and J.M. Basa Sts.; and the fourth consists of 2 apartments situated at the same place. Each apartment is occupied by one family and the food for each is cooked therein. On September 30, 1946, the Municipal Board of Iloilo City enacted Ordinance No. 86, amending Ordinance No. 33, wherein the following was provide: (1) tenement house (casa de vecindad), P25 annually; (2) tenement house partly or wholly engaged in or dedicated to business in the streets of J.M. Basa, Iznart and Aldeguer, P24 per apartment; (3) tenement house partly or wholly engaged in business in any other streets, P12.00 per apartment.

Pursuant to Ordinance No. 86, the city sought to collect from the spouses an annual license tax fee of P24 for each of their 34 apartments, or the total sum of P1,610 allegedly due during the period from the fourth quarter of 1946 to the third quarter of 1948, plus the sum of P332 representing 20% penalty. The spouses having refused to pay the same, the City of Iloilo filed in the municipal court action to recover the tax and penalty above-mentioned. Defendant spouses answered the complaint contending that the ordinance under which the tax is sought to be collected infringes the powers granted to the city by its Charter and that said ordinance is violative of the constitutional provisions requiring uniformity of taxation upon the theory that it is oppressive, unreasonable and discriminatory. Because of the issue of constitutionality raised, the case was elevated to the Court of First Instance of Iloilo. Counsel for both parties submitted a stipulation of facts, which was supplemented by an oral admission of other facts in open court. Thereafter, the court rendered judgment upholding the legality of the ordinance and ordering defendants to pay the taxes claimed, with interest and costs. Defendants appealed from this decision to the Court of Appeals, but this case was elevated to this Court because it involves only questions of law. It is clear from the Charter of Iloilo City that its municipal board is given the power to impose a license fee upon the owner of any business or occupation established in the city in the exercise of its police power. This is clearly inferred from paragraph (cc), section 21, of the Charter (C.A. No. 158), which provides that the municipal board has the express power (a) to regulate any business or occupation, and (b) to require licenses from persons engaged in such business or occupation in the city. But in fixing the fee that may be exacted, it becomes important to determine its nature and purpose to ascertain whether the power thus conferred has been properly exercised. To this effect, it becomes equally important to bear in mind if the fee is imposed either as a police regulation or purely as a revenue measure, for the rules that govern its validity are different. Thus, it has been held that "License fees for revenue rest upon the taxing power as distinguished from the police power and the power of the municipality to exact such fees must be expressly granted by charter or statute and is not to be implied from the conferred power to license and regulate merely" (Cu Unjieng vs. Patstone, 42 Phil., 818). It is therefore imperative to determine when a license fee is charged merely for purposes of regulation and when for purposes of revenue in order to see if the power has been exercised within the scope of the express powers granted by the law of statute. One test formulated by the authorities to attain this objectives is the following: "If the fee is designed to raise substantially more than the cost of the regulation to which it purports to be an incident, its purpose is to raise revenue. If it is a fee attached to a particular provision for regulation, and appears to be imposed to cover the cost of that regulation, and does substantially only that, then it is merely for the cost-paying part of a regulatory measure" (Carter vs. State Tax Commission, 1256 A.L.R., 1402). This Court has also had occasion to lay down certain rules for determining the nature of the license fees that may be imposed on the business or occupation that may be established in a given place, and so that the same may guide us in drawing the demarcation line in the exercise of the power one way or the other, we will quote hereunder the portions we consider pertinent: (1) The first two of these classes is based on the exercise of the police power and, though there is some conflict of authority on this point, the better rule seems to be that the conferred power to regulate and to issue such license carries with it the right to fix a license fee. It is well settled that in the absence of special authority to impose a tax for revenue the fee for this class of licenses may only be of a sufficient amount to include the expense of issuing the license and the cost of the necessary expense of direct regulation but also incidental consequences. xxx xxx xxx

(3) The fee in the third class of cases, those for revenue purposes, is, perhaps, not a license fee properly speaking but is generally so termed. It rest upon the taxing power as distinguished from the police power, and the power of the municipality to exact such fees must be expressly granted by charter or statute and is not to be implied from the conferred power to license and regulate merely. (Cu Unjieng vs. Patstone, supra.) It can therefore be said that in order that a license fee may be considered merely as a regulatory measure, it must be only "of a sufficient amount to include the expenses of issuing the license and the cost of the necessary inspection or police surveillance, taking into account not only the expense of direct regulation but also incidental consequences.?' On the other hand, if the fee charged is a revenue measure, the power to exact such fee "must be expressly granted by charter or statute and is not to be implied from the conferred power to license and regulate merely." A cursory reading of the ordinance in question would at once reveal that the license fees charged therein are not merely for regulation but for revenue, because the fee of P24 per annum charged therein for every apartment far exceeds "the expense of issuing the license", plus "the cost of inspection or police surveillance", and other incidental expenses. Thus, for the first house which consists of 11 apartments, the defendants would have to pay a license fee of P264 annually; for the second house which consists of 14 apartments, the fee would be P308 annually; for the third house which consists of 14 apartments, the fee would be P308 annually; for the third house which consists of 7 apartments, and the fourth which consists of 2 apartments, the fee would be P2156 annually. All in all, defendants would have to pay a license tax fee amounting to P888 per annum. This, in addition to the fees that may be exacted from many other residents similarly situated, would constitute a sizeable sum of revenue which would engross the coffers of the City. These fees cannot therefore be considered as merely for regulation purposes as contended. It is however claimed that even if the fees exacted in the ordinance be considered as taxes for purposes of revenue still their exaction may be justified because the same comes within the power granted to the city by its Charter. And in that advocacy the city invokes section 21, paragraph j, of the Charter, which gives the city the power "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." The city claims that a tenement house can be considered as one belonging to the group of hotels, lodging houses, or boarding houses therein enumerated. We disagree. As may be seen from the definition of each establishment hereunder quoted, a tenement house is different from a hotel, lodging house, or boarding house. These are different purposes. And it is preposterous to contend that a tenement house may be considered as included in the clause "other establishments likely to endanger public safety or give rise to conflagration or explosions" mentioned in the Charter, for as to them the power given to the city is merely to fix their location to protect the safety of the public, and not to impose a license fee or tax. A hotel is a place for the accommodation of travelers with food and lodging. (Judell vs. Goldfield Realty Co., 108 P. 455, 457) "Lodging houses" is the term applied to houses containing furnished apartments which are let out by the week or by the month, without meals, or with breakfast simply. (Cromwell vs. Stephens, N.Y., 2 Daly, 15, 25, 3 Abb. Prac. 26, 35, Cited in Vol. 25, Words and Phrases, p. 583) A boarding house is not in common parlance or in legal meaning, every private house where one or more boarders are kept occasionally only and upon special considerations. But it is a quasipublic house, where boarders are generally and habitually kept, and which is held out and known as a place of entertainment of that kind. (Cady vs. Mcdowell, 1 Lans. N.Y. 486, State vs. MacRae 170 N.C. 712, 86 S.E., 1039; Friedrich Music House vs. Harris, 200 Mich. 421, 166 N.W. 869 L.R.A. 1918D, 400.)

A tenement house is any house or building, or portion thereof, which is rented, leased, let, 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 provides, or some of them. (Webster's New International Dictionary, 2nd Ed., p. 2601.) It is well-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, deductions all these have no place in the interpretation of the taxing power of a municipal corporation." (Icard vs. City of Baguio, 83 Phil., 870; 46 Off. Gaz. 11 Sup., 320; Medina vs. City of Baguio, 91 Phil., 854; 48 Off. Gaz., [11] 4769; Yu vs. City of Lipa, 99 Phil., 975; 54 Off . Gaz., [13] 4055. 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 its taxes a tenement house such as those belonging to defendants. Wherefore, the decision appealed from is reversed. The complaint is dismissed, without costs. G.R. No. L-16619 June 29, 1963

COMPAIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL., defendants-appellants. Ponce Enrile, Siguion Reyna, Montecillo and Belo for plaintiff-appellee. City Fiscal Hermogenes Concepcion, Jr. and Assistant City Fiscal M. T. Reyes for defendants-appellants. DIZON, J.: Appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila ordering the City Treasurer of Manila to refund the sum of P15,280.00 to Compania General de Tabacos de Filipinas. Appellee Compania General de Tabacos de Filipinas hereinafter referred to simply as Tabacalera filed this action in the Court of First Instance of Manila to recover from appellants, City of Manila and its Treasurer, Marcelino Sarmiento also hereinafter referred to as the City the sum of P15,280.00 allegedly overpaid by it as taxes on its wholesale and retail sales of liquor for the period from the third quarter of 1954 to the second quarter of 1957, inclusive, under Ordinances Nos. 3634, 3301, and 3816. Tabacalera, as a duly licensed first class wholesale and retail liquor dealer paid the City the fixed license fees prescribed by Ordinance No. 3358 for the years 1954 to 1957, inclusive, and, as a wholesale and retail dealer of general merchandise, it also paid the sales taxes required by Ordinances Nos. 3634, 3301, and 3816.1wph1.t In its sworn statements of wholesale, retail, and grocery sales of general merchandise from the third quarter of 1954 to the second quarter of 1957, inclusive, Tabacalera included its liquor sales of the same period, and it is not denied that of the taxes it paid on all its sales of general merchandise, the sum of P15,280.00 subject to the action represents the tax corresponding to the liquor sales aforesaid. Tabacalera's action for refund is based on the theory that, in connection with its liquor sales, it should pay the license fees prescribed by Ordinance No. 3358 but not the municipal sales taxes imposed by

Ordinances Nos. 3634, 3301, and 3816; and since it already paid the license fees aforesaid, the sales taxes paid by it amounting to the sum of P15,208.00 under the three ordinances mentioned heretofore is an overpayment made by mistake, and therefore refundable. The City, on the other hand, contends that, for the permit issued to it granting proper authority to "conduct or engage in the sale of alcoholic beverages, or liquors" Tabacalera is subject to pay the license fees prescribed by Ordinance No. 3358, aside from the sales taxes imposed by Ordinances Nos. 3634, 3301, and 3816; that, even assuming that Tabacalera is not subject to the payment of the sales taxes prescribed by the said three ordinances as regards its liquor sales, it is not entitled to the refund demanded for the following reasons:. (a) The said amount was paid by the plaintiff voluntarily and without protest; (b) If at all the alleged overpayment was made by mistake, such mistake was one of law and arose from the plaintiff's neglect of duty; . (c) The said amount had been added by the plaintiff to the selling price of the liquor sold by it and passed to the consumers; and (d) The said amount had been already expended by the defendant City for public improvements and essential services of the City government, the benefits of which are enjoyed, and being enjoyed by the plaintiff. It is admitted that as liquor dealer, Tabacalera paid annually the wholesale and retail liquor license fees under Ordinance No. 3358. In 1954, City Ordinance No. 3634, amending City Ordinance No. 3420, and City Ordinance No. 3816, amending City Ordinance No. 3301 were passed. By reason thereof, the City Treasurer issued the regulations marked Exhibit A, according to which, the term "general merchandise as used in said ordinances, includes all articles referred to in Chapter 1, Sections 123 to 148 of the National Internal Revenue Code. Of these, Sections 133-135 included liquor among the taxable articles. Pursuant to said regulations, Tabacalera included its sales of liquor in its sworn quarterly declaration submitted to the City Treasurer beginning from the third quarter of 1954 to the second quarter of 1957, with a total value of P722,501.09 and correspondingly paid a wholesaler's tax amounting to P13,688.00 and a retailer's tax amounting to P1,520.00, or a total of P15,208.00 the amount sought to be recovered. It appears that in the year 1954, the City, through its treasurer, addressed a letter to Messrs. Sycip, Gorres, Velayo and Co., an accounting firm, expressing the view that liquor dealers paying the annual wholesale and retail fixed tax under City Ordinance No. 3358 are not subject to the wholesale and retail dealers' taxes prescribed by City Ordinances Nos. 3634, 3301, and 3816. Upon learning of said opinion, appellee stopped including its sales of liquor in its quarterly sworn declarations submitted in accordance with the aforesaid City Ordinances Nos. 3634, 3301, and 3816, and on December 3, 1957, it addressed a letter to the City Treasurer demanding refund of the alleged overpayment. As the claim was disallowed, the present action was instituted. The term "tax" applies generally speaking to all kinds of exactions which become public funds. The term is often loosely used to include levies for revenue as well as levies for regulatory purposes. Thus license fees are commonly called taxes. Legally speaking, however, license fee is a legal concept quite distinct from tax; the former is imposed in the exercise of police power for purposes of regulation, while the latter is imposed under the taxing power for the purpose of raising revenues (MacQuillin, Municipal Corporations, Vol. 9, 3rd Edition, p. 26). Ordinance No. 3358 is clearly one that prescribes municipal license fees for the privilege to engage in the business of selling liquor or alcoholic beverages, having been enacted by the Municipal Board of Manila pursuant to its charter power to fix license fees on, and regulate, the sale of intoxicating liquors, whether imported or locally manufactured. (Section 18 [p], Republic Act 409, as amended). The license fees

imposed by it are essentially for purposes of regulation, and are justified, considering that the sale of intoxicating liquor is, potentially at least, harmful to public health and morals, and must be subject to supervision or regulation by the state and by cities and municipalities authorized to act in the premises. (MacQuillin, supra, p. 445.) On the other hand, it is clear that Ordinances Nos. 3634, 3301, and 3816 impose taxes on the sales of general merchandise, wholesale or retail, and are revenue measures enacted by the Municipal Board of Manila by virtue of its power to tax dealers for the sale of such merchandise. (Section 10 [o], Republic Act No. 409, as amended.). Under Ordinance No. 3634 the word "merchandise" as employed therein clearly includes liquor. Aside from this, we have held in City of Manila vs. Inter-Island Gas Service, Inc., G.R. No. L-8799, August 31, 1956, that the word "merchandise" refers to all subjects of commerce and traffic; whatever is usually bought and sold in trade or market; goods or wares bought and sold for gain; commodities or goods to trade; and commercial commodities in general. That Tabacalera is being subjected to double taxation is more apparent than real. As already stated what is collected under Ordinance No. 3358 is a license fee for the privilege of engaging in the sale of liquor, a calling in which it is obvious not anyone or anybody may freely engage, considering that the sale of liquor indiscriminately may endanger public health and morals. On the other hand, what the three ordinances mentioned heretofore impose is a tax for revenue purposes based on the sales made of the same article or merchandise. It is already settled in this connection that both a license fee and a tax may be imposed on the same business or occupation, or for selling the same article, this not being in violation of the rule against double taxation (Bentley Gray Dry Goods Co. vs. City of Tampa, 137 Fla. 641, 188 So. 758; MacQuillin, Municipal Corporations, Vol. 9, 3rd Edition, p. 83). This is precisely the case with the ordinances involved in the case at bar. Appellee's contention that the City is repudiating its previous view expressed by its Treasurer in a letter addressed to Messrs. Sycip, Gorres, Velayo & Co. in 1954 that a liquor dealer who pays the annual license fee under Ordinance No. 3358 is exempted from the wholesalers and retailers taxes under the other three ordinances mentioned heretofore is of no consequence. The government is not bound by the errors or mistakes committed by its officers, specially on matters of law. Having arrived at the above conclusion, we deem it unnecessary to consider the other legal points raised by the City. WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is reversed, with the result that this case should be, as it is hereby dismissed, with costs. 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 Amount of tax on net income as per office audit P70,299.29 67,307.80 P137,607.09 ========= P13,821.06

Less: Tax on exemptions: Personal exemption Additional exemption Total Tax on exemption Net amount of tax due P2,500.00 1,000.00 P3,500.00 50.00 P13,771.06 =========

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 wellestablished 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. L-19074 January 31, 1967

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner, vs. ANTONIO G. GUERRERO, and the COURT OF TAX APPEALS, respondents. ----------------------------G.R. No. L-19089 January 31, 1967

ANTONIO G. GUERRERO, petitioner, vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, respondent. L-19074. Office of the Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz, Assistant Solicitor General F. R. Rosete and Atty. A. B. Afurong for petitioner. Venancio B. Fernando for respondents. L-19089 Venancio B. Fernando for petitioner. Office of the Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz, Assistant Solicitor General F. R. Rosete and Atty. A. B. Afurong for respondent. CONCEPCION, C.J.: These are two (2) appeals from the same decision of the Court of Tax Appeals. One (L-19074) was taken by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and the other (L-19089) by Antonio G. Guerrero. The dispositive part of said decision reads: In line with the foregoing opinion, the decision appealed from is hereby modified. Petitioner (Antonio G. Guerrero) is ordered to pay the sum of P3,775.66 within thirty days from the date this decision becomes final. No pronouncement as to costs. (Emphasis ours.) Said Antonio G. Guerrero was, during the years 1949 and 1950, a dealer in logs, which he used to sell to the Aparri Lumber Company, hereinafter referred to as the company. On April 2, 1954, the then Collector of Internal Revenue made an assessment and demand requiring Guerrero to pay the sum of P4,014.91, representing fixed and percentage taxes and forest charges, as well as surcharges and penalties, in connection with his aforementioned business transactions with the company. Upon Guerrero's request, the matter was submitted to the Conference Staff of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, which, in due course, thereafter, or on January 11, 1956, recommended that the assessment be increased to P5,139.17, computed as follows: C-14 producer's fixed tax for 1949 and 1950 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5% sales tax on P18,760.20 (P14,377.92 & P4,382.28) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25% surcharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . P 20.00

938.01 234.50

Total for fixed and sales taxes and surcharges . . . . . . . . Vol. of timber, July 4, 1949 to May 21, 1950 (41,880 & 13,892) . . . Add: 40% for squaring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55,772 Bd. ft 22,309 " " " "

P1,192.51

Total volume to be assessed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78,081

or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184.15 cu. m. Regular forest charges on 184.15 cu. m. at P3.50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300% surcharge for cutting without license . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50% (x) surcharge for transporting without invoice . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50% surcharge for discharging without permit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50% surcharge for late payment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Forest charges & surcharges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Regular forest charges on 13.94 cu. m. at P3.50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300% surcharge for cutting without license . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25% surcharge for transporting without invoice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25% surcharge for discharging without permit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25% surcharge for late payment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Forest charges & surcharges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL AMOUNT DUE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48.79 146.37 12.20 12.20 12.20 P231.76 P4,969.17 P 644.53 1,933.59 322.26 322.26 322.26 P3,544.90

In addition to the above amount, the sums of P20.00 and P100.00 as compromise penalties in extrajudicial settlement of his penal liabilities under sections 208 and 209 of the N.I.R.C. should be reiterated. That another sum of P50.00 as compromise penalty for his violation of the Bookkeeping Regulations should be imposed against the taxpayer, he having admitted during the hearing of this case that he did not keep books of accounts for his timber business. This recommendation was approved by the Collector of Internal Revenue, who, accordingly, made the corresponding reassessment upon receipt of notice of which Guerrero requested, on February 10, 1956, a rehearing before the Conference Staff. Instead of acting on this request, on April 20, 1956, the corresponding Internal Revenue Regional Director issued a warrant of distraint and levy against the properties of Guerrero, in order to effect the collection of his tax liabilities under said reassessment. Hence, on June 8, 1956, Guerrero filed with the Court of Tax Appeals the corresponding petition for review. Subsequently, said court rendered the decision appealed from. Hence, these appeals. There is no dispute as to the volume of sales of logs made by Guerrero during the years 1949 and 1950, upon which the disputed reassessment is based. The only issues in these appeals are whether or not he is liable for the payment of: (1) P3,775.66, by way of forest charges and surcharges on the logs sold to the company, which the Court of Tax Appeals answered in the affirmative; (2) P1,192.51, by way of fixed and percentage taxes and surcharges as producer of said logs, which said court decided in the negative; (3) P668.36, as additional forest charges and sales taxes, as well as surcharges, which was decided by

the trial court in favor of the taxpayer; and (4) P120.00 and P50.00 as compromise penalties for violation of Sections 208 and 209 of the Revised Internal Revenue Code and of the bookkeeping regulations, respectively, likewise, decided by the Court of Tax Appeals against the Government. With respect to the first item, Guerrero maintains that, he is not liable therefor because he bought the logs in question for the company, as agent thereof and with money belonging thereto. However, before the Conference Staff of the then Bureau of Internal Revenue, Guerero had: claimed that he financed his business with his own money and sold the logs to the company on a commission basis. Moreover, he admitted having sold some lumber to other enterprises in Manila, although he had previously asserted that he dealt exclusively with the company. Upon the other hand, the auxiliary invoices presented before the Bureau of Internal Revenue were either spurious, or referred to logs other than those involved in the disputed reassessment. Thus, for instance, in exhibit 8-AA (O.R. No. 6578049, p. 82, BIR record), the word "June" was superimposed over the word "May" and, at the back of Exhibit 8-AA-1 (p. 81, BIR record), which is the corresponding invoice, two similar alterations were made. In the auxiliary invoices Exhibits 00-3 and 00-4 (PP. 28-29, BIR record), submitted by Guerrero to the Conference Staff, as Exhibits C-3 and C-4, his name is written (script), in ink, on the space opposite the word consignee". However, in the copies of said auxiliary invoices (Exhibits 8-R-2 and 8-S pp. 117 and 119, BIR record), taken from the company, the corresponding space is blank. Again, the taxpayer's name on said Exhibits 00-3 and 00-4 is handwritten with a penmanship that is markedly different from that of Segundo Agustin, the signatory of said invoices, who had supposedly accomplished the same, thus indicating that said name could not have been written by Segundo Agustin, and rendering the authenticity of the documents highly doubtful. Furthermore, said invoices, as well as the other invoices submitted by Guerrero to the Conference Staff (Exhibits C-1 to C-14, also, marked as Exhibits 00-1 to 00-14, pp. 18-31, BIR record), referred to logs other than those involved in the questioned reassessment. The foregoing circumstances clearly indicate that the logs involved in said reassessment were obtained from illegal sources, and that the forest charges due thereon had not been paid. Since these charges "are liens on the products and collectible from whomsoever is in possession" thereof, "unless he can show that he has the required auxiliary and official invoice and discharge permit" (Collector of Internal Revenue vs. Pio Barretto and Sons, L-11805, May 31, 1960) which Guerrero has not shown it follows that he is bound to pay the aforementioned forest charges and surcharges, in the sum of P3,775.66. As regards the second item of P1,192.51, representing fixed and percentage taxes and surcharges, as producer of the logs involved in the reassessment, the Court of Tax Appeals held that Guerrero is not liable therefor, upon the theory that said logs were sold by the Government to the one who had cut, and removed the products from the forest; that the original sale of said logs was, therefore, made by the Government, not by the concessionaire or cutter of the forest products; and that, accordingly, Guerrero is not liable for the payment of the corresponding fixed and percentage taxes thereon. This theory is based upon the premise that, whereas in Collector of Internal Revenue vs. M.R. Lacson, L-12945 (April 29, 1960), we held that forest charges are internal revenue taxes, this ruling was reversed in Collector of Internal Revenue vs. Pio Barretto Sons, L-11805 (May 31, 1960). It is true that the dispositive portion of our decision in the first case expressly sustained the concurring and dissenting opinion of a member of the Court of Tax Appeals in the appealed decision thereof and that the writer of the opinion maintained that forest charges are internal revenue taxes. A careful perusal of the text of the decision of the Supreme Court therein shows, however, that said dissenting opinion is not the ratio decidendi of the aforementioned decision. It should be noted that the Collector of Internal Revenue contested the jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals to entertain the appeal taken by Lacson from the assessment made by said officer involving forest charges, and that the Supreme Court upheld the authority of the tax court to hear and decide said appeal, because the issue therein was the validity of said assessment. From the viewpoint of the Supreme Court, this issue was decisive on the question of jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals, regardless of whether forest charges were taxes or not.

At this juncture, it may not be amiss to advert to a problem of semantics arising from the operation of Section 1588 of the Revised Administrative Code, the counterpart of which is now Section 315 of the National Internal Revenue Code, pursuant to which: Every internal revenue tax on property or on any business or occupation, and every tax on resources and receipts, and any increment to any of them incident to delinquency, shall constitute a lien superior to all other charges or liens not only on the property itself upon which such tax may be imposed but also upon the property used in any business or occupation upon which the tax is imposed and upon all property rights therein. xxx xxx xxx

The enforcement of this lien by the Commissioner (formerly Collector) of Internal Revenue, has often induced the parties adversely affected thereby to raise the question whether a given charge is a tax or not, on the theory that there would be no lien if said question were decided in the negative. In connection therewith, said parties had tended to distinguish between taxes, on the one hand as burdens imposed upon persons and/or properties, by way of contributions to the support of the Government, in consideration of general benefits derived from its operation and license fees charged in the exercise of the regulatory authority of the state, under its police power and other charges for specific things or special or particular benefits received from the Government on the other hand. It is high time to stress that the term "tax," as it appears in said Section 1588 of the Revised Administrative Code and Section 315 of the National Internal Revenue Code, is used in these provisions, not in the limited sense adverted to above, but, in a broad sense encompassing all Government revenues collectible by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue under said Code, whether involving taxes, in the strict technical sense thereof, or not. Thus, under the heading "injunction not available to restrain collection of tax", Section 305 of said Code which is the first provision of Title IX (entitled "General Administrative Provisions"), Chapter I (entitled "Remedies in General) thereof provides: No court shall have authority to grant an injunction to restrain the collection of any national internal-revenue tax, fee, or charge imposed by this Code. Similarly, under the heading "Civil remedies for the collection of delinquent taxes," Section 316 of the same Code ordains; The civil remedies for the collection of internal revenue taxes, fees, or charges, and any increment thereto resulting from delinquency shall be (a) by distraint of goods, chattels, or effects, and other personal property of whatever character, including stocks and other securities, debts, credits, bank accounts, and interest in and rights to personal property, and by levy upon real property and interest in or rights to real property; and (b) by judicial action. Either of these remedies or both simultaneously may be pursued in the discretion of the authorities charged with the collection of such taxes. No exemption shall be allowed against the internal revenue taxes in any case. (Emphasis supplied.) In other words, the National Internal Revenue Code makes a distinction between taxes, on the one hand, and fees or charges, on the other; but as used in Title IX of said Code, the term "tax" includes "any national internal revenue tax, fee or charge imposed by" the Code. And it is in this sense only that we sustained the view taken in the aforementioned concurring dissenting opinion in Collector of Internal Revenue vs. Lacson (supra). Hence, in the Barretto case, it was held that the Government does not sell forest products, but merely collects charges on the privilege granted by it "for the exploitation of forest concessions, i.e., charges for the right to exercise the privilege granted by the Government to the licensee of cutting timber from a public forest or forest reserve". In line with this view, we stressed in

Cordero vs. Gonda, L-22369 (October 15, 1966), the declaration made in Cebu Portland Cement Co. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, L-18649 (February 27, 1965), that a mining ad valorem tax "is a tax not on the minerals, but upon the privilege of severing or extracting the same from the earth," although strictly a fee for something received is not a tax. As a consequence, the original sale, as contemplated in Section 186 of the Internal Revenue Code, is made by the concessionaire or whoever cuts or removes forest products from public forests or forest reserves in the case at bar, Guerrero, who is accordingly, bound to pay said sum of P1,192.51. While this case was being heard in the Court of Tax Appeals, certain documents were discovered, tending to show that Guerrero had evaded the payment of forest charges on certain logs (other than those heretofore mentioned), which had been shipped and sold by him to the company. Said documents, which were found in the possession of the latter, covered logs shipped and sold thereto as follows: Exhibit 8-I-2 8-I-3 8-BB-1 8-AA-1 Date May 9, 1949 May 9, 1949 May 20, 1949 May 21, 1949 Volume 4.966 Cu. m. 2.151 Cu. m. 5.20 Cu. m. Invoice 12272263 Page 156 (BIR Rec.) " " " " " "

12272263 155 6578041 77 81

4.63 Cu. m. A-6578048

The aforementioned documents consist of auxiliary invoices purporting to have been issued by Concessionaire Segundo Agustin to Guerrero as consignee of the logs therein mentioned which are not included in Agustin's certificate (Exhibit 00, p. 32 BIR record) of the invoices covering logs sold by him to Guerrero, thus showing that the said invoices (Exhibits 8-I-2, 8-I-3, 8-BB-1 and 8-AA-1) are spurious; that the logs therein described must have been obtained by Guerrero from illegal sources; and that the forest charges and the sale and percentage taxes thereon have not been paid. Although these charges and taxes are not included in the original and revised assessments made in this case, petitioner herein maintains that Guerrero may nevertheless be held liable therefor, inasmuch as: Where plaintiffs themselves show facts upon which they should not recover, whether defendant pleaded such fact as a defense or not, their claim should be dismissed. Evidence introduced without objection becomes property of the case and all the parties are amenable to any favorable or unfavorable effects resulting from the evidence. (Emphasis ours; Beam vs. Yatco, 82 Phil. 30.) Petitioner's contention is untenable. The foregoing doctrine deals with plaintiff's right to recover, when his own evidence proves the contrary. In short, it refers to a point in issue. In the case at bar, the additional logs under consideration were not included in the contested assessments. Since the jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals is purely appellate, said Court correctly declined to make an award thereon, for lack of jurisdiction over the same. With reference to the last two (2) items of P120.00 and P50.00, the Court of Tax Appeals did not sentence Guerrero to pay the same upon the ground that he had not entered into a compromise agreement with the Government. The record shows, however, that Guerrero had expressed his willingness to pay "any compromise penalty which may be imposed by the Honorable Court." In short we find that the Court of Tax Appeals has erred in not sentencing Antonio G. Guerrero to pay, besides the sum of P3,775.66 awarded in the decision appealed from, the aforementioned additional sums of P1,192.51, P120.00 and P50.00. Thus modified, with the addition of these sums in the award in favor of the Government and against Antonio G. Guerrero, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, therefore, in all other respect, with costs against the latter. It is so ordered.

G.R. No. L-10405

December 29, 1960

WENCESLAO PASCUAL, in his official capacity as Provincial Governor of Rizal, petitionerappellant, vs. THE SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS AND COMMUNICATIONS, ET AL., respondents-appellees. Asst. Fiscal Noli M. Cortes and Jose P. Santos for appellant. Office of the Asst. Solicitor General Jose G. Bautista and Solicitor A. A. Torres for appellee.

CONCEPCION, J.: Appeal, by petitioner Wenceslao Pascual, from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, dismissing the above entitled case and dissolving the writ of preliminary injunction therein issued, without costs. On August 31, 1954, petitioner Wenceslao Pascual, as Provincial Governor of Rizal, instituted this action for declaratory relief, with injunction, upon the ground that Republic Act No. 920, entitled "An Act Appropriating Funds for Public Works", approved on June 20, 1953, contained, in section 1-C (a) thereof, an item (43[h]) of P85,000.00 "for the construction, reconstruction, repair, extension and improvement" of Pasig feeder road terminals (Gen. Roxas Gen. Araneta Gen. Lucban Gen. Capinpin Gen. Segundo Gen. Delgado Gen. Malvar Gen. Lim)"; that, at the time of the passage and approval of said Act, the aforementioned feeder roads were "nothing but projected and planned subdivision roads, not yet constructed, . . . within the Antonio Subdivision . . . situated at . . . Pasig, Rizal" (according to the tracings attached to the petition as Annexes A and B, near Shaw Boulevard, not far away from the intersection between the latter and Highway 54), which projected feeder roads "do not connect any government property or any important premises to the main highway"; that the aforementioned Antonio Subdivision (as well as the lands on which said feeder roads were to be construed) were private properties of respondent Jose C. Zulueta, who, at the time of the passage and approval of said Act, was a member of the Senate of the Philippines; that on May, 1953, respondent Zulueta, addressed a letter to the Municipal Council of Pasig, Rizal, offering to donate said projected feeder roads to the municipality of Pasig, Rizal; that, on June 13, 1953, the offer was accepted by the council, subject to the condition "that the donor would submit a plan of the said roads and agree to change the names of two of them"; that no deed of donation in favor of the municipality of Pasig was, however, executed; that on July 10, 1953, respondent Zulueta wrote another letter to said council, calling attention to the approval of Republic Act. No. 920, and the sum of P85,000.00 appropriated therein for the construction of the projected feeder roads in question; that the municipal council of Pasig endorsed said letter of respondent Zulueta to the District Engineer of Rizal, who, up to the present "has not made any endorsement thereon" that inasmuch as the projected feeder roads in question were private property at the time of the passage and approval of Republic Act No. 920, the appropriation of P85,000.00 therein made, for the construction, reconstruction, repair, extension and improvement of said projected feeder roads, was illegal and, therefore, void ab initio"; that said appropriation of P85,000.00 was made by Congress because its members were made to believe that the projected feeder roads in question were "public roads and not private streets of a private subdivision"'; that, "in order to give a semblance of legality, when there is absolutely none, to the aforementioned appropriation", respondents Zulueta executed on December 12, 1953, while he was a member of the Senate of the Philippines, an alleged deed of donation copy of which is annexed to the petition of the four (4) parcels of land constituting said projected feeder roads, in favor of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines; that said alleged deed of donation was, on the same date, accepted by the then Executive Secretary; that being subject to an onerous condition, said donation partook of the nature of a contract; that, such, said donation violated the provision of our fundamental law prohibiting members of Congress from being directly or indirectly financially interested in any contract with the Government, and, hence, is unconstitutional, as well as null and void ab initio, for the construction of the projected feeder roads in question with public funds would greatly enhance or increase the value of

the aforementioned subdivision of respondent Zulueta, "aside from relieving him from the burden of constructing his subdivision streets or roads at his own expense"; that the construction of said projected feeder roads was then being undertaken by the Bureau of Public Highways; and that, unless restrained by the court, the respondents would continue to execute, comply with, follow and implement the aforementioned illegal provision of law, "to the irreparable damage, detriment and prejudice not only to the petitioner but to the Filipino nation." Petitioner prayed, therefore, that the contested item of Republic Act No. 920 be declared null and void; that the alleged deed of donation of the feeder roads in question be "declared unconstitutional and, therefor, illegal"; that a writ of injunction be issued enjoining the Secretary of Public Works and Communications, the Director of the Bureau of Public Works and Highways and Jose C. Zulueta from ordering or allowing the continuance of the above-mentioned feeder roads project, and from making and securing any new and further releases on the aforementioned item of Republic Act No. 920, and the disbursing officers of the Department of Public Works and Highways from making any further payments out of said funds provided for in Republic Act No. 920; and that pending final hearing on the merits, a writ of preliminary injunction be issued enjoining the aforementioned parties respondent from making and securing any new and further releases on the aforesaid item of Republic Act No. 920 and from making any further payments out of said illegally appropriated funds. Respondents moved to dismiss the petition upon the ground that petitioner had "no legal capacity to sue", and that the petition did "not state a cause of action". In support to this motion, respondent Zulueta alleged that the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal, not its provincial governor, should represent the Province of Rizal, pursuant to section 1683 of the Revised Administrative Code; that said respondent is " not aware of any law which makes illegal the appropriation of public funds for the improvements of . . . private property"; and that, the constitutional provision invoked by petitioner is inapplicable to the donation in question, the same being a pure act of liberality, not a contract. The other respondents, in turn, maintained that petitioner could not assail the appropriation in question because "there is no actual bona fide case . . . in which the validity of Republic Act No. 920 is necessarily involved" and petitioner "has not shown that he has a personal and substantial interest" in said Act "and that its enforcement has caused or will cause him a direct injury." Acting upon said motions to dismiss, the lower court rendered the aforementioned decision, dated October 29, 1953, holding that, since public interest is involved in this case, the Provincial Governor of Rizal and the provincial fiscal thereof who represents him therein, "have the requisite personalities" to question the constitutionality of the disputed item of Republic Act No. 920; that "the legislature is without power appropriate public revenues for anything but a public purpose", that the instructions and improvement of the feeder roads in question, if such roads where private property, would not be a public purpose; that, being subject to the following condition: The within donation is hereby made upon the condition that the Government of the Republic of the Philippines will use the parcels of land hereby donated for street purposes only and for no other purposes whatsoever; it being expressly understood that should the Government of the Republic of the Philippines violate the condition hereby imposed upon it, the title to the land hereby donated shall, upon such violation, ipso facto revert to the DONOR, JOSE C. ZULUETA. (Emphasis supplied.) which is onerous, the donation in question is a contract; that said donation or contract is "absolutely forbidden by the Constitution" and consequently "illegal", for Article 1409 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, declares in existence and void from the very beginning contracts "whose cause, objector purpose is contrary to law, morals . . . or public policy"; that the legality of said donation may not be contested, however, by petitioner herein, because his "interest are not directly affected" thereby; and that, accordingly, the appropriation in question "should be upheld" and the case dismissed. At the outset, it should be noted that we are concerned with a decision granting the aforementioned motions to dismiss, which as much, are deemed to have admitted hypothetically the allegations of fact

made in the petition of appellant herein. According to said petition, respondent Zulueta is the owner of several parcels of residential land situated in Pasig, Rizal, and known as the Antonio Subdivision, certain portions of which had been reserved for the projected feeder roads aforementioned, which, admittedly, were private property of said respondent when Republic Act No. 920, appropriating P85,000.00 for the "construction, reconstruction, repair, extension and improvement" of said roads, was passed by Congress, as well as when it was approved by the President on June 20, 1953. The petition further alleges that the construction of said roads, to be undertaken with the aforementioned appropriation of P85,000.00, would have the effect of relieving respondent Zulueta of the burden of constructing his 1 subdivision streets or roads at his own expenses, and would "greatly enhance or increase the value of the subdivision" of said respondent. The lower court held that under these circumstances, the appropriation in question was "clearly for a private, not a public purpose." Respondents do not deny the accuracy of this conclusion, which is self-evident. However, respondent Zulueta contended, in his motion to dismiss that: A law passed by Congress and approved by the President can never be illegal because Congress is the source of all laws . . . Aside from the fact that movant is not aware of any law which makes illegal the appropriation of public funds for the improvement of what we, in the meantime, may assume as private property . . . (Record on Appeal, p. 33.) The first proposition must be rejected most emphatically, it being inconsistent with the nature of the Government established under the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines and the system of checks and balances underlying our political structure. Moreover, it is refuted by the decisions of this 3 Court invalidating legislative enactments deemed violative of the Constitution or organic laws. As regards the legal feasibility of appropriating public funds for a public purpose, the principle according to Ruling Case Law, is this: It is a general rule that the legislature is without power to appropriate public revenue for anything but a public purpose. . . . It is the essential character of the direct object of the expenditure which must determine its validity as justifying a tax, and not the magnitude of the interest to be affected nor the degree to which the general advantage of the community, and thus the public welfare, may be ultimately benefited by their promotion. Incidental to the public or to the state, which results from the promotion of private interest and the prosperity of private enterprises or business, does not justify their aid by the use public money. (25 R.L.C. pp. 398-400; Emphasis supplied.) The rule is set forth in Corpus Juris Secundum in the following language: In accordance with the rule that the taxing power must be exercised for public purposes only , discussed supra sec. 14, money raised by taxation can be expended only for public purposes and not for the advantage of private individuals. (85 C.J.S. pp. 645-646; emphasis supplied.) Explaining the reason underlying said rule, Corpus Juris Secundum states: Generally, under the express or implied provisions of the constitution, public funds may be used only for public purpose. The right of the legislature to appropriate funds is correlative with its right to tax, and, under constitutional provisions against taxation except for public purposes and prohibiting the collection of a tax for one purpose and the devotion thereof to another purpose, no appropriation of state funds can be made for other than for a public purpose .
2

The test of the constitutionality of a statute requiring the use of public funds is whether the statute is designed to promote the public interest, as opposed to the furtherance of the advantage of individuals, although each advantage to individuals might incidentally serve the public. (81 C.J.S. pp. 1147; emphasis supplied.) Needless to say, this Court is fully in accord with the foregoing views which, apart from being patently sound, are a necessary corollary to our democratic system of government, which, as such, exists primarily for the promotion of the general welfare. Besides, reflecting as they do, the established jurisprudence in the United States, after whose constitutional system ours has been patterned, said views and jurisprudence are, likewise, part and parcel of our own constitutional law. lawphil.net This notwithstanding, the lower court felt constrained to uphold the appropriation in question, upon the ground that petitioner may not contest the legality of the donation above referred to because the same does not affect him directly. This conclusion is, presumably, based upon the following premises, namely: (1) that, if valid, said donation cured the constitutional infirmity of the aforementioned appropriation; (2) that the latter may not be annulled without a previous declaration of unconstitutionality of the said donation; and (3) that the rule set forth in Article 1421 of the Civil Code is absolute, and admits of no exception. We do not agree with these premises. The validity of a statute depends upon the powers of Congress at the time of its passage or approval, not upon events occurring, or acts performed, subsequently thereto, unless the latter consists of an amendment of the organic law, removing, with retrospective operation, the constitutional limitation infringed by said statute. Referring to the P85,000.00 appropriation for the projected feeder roads in question, the legality thereof depended upon whether said roads were public or private property when the bill, which, latter on, became Republic Act 920, was passed by Congress, or, when said bill was approved by the President and the disbursement of said sum became effective, or on June 20, 1953 (see section 13 of said Act). Inasmuch as the land on which the projected feeder roads were to be constructed belonged then to respondent Zulueta, the result is that said appropriation sought a private purpose, and hence, was null and void. 4 The donation to the Government, over five (5) months after the approval and effectivity of said Act, made, according to the petition, for the purpose of giving a "semblance of legality", or legalizing, the appropriation in question, did not cure its aforementioned basic defect. Consequently, a judicial nullification of said donation need not precede the declaration of unconstitutionality of said appropriation. Again, Article 1421 of our Civil Code, like many other statutory enactments, is subject to exceptions. For instance, the creditors of a party to an illegal contract may, under the conditions set forth in Article 1177 of said Code, exercise the rights and actions of the latter, except only those which are inherent in his person, including therefore, his right to the annulment of said contract, even though such creditors are not affected by the same, except indirectly, in the manner indicated in said legal provision. Again, it is well-stated that the validity of a statute may be contested only by one who will sustain a direct injury in consequence of its enforcement. Yet, there are many decisions nullifying, at the instance of 5 taxpayers, laws providing for the disbursement of public funds, upon the theory that "the expenditure of public funds by an officer of the State for the purpose of administering an unconstitutional act constitutes 6 a misapplication of such funds," which may be enjoined at the request of a taxpayer. Although there are 7 some decisions to the contrary, the prevailing view in the United States is stated in the American Jurisprudence as follows: In the determination of the degree of interest essential to give the requisite standing to attack the constitutionality of a statute, the general rule is that not only persons individually affected, but also taxpayers, have sufficient interest in preventing the illegal expenditure of moneys raised by taxation and may therefore question the constitutionality of statutes requiring expenditure of public moneys. (11 Am. Jur. 761; emphasis supplied.)

However, this view was not favored by the Supreme Court of the U.S. in Frothingham vs. Mellon (262 U.S. 447), insofar as federal laws are concerned, upon the ground that the relationship of a taxpayer of the U.S. to its Federal Government is different from that of a taxpayer of a municipal corporation to its government. Indeed, under the composite system of government existing in the U.S., the states of the Union are integral part of the Federation from an international viewpoint, but, each state enjoys internally a substantial measure of sovereignty, subject to the limitations imposed by the Federal Constitution. In fact, the same was made by representatives of each state of the Union, not of the people of the U.S., except insofar as the former represented the people of the respective States, and the people of each State has, independently of that of the others, ratified said Constitution. In other words, the Federal Constitution and the Federal statutes have become binding upon the people of the U.S. in consequence of an act of, and, in this sense, through the respective states of the Union of which they are citizens. The peculiar nature of the relation between said people and the Federal Government of the U.S. is reflected in the election of its President, who is chosen directly, not by the people of the U.S., but by electors chosen by each State, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct (Article II, section 2, of the Federal Constitution).lawphi1.net The relation between the people of the Philippines and its taxpayers, on the other hand, and the Republic of the Philippines, on the other, is not identical to that obtaining between the people and taxpayers of the U.S. and its Federal Government. It is closer, from a domestic viewpoint, to that existing between the people and taxpayers of each state and the government thereof, except that the authority of the Republic of the Philippines over the people of the Philippines is more fully direct than that of the states of the Union, insofar as the simple and unitary type of our national government is not subject to limitations analogous to those imposed by the Federal Constitution upon the states of the Union, and those imposed upon the Federal Government in the interest of the Union. For this reason, the rule recognizing the right of taxpayers to assail the constitutionality of a legislation appropriating local or state public funds which has been upheld by the Federal Supreme Court (Crampton vs. Zabriskie, 101 U.S. 601) has greater application in the Philippines than that adopted with respect to acts of Congress of the United States appropriating federal funds. Indeed, in the Province of Tayabas vs. Perez (56 Phil., 257), involving the expropriation of a land by the Province of Tayabas, two (2) taxpayers thereof were allowed to intervene for the purpose of contesting the price being paid to the owner thereof, as unduly exorbitant. It is true that in Custodio vs. President of the Senate (42 Off. Gaz., 1243), a taxpayer and employee of the Government was not permitted to question the constitutionality of an appropriation for backpay of members of Congress. However, in Rodriguez vs. Treasurer of the Philippines and Barredo vs. Commission on Elections (84 Phil., 368; 45 Off. Gaz., 4411), we entertained the action of taxpayers impugning the validity of certain appropriations of public funds, and invalidated the same. Moreover, the reason that impelled this Court to take such position in said two (2) cases the importance of the issues therein raised is present in the case at bar. Again, like the petitioners in the Rodriguez and Barredo cases, petitioner herein is not merely a taxpayer. The Province of Rizal, which he represents officially as its Provincial Governor, is our most 8 populated political subdivision, and, the taxpayers therein bear a substantial portion of the burden of taxation, in the Philippines. Hence, it is our considered opinion that the circumstances surrounding this case sufficiently justify petitioners action in contesting the appropriation and donation in question; that this action should not have been dismissed by the lower court; and that the writ of preliminary injunction should have been maintained. Wherefore, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed, and the records are remanded to the lower court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this decision, with the costs of this instance against respondent Jose C. Zulueta. It is so ordered. G.R. No. L-67649 June 28, 1988

ENGRACIO FRANCIA, petitioner, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and HO FERNANDEZ, respondents.

GUTIERREZ, JR., J.: The petitioner invokes legal and equitable grounds to reverse the questioned decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court, to set aside the auction sale of his property which took place on December 5, 1977, and to allow him to recover a 203 square meter lot which was, sold at public auction to Ho Fernandez and ordered titled in the latter's name. The antecedent facts are as follows: Engracio Francia is the registered owner of a residential lot and a two-story house built upon it situated at Barrio San Isidro, now District of Sta. Clara, Pasay City, Metro Manila. The lot, with an area of about 328 square meters, is described and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 4739 (37795) of the Registry of Deeds of Pasay City. On October 15, 1977, a 125 square meter portion of Francia's property was expropriated by the Republic of the Philippines for the sum of P4,116.00 representing the estimated amount equivalent to the assessed value of the aforesaid portion. Since 1963 up to 1977 inclusive, Francia failed to pay his real estate taxes. Thus, on December 5, 1977, his property was sold at public auction by the City Treasurer of Pasay City pursuant to Section 73 of Presidential Decree No. 464 known as the Real Property Tax Code in order to satisfy a tax delinquency of P2,400.00. Ho Fernandez was the highest bidder for the property. Francia was not present during the auction sale since he was in Iligan City at that time helping his uncle ship bananas. On March 3, 1979, Francia received a notice of hearing of LRC Case No. 1593-P "In re: Petition for Entry of New Certificate of Title" filed by Ho Fernandez, seeking the cancellation of TCT No. 4739 (37795) and the issuance in his name of a new certificate of title. Upon verification through his lawyer, Francia discovered that a Final Bill of Sale had been issued in favor of Ho Fernandez by the City Treasurer on December 11, 1978. The auction sale and the final bill of sale were both annotated at the back of TCT No. 4739 (37795) by the Register of Deeds. On March 20, 1979, Francia filed a complaint to annul the auction sale. He later amended his complaint on January 24, 1980. On April 23, 1981, the lower court rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing the amended complaint and ordering: (a) The Register of Deeds of Pasay City to issue a new Transfer Certificate of Title in favor of the defendant Ho Fernandez over the parcel of land including the improvements thereon, subject to whatever encumbrances appearing at the back of TCT No. 4739 (37795) and ordering the same TCT No. 4739 (37795) cancelled.

(b) The plaintiff to pay defendant Ho Fernandez the sum of P1,000.00 as attorney's fees. (p. 30, Record on Appeal) The Intermediate Appellate Court affirmed the decision of the lower court in toto. Hence, this petition for review. Francia prefaced his arguments with the following assignments of grave errors of law: I RESPONDENT INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT COMMITTED A GRAVE ERROR OF LAW IN NOT HOLDING PETITIONER'S OBLIGATION TO PAY P2,400.00 FOR SUPPOSED TAX DELINQUENCY WAS SET-OFF BY THE AMOUNT OF P4,116.00 WHICH THE GOVERNMENT IS INDEBTED TO THE FORMER. II RESPONDENT INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT COMMITTED A GRAVE AND SERIOUS ERROR IN NOT HOLDING THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT PROPERLY AND DULY NOTIFIED THAT AN AUCTION SALE OF HIS PROPERTY WAS TO TAKE PLACE ON DECEMBER 5, 1977 TO SATISFY AN ALLEGED TAX DELINQUENCY OF P2,400.00. III RESPONDENT INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT FURTHER COMMITTED A SERIOUS ERROR AND GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE PRICE OF P2,400.00 PAID BY RESPONTDENT HO FERNANDEZ WAS GROSSLY INADEQUATE AS TO SHOCK ONE'S CONSCIENCE AMOUNTING TO FRAUD AND A DEPRIVATION OF PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW, AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE AUCTION SALE MADE THEREOF IS VOID. (pp. 10, 17, 20-21, Rollo) We gave due course to the petition for a more thorough inquiry into the petitioner's allegations that his property was sold at public auction without notice to him and that the price paid for the property was shockingly inadequate, amounting to fraud and deprivation without due process of law. A careful review of the case, however, discloses that Mr. Francia brought the problems raised in his petition upon himself. While we commiserate with him at the loss of his property, the law and the facts militate against the grant of his petition. We are constrained to dismiss it. Francia contends that his tax delinquency of P2,400.00 has been extinguished by legal compensation. He claims that the government owed him P4,116.00 when a portion of his land was expropriated on October 15, 1977. Hence, his tax obligation had been set-off by operation of law as of October 15, 1977. There is no legal basis for the contention. By legal compensation, obligations of persons, who in their own right are reciprocally debtors and creditors of each other, are extinguished (Art. 1278, Civil Code). The circumstances of the case do not satisfy the requirements provided by Article 1279, to wit: (1) that each one of the obligors be bound principally and that he be at the same time a principal creditor of the other; xxx xxx xxx

(3) that the two debts be due. xxx xxx xxx This principal contention of the petitioner has no merit. We have consistently ruled that there can be no off-setting of taxes against the claims that the taxpayer may have against the government. A person cannot refuse to pay a tax on the ground that the government owes him an amount equal to or greater than the tax being collected. The collection of a tax cannot await the results of a lawsuit against the government. In the case of Republic v. Mambulao Lumber Co. (4 SCRA 622), this Court ruled that Internal Revenue Taxes can not be the subject of set-off or compensation. We stated that: A claim for taxes is not such a debt, demand, contract or judgment as is allowed to be set-off under the statutes of set-off, which are construed uniformly, in the light of public policy, to exclude the remedy in an action or any indebtedness of the state or municipality to one who is liable to the state or municipality for taxes. Neither are they a proper subject of recoupment since they do not arise out of the contract or transaction sued on. ... (80 C.J.S., 7374). "The general rule based on grounds of public policy is well-settled that no set-off admissible against demands for taxes levied for general or local governmental purposes. The reason on which the general rule is based, is that taxes are not in the nature of contracts between the party and party but grow out of duty to, and are the positive acts of the government to the making and enforcing of which, the personal consent of individual taxpayers is not required. ..." We stated that a taxpayer cannot refuse to pay his tax when called upon by the collector because he has a claim against the governmental body not included in the tax levy. This rule was reiterated in the case of Corders v. Gonda (18 SCRA 331) where we stated that: "... internal revenue taxes can not be the subject of compensation: Reason: government and taxpayer are not mutually creditors and debtors of each other' under Article 1278 of the Civil Code and a "claim for taxes is not such a debt, demand, contract or judgment as is allowed to be set-off." There are other factors which compel us to rule against the petitioner. The tax was due to the city government while the expropriation was effected by the national government. Moreover, the amount of P4,116.00 paid by the national government for the 125 square meter portion of his lot was deposited with the Philippine National Bank long before the sale at public auction of his remaining property. Notice of the deposit dated September 28, 1977 was received by the petitioner on September 30, 1977. The petitioner admitted in his testimony that he knew about the P4,116.00 deposited with the bank but he did not withdraw it. It would have been an easy matter to withdraw P2,400.00 from the deposit so that he could pay the tax obligation thus aborting the sale at public auction. Petitioner had one year within which to redeem his property although, as well be shown later, he claimed that he pocketed the notice of the auction sale without reading it. Petitioner contends that "the auction sale in question was made without complying with the mandatory provisions of the statute governing tax sale. No evidence, oral or otherwise, was presented that the procedure outlined by law on sales of property for tax delinquency was followed. ... Since defendant Ho Fernandez has the affirmative of this issue, the burden of proof therefore rests upon him to show that plaintiff was duly and properly notified ... .(Petition for Review, Rollo p. 18; emphasis supplied) We agree with the petitioner's claim that Ho Fernandez, the purchaser at the auction sale, has the burden of proof to show that there was compliance with all the prescribed requisites for a tax sale.

The case of Valencia v. Jimenez (11 Phil. 492) laid down the doctrine that: xxx xxx xxx ... [D]ue process of law to be followed in tax proceedings must be established by proof and the general rule is that the purchaser of a tax title is bound to take upon himself the burden of showing the regularity of all proceedings leading up to the sale. (emphasis supplied) There is no presumption of the regularity of any administrative action which results in depriving a taxpayer of his property through a tax sale. (Camo v. Riosa Boyco, 29 Phil. 437); Denoga v. Insular Government, 19 Phil. 261). This is actually an exception to the rule that administrative proceedings are presumed to be regular. But even if the burden of proof lies with the purchaser to show that all legal prerequisites have been complied with, the petitioner can not, however, deny that he did receive the notice for the auction sale. The records sustain the lower court's finding that: [T]he plaintiff claimed that it was illegal and irregular. He insisted that he was not properly notified of the auction sale. Surprisingly, however, he admitted in his testimony that he received the letter dated November 21, 1977 (Exhibit "I") as shown by his signature (Exhibit "I-A") thereof. He claimed further that he was not present on December 5, 1977 the date of the auction sale because he went to Iligan City. As long as there was substantial compliance with the requirements of the notice, the validity of the auction sale can not be assailed ... . We quote the following testimony of the petitioner on cross-examination, to wit: Q. My question to you is this letter marked as Exhibit I for Ho Fernandez notified you that the property in question shall be sold at public auction to the highest bidder on December 5, 1977 pursuant to Sec. 74 of PD 464. Will you tell the Court whether you received the original of this letter? A. I just signed it because I was not able to read the same. It was just sent by mail carrier. Q. So you admit that you received the original of Exhibit I and you signed upon receipt thereof but you did not read the contents of it? A. Yes, sir, as I was in a hurry. Q. After you received that original where did you place it? A. I placed it in the usual place where I place my mails. Petitioner, therefore, was notified about the auction sale. It was negligence on his part when he ignored such notice. By his very own admission that he received the notice, his now coming to court assailing the validity of the auction sale loses its force. Petitioner's third assignment of grave error likewise lacks merit. As a general rule, gross inadequacy of price is not material (De Leon v. Salvador, 36 SCRA 567; Ponce de Leon v. Rehabilitation Finance Corporation, 36 SCRA 289; Tolentino v. Agcaoili, 91 Phil. 917 Unrep.). See also Barrozo Vda. de Gordon v. Court of Appeals (109 SCRA 388) we held that "alleged gross inadequacy of price is not material when

the law gives the owner the right to redeem as when a sale is made at public auction, upon the theory that the lesser the price, the easier it is for the owner to effect redemption." In Velasquez v. Coronel (5 SCRA 985), this Court held: ... [R]espondent treasurer now claims that the prices for which the lands were sold are unconscionable considering the wide divergence between their assessed values and the amounts for which they had been actually sold. However, while in ordinary sales for reasons of equity a transaction may be invalidated on the ground of inadequacy of price, or when such inadequacy shocks one's conscience as to justify the courts to interfere, such does not follow when the law gives to the owner the right to redeem, as when a sale is made at public auction, upon the theory that the lesser the price the easier it is for the owner to effect the redemption. And so it was aptly said: "When there is the right to redeem, inadequacy of price should not be material, because the judgment debtor may reacquire the property or also sell his right to redeem and thus recover the loss he claims to have suffered by reason of the price obtained at the auction sale." The reason behind the above rulings is well enunciated in the case of Hilton et. ux. v. De Long, et al. (188 Wash. 162, 61 P. 2d, 1290): If mere inadequacy of price is held to be a valid objection to a sale for taxes, the collection of taxes in this manner would be greatly embarrassed, if not rendered altogether impracticable. In Black on Tax Titles (2nd Ed.) 238, the correct rule is stated as follows: "where land is sold for taxes, the inadequacy of the price given is not a valid objection to the sale." This rule arises from necessity, for, if a fair price for the land were essential to the sale, it would be useless to offer the property. Indeed, it is notorious that the prices habitually paid by purchasers at tax sales are grossly out of proportion to the value of the land. (Rothchild Bros. v. Rollinger, 32 Wash. 307, 73 P. 367, 369). In this case now before us, we can aptly use the language of McGuire, et al. v. Bean, et al. (267 P. 555): Like most cases of this character there is here a certain element of hardship from which we would be glad to relieve, but do so would unsettle long-established rules and lead to uncertainty and difficulty in the collection of taxes which are the life blood of the state. We are convinced that the present rules are just, and that they bring hardship only to those who have invited it by their own neglect. We are inclined to believe the petitioner's claim that the value of the lot has greatly appreciated in value. Precisely because of the widening of Buendia Avenue in Pasay City, which necessitated the expropriation of adjoining areas, real estate values have gone up in the area. However, the price quoted by the petitioner for a 203 square meter lot appears quite exaggerated. At any rate, the foregoing reasons which answer the petitioner's claims lead us to deny the petition. And finally, even if we are inclined to give relief to the petitioner on equitable grounds, there are no strong considerations of substantial justice in his favor. Mr. Francia failed to pay his taxes for 14 years from 1963 up to the date of the auction sale. He claims to have pocketed the notice of sale without reading it which, if true, is still an act of inexplicable negligence. He did not withdraw from the expropriation payment deposited with the Philippine National Bank an amount sufficient to pay for the back taxes. The petitioner did not pay attention to another notice sent by the City Treasurer on November 3, 1978, during the period of redemption, regarding his tax delinquency. There is furthermore no showing of bad faith or collusion in the purchase of the property by Mr. Fernandez. The petitioner has no standing to invoke equity in his attempt to regain the property by belatedly asking for the annulment of the sale. WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition for review is DISMISSED. The decision of the respondent court is affirmed.

SO ORDERED. .R. No. L-49336 August 31, 1981 THE PROVINCE OF ABRA, represented by LADISLAO ANCHETA, Provincial Assessor, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE HAROLD M. HERNANDO, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch I, Court of First Instance Abra; THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF BANGUED, INC., represented by Bishop Odilo etspueler and Reverend Felipe Flores, respondents.

FERNANDO, C.J.: On the face of this certiorari and mandamus petition filed by the Province of Abra, it clearly appears that the actuation of respondent Judge Harold M. Hernando of the Court of First Instance of Abra left much to 2 be desired. First, there was a denial of a motion to dismiss an action for declaratory relief by private respondent Roman Catholic Bishop of Bangued desirous of being exempted from a real estate tax 3 followed by a summary judgment granting such exemption, without even hearing the side of petitioner. In the rather vigorous language of the Acting Provincial Fiscal, as counsel for petitioner, respondent Judge "virtually ignored the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court; ... wantonly violated the rights of petitioner to due process, by giving due course to the petition of private respondent for declaratory relief, and thereafter without allowing petitioner to answer and without any hearing, adjudged the case; all in total disregard of basic laws of procedure and basic provisions of due process in the constitution, thereby indicating a failure to grasp and understand the law, which goes into the competence of the Honorable 4 Presiding Judge." It was the submission of counsel that an action for declaratory relief would be proper only before a breach 5 or violation of any statute, executive order or regulation. Moreover, there being a tax assessment made by the Provincial Assessor on the properties of respondent Roman Catholic Bishop, petitioner failed to exhaust the administrative remedies available under Presidential Decree No. 464 before filing such court action. Further, it was pointed out to respondent Judge that he failed to abide by the pertinent provision of such Presidential Decree which provides as follows: "No court shall entertain any suit assailing the validity of a tax assessed under this Code until the taxpayer, shall have paid, under protest, the tax assessed against him nor shall any court declare any tax invalid by reason of irregularities or informalities in the proceedings of the officers charged with the assessment or collection of taxes, or of failure to perform their duties within this time herein specified for their performance unless such irregularities, informalities or failure shall have impaired the substantial rights of the taxpayer; nor shall any court declare any portion of the tax assessed under the provisions of this Code invalid except upon condition that the taxpayer shall 6 pay the just amount of the tax, as determined by the court in the pending proceeding." When asked to comment, respondent Judge began with the allegation that there "is no question that the real properties sought to be taxed by the Province of Abra are properties of the respondent Roman 7 Catholic Bishop of Bangued, Inc." The very next sentence assumed the very point it asked when he categorically stated: "Likewise, there is no dispute that the properties including their procedure are actually, directly and exclusively used by the Roman Catholic Bishop of Bangued, Inc. for religious or 8 charitable purposes." For him then: "The proper remedy of the petitioner is appeal and not this special 9 civil action." A more exhaustive comment was submitted by private respondent Roman Catholic Bishop of Bangued, Inc. It was, however, unable to lessen the force of the objection raised by petitioner Province of Abra, especially the due process aspect. it is to be admitted that his opposition to the petition, pressed with vigor, ostensibly finds a semblance of support from the authorities cited. It is thus impressed with a scholarly aspect. It suffers, however, from the grave infirmity of stating that only a pure question of law is presented when a claim for exemption is made.
1

The petition must be granted. 1. Respondent Judge would not have erred so grievously had he merely compared the provisions of the present Constitution with that appearing in the 1935 Charter on the tax exemption of "lands, buildings, and improvements." There is a marked difference. Under the 1935 Constitution: "Cemeteries, churches, and parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto, and all lands, buildings, and improvements used 10 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 11 "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 12 purposes to be exempt from taxation. According to Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Guerrero: "From 1906, in Catholic Church v. Hastings to 1966, in Esso Standard Eastern, Inc. v. Acting Commissioner of Customs, it has been the constant and uniform holding that exemption from taxation is not favored and is never presumed, so that if granted it must be strictly construed against the taxpayer. Affirmatively put, the law frowns on exemption from taxation, hence, an exempting provision should be 13 14 construed strictissimi juris." In Manila Electric Company v. Vera, a 1975 decision, such principle was 15 reiterated, reference being made to Republic Flour Mills, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue; 16 Commissioner of Customs v. Philippine Acetylene Co. & CTA ; and Davao Light and Power Co., Inc. v. 17 Commissioner of Customs. 2. Petitioner Province of Abra is therefore fully justified in invoking the protection of procedural due process. If there is any case where proof is necessary to demonstrate that there is compliance with the constitutional provision that allows an exemption, this is it. Instead, respondent Judge accepted at its face the allegation of private respondent. All that was alleged in the petition for declaratory relief filed by private respondents, after mentioning certain parcels of land owned by it, are that they are used "actually, directly and exclusively" as sources of support of the parish priest and his helpers and also of private 18 respondent Bishop. In the motion to dismiss filed on behalf of petitioner Province of Abra, the objection was based primarily on the lack of jurisdiction, as the validity of a tax assessment may be questioned before the Local Board of Assessment Appeals and not with a court. There was also mention of a lack of a cause of action, but only because, in its view, declaratory relief is not proper, as there had been breach or violation of the right of government to assess and collect taxes on such property. It clearly appears, therefore, that in failing to accord a hearing to petitioner Province of Abra and deciding the case immediately in favor of private respondent, respondent Judge failed to abide by the constitutional command of procedural due process. WHEREFORE, the petition is granted and the resolution of June 19, 1978 is set aside. Respondent Judge, or who ever is acting on his behalf, is ordered to hear the case on the merit. No costs. Barredo, Concepcion, Jr., and De Castro, JJ., concur. Aquino, J., concur in the result. Abad Santos, J., is on leave. G.R. No. L-13188 November 15, 1918

THE HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION, plaintiff-appellant, vs. JAMES J. RAFFERTY, as Collector of Internal Revenue of the Philippine Islands, defendantappellant.

Cohn & Fisher for plaintiff-appellant. Acting Attorney-General Paredes for defendant-appellant.

MALCOLM, J.: The important subject of tax liens is to be discussed on this appeal. FACTS During the years 1912-1915 inclusive, Pujalte & Co., a general mercantile partnership, was engaged in the business of lumbering in Mindanao. The company removed from the forest and milled at its say mills during this period, a total of 6,087.54 cubic meters of timber. The forest charges amounted to P8,328.93. Upon the execution of bonds in the aggregate sum of P2,000 to secure the payment of the forest charges due the government, the Collector of Internal Revenue permitted Pujalte & Co. to remove this timber from the public forests for shipment by sea on saw mill invoices without prior payment of the forest charges. From the timber so removed by Pujalte & Co., railroad ties were manufactured in its saw mills at Manila for the Manila Railroad Co. Six thousand three hundred and five railroad ties so manufactured were rejected by the Manila Railroad Co. In February, 1915, the firm of Pujalte & Co. was indebted to the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation in a large sum of money. Being unable to pay its debt in specie, the company assigned to the bank, among other things, a large quantity of the railroad ties manufactured at its mills. The bank sold and disposed of these ties at various times until in May, 1916, there remained with it some 2,000 railroads ties of the lot acquired. The internal revenue charges on the forest products removed from the public forests of Mindanao by Pujalte & Co. not having been paid, on May 2, 1916, the Collector of Internal Revenue caused delinquency proceedings to be commenced and had issued a distress warrant. Later, on May 15, 1916, the Collector of Internal Revenue caused an additional distress levy to be made upon the 6,305 ties, which it will be remembered, had been assigned by Pujalte & Co. to the Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation. Proceeding in accordance with this action, the Collector of Internal Revenue seized the 2,000 ties in the possession of the bank. Until the date last mentioned, the bank had no notice of the tax. Payment under protest, institution of complaint to recover back the sum paid, answer by the Government, trial, and judgment followed in due course. In this judgment, handed down by the Honorable James A. Ostrand, it was declared that a lien for taxes existed on the 2,000 railroad ties levied upon by the Collector of Internal Revenue and claimed as its property by the Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation, not for the full sum of P8,328.93 due as forest charges on the timber removed from the forests of Mindanao by Pujalte & Co., but only for the sum of P316.43, which is the tax upon the timber used for the manufacture of the ties. The court ordered the Collector of Internal Revenue to refund to the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation the sum of P8,012.50, with interest at 6 per cent per annum from February 1, 1917. No costs were allowed. Following timely motions for a new trial, denial, and exceptions thereto, both parties have appealed. This brings us to a statement of the L A W. Among the sources of taxes, fees; and charges, in the nature of internal revenue taxes, the Internal Revenue Law enumerates charges for forest products. (Sec. 21 ( f ), Act 2339, now sec. 1438 ( f ),

Administrative Code of 1917.) The Internal Revenue Law of 1914 also contains the following provisions relative to the nature and extent of tax liens: Every internal-revenue tax on property or on any business or occupation and every tax on resources and receipts, and any increment to any of them incident to delinquency, shall constitute a lien superior to all other charges or liens not only on the property itself upon which such tax may be imposed but also upon the property used in any business or occupation upon which the tax is imposed and upon all property rights therein. The lien of the tax on inheritances, legacies and other acquisitions mortis causa shall have preference over any real right created thereon subsequent to the death of the predecessor, but this preference will be extinguished at the end of five years from the date when the tax becomes payable upon real property, and three years upon any other kind of property. (Sec. 149, Act No. 2339, now section 1588, Administrative Code of 1917.) The succeeding section of the same law authorizes two civil remedies for the collection of internal revenue taxes: (a) by distraint of personal property and upon exhaustion thereof by levy upon real property, and (b) by legal action. (Sec. 150, Act No. 2339, now section 1589, Administrative Code of 1917.) Relative to the first remedy by distraint of personal property, the same law in section 151 provides: The remedy by distraint shall proceed as follows: Upon the failure of the person owing any delinquent tax or delinquent revenue to pay the same, at the time required, the Collector of Internal Revenue or his deputy may seize and distrain any personal property belonging to such person or any property subject to the tax lien, in sufficient quantity to satisfy the tax, or charge, together with any increment thereto incident to delinquency, and the expenses of the distraint. (Now section 1590, Administrative Code of 1917.) One fact stands out prominently on examination of these provisions of the Internal Revenue Law the internal revenue tax constitutes a paramount lien either on the property upon which the tax is imposed or on any other property used in any business or occupation upon which the tax is imposed. The government has here chosen to levy on the property itself in the hands of a purchaser for value.lawphil.net This brings us to a statement of the I S S U E S. Does the lien follow the property subject to the tax into the hands of a third party when at the time of transfer, no demand for payment had been made and when the purchaser had no notice of the existence of the lien? Counsel for plaintiff argues that it does not. Or, does the lien follow the property subject to the tax even though transferred to a third party who had no notice of the existence of the lien so as to make this property respond for the specific unpaid internal revenue taxes due on it? The trial court so found. Or, does the lien follow the property subject to the tax even though transferred to a third party who had no notice of the existence of the lien so as to make this property respondent for all the unpaid internal revenue taxes due from the vendor? The government so opines. This brings us to a statement of the following O P I N I O N. 1. Major Issue; Tax Liens. Taxation is an attribute of sovereignty. The power to tax is the strongest of all the powers of government. If approximate equality in taxation is to be attained, all property subject to a tax must respond, or there is resultant inequality. Under the most favorable circumstances,

an enormous amount of property escapes taxation altogether. To prevent such a lamentable situation, the law ordains that the claim of the State upon the property of the tax debtor shall be superior to that of any other creditor. A lien in its modern-acceptation is understood to denote a legal claim or charge on property, either real or personal, as security for the payment of some debt or obligation. Its meaning is more extensive than the jus retentionis (derecho de retencion) of the civil law. (2 Giorgi, Teoria de las Obligaciones, 419; Ames vs. Dyer, 41 Me., 397.) Unless the statute is otherwise, the rule is that a valid lien created on real or personal estate is enforceable against property in the hands of any person, other than a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, who subsequently acquires the estate. (25 Cyc., 680, citing cases.) The general rule of the Civil Law may be different. Possession of movables is not necessary to the validity of a lien, whether created by contract or by act of law. Such lien will attach upon movable property, even in the hands of a bona fide purchaser without notice. (Tatham vs. Andree [1863], 1 Moore, P.C. [N. S.], 386; The Bold Buccleugh [1850], 7 Moore, P.C., 267.) The law of taxation establishes principles which generally, although not exactly, conform to the law of liens. The tax lien does not establish itself upon property which has been transferred to an innocent purchaser prior to demand. In a decision relating to the United States Internal Revenue Law, Mr. Justice Miller held that a demand is necessary to create and bring the lien into operation. (U. S. vs. Pacific Railroad Co. [1877], Fed. Cas. No. 15,984; U. S. vs. Pacific Railroad Co. [1880], 1 Fed., 97.) Where a statute makes taxes on personal property a lien thereon, a purchaser of such property takes the same free from any lien for taxes if the title passes before such a lien attaches by levy, distraint, or otherwise. (Shelby vs. Tiddy [1896], 118 N. C., 792.) In order that the lien may follow the property into the hands of a third party, it is further essential that the latter should have notice, either actual or constructive. The reason is the benevolence of our Constitution which prohibits the taking of property without due process of law. In the case of real estate or special assessment taxation a man cannot get rid of his liability to a tax by buying without notice. (City of Seattle vs. Kelleher [1904], 195 U. S., 351.) The rule, however, is different where the vendee has no knowledge of the taxes on personality existing at the time, or had no means of knowing from the public records that such taxes had accrued. The authorities relied upon by the Government will be found on examination to concern real estate taxation. Internal revenue laws are to be construed fairly for the government and justly for the citizen. They should receive a liberal construction to carry out the purposes of their enactment; they should not receive so loose a construction as to permit evasions on merely fanciful and insubstantial distinctions. "The internal revenue laws cannot be so construed as to extend their meaning beyond the clear import of the words used." (U. S. vs. Watts [1865], Fed. Cas. No. 16653. See also U. S. vs. Hodson [1870], 10 Wall., 395; U. S. vs. Kallstrom [1887], 30 Fed., 184; Hubbard vs. Brainard [1869], Conn., 563, and Muoz & Co. vs. Hord [1909], 12 Phil., 624.) With such general principles in mind, we should first ascertain the legislative intention. One detail indicative of such intent is noted in the more limited scope of the law pertaining to liens for internal revenue taxes as contrasted with the law pertaining to liens for real estate taxes. The municipal law in part provides that liens for real property taxes "shall be enforceable against the property whether in the possession of the delinquent or any subsequent owner." (Now section 364, Administrative Code of 1917.) No mention of the subsequent owner is found in the Internal Revenue Law. Nor does this law provide that the lien shall not be divested by alienation. Again, we can very well look to the policy of the law in respect to liens. Liens, it has well been said, are of too sacred character to be impaired by vague and uncertain implications. The lien which the law

favors is the specific or particular lien and not the general lien. However, the policy of the law is against upholding secret liens and charges against the property of innocent purchasers or encumbrances for value. (See Palmer vs. Howard [1887], 72 Cal., 293; 17 R. C. L., 599.) Keeping the foregoing statement of facts, issues, and law before us, the present case offers no serious difficulty. The plaintiff was not of course personally liable for any part of the internal revenue taxes due the Government from Pujalte & Co. On the date the railroad ties were transferred from Pujalte & Co. to the Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation no demand for payment of the tax had been made. The bonds in favor of the Government were still presumably subsisting. No demand in fact was made until over a year later when distraint proceedings were initiated. When the Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation purchased and acquired these 2,000 ties in February, 1915, there was nothing to show that Pujalte & Co. were delinquent tax payers. No public record could be consulted to protect the purchaser from loss by reason of the existence of a secret lien. A businessman of ordinary prudence could not be expected to foresee that the personal property which he had taken in satisfaction of a debt was burdened by a tax. On this date, because no demand had been made and because the plaintiff had no notice of the tax, there was no valid subsisting lien upon the ties. 2. Minor Issue; Interest upon Judgments to Recover Taxes . Plaintiff-appellant in assignment of error No. 4 also claims interest upon the amount of the judgment from the 3d day of June, 1916, in place and instead of allowing interest thereon from the first day of February, 1917. The first date is that of the illegal exaction; the second date is that of the commencement of the action. Interest should be allowed from the day when the taxpayer lost the income from the funds by payment under protest, or not at all. (Viuda e Hijos De Pedro P. Roxas vs. Rafferty [1918], 37 Phil., 957; H. E. Heacock Co. vs. Collector of Customs [1918], 37 Phil., 970.) On the other hand, the second assignment of error of the defendant-appellant is to the effect that no interest at all should have been allowed by the trial court because of section 1579 of the present Administrative Code. Plaintiff-appellant in answer challenges the validity of this section. Section 1579 of the Administrative Code of 1917 in part authorizes the taxpayer who has paid an internal revenue tax under protest, at any time within two years after the payment of the tax, "to bring an action against the Collector of Internal Revenue for the recovery without interest of the sum alleged to have been illegally collected." As this provision was enacted by the Philippine Legislature subsequent to the institution of the present action in the lower court, and subsequent to the judgment therein rendered, we do not feel that the law should be given a retroactive effect. Whether section 1579 of the Administrative Code is valid or not is left for decision when a case arises after the Code became effective. In this instance, we allow interest at the legal rate from the date of payment. 3. Minor Issue; Costs against the Government. Plaintiff-appellant further claims that the trial court erred in declining to allow the recovery of costs. The right to recover costs is governed by statute. In the United States, the rule is that unless expressly authorized by statute, a judgment for costs, either in a civil or criminal case, cannot be rendered against the United States or a State. The principle is that the sovereign power is not amenable to judgments for damages or costs without its consent. (U. S. vs. Barker [1817], 2 Wheat., 395; Stanley vs. Schwalby [1896], 162 U. S., 255; State vs. Williams [1905], 101 Md., 529; 4 A. & E. Ann. Cas., 970; Deneen vs. Unverzagt [1907], 225 Ill., 378; 8 A. & E. Ann. Cas., 396 and note; Townsend's Succession [1888], 40 La. Ann., 66.) The Code of Civil Procedure of the Philippine Islands provides that costs shall ordinarily follow the result of the suit. They are to be recovered by "the prevailing party." (Code of Civil Procedure, chapter 21.) In the ordinary case between private individuals or entities, or where the government is successful, no particular difficulty is experienced applying the Code provisions. The practice has, however, been not to allow costs in cases in which the Government of the Philippine Islands or a nominal representative of

the Government is the unsuccessful party. And this is right for the Government of the Philippine Islands is sovereign in the sense that a State of the American Union or Porto Rico is sovereign, and this paramount power has not by statute permitted itself to be taxed with costs. No costs should be allowed plaintiff in either instance. This brings us to a statement of the J U D G M E N T. Judgment is reversed and the plaintiff shall have and recover from defendant the full amount sued for, P8,328.93, with interest at the legal rate from June 3, 1916, until paid, and without costs in either instance. So ordered. 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, 1 cause to assemble, or convoke," 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 2 or to act at all in contemplation of law. (Tavera-Luna, Inc. vs. Nable, 38 Off. Gaz. 62). 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 3 President made a jump, so to speak, on the Congress, two days before it convened." 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 4 doubtful and argumentative implication. As the Court sees it, EO 273 satisfies all the requirements of a valid tax. It is uniform. The court, in City of 5 Baguio vs. De Leon, 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 6 and within the reach of the general public. 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. G.R. No. L-15270 September 30, 1961

JOSE V. HERRERA and ESTER OCHANGCO HERRERA, petitioners, vs. THE QUEZON CITY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, respondent. Angel A. Sison for petitioners. Jaime Agloro for respondent.

CONCEPCION, J.: Appeal, by petitioners Jose V. Herrera and Ester Ochangco Herrera, from a decision of the Court of Tax Appeals affirming that of the Board of Assessment Appeals of Quezon City, which held that certain properties of said petitioners are subject to assessment for purposes of real estate tax. The facts and the issue are set forth in the aforementioned decision of the Court of Tax Appeals, from which we quote: On July 24, 1952, the Director of the Bureau of Hospitals authorized the petitioners to establish and operate the "St. Catherine's Hospital", located at 58 D. Tuazon, Sta. Mesa Heights, Quezon City (Exhibit "F-1", p. 7, BIR rec.). On or about January 3, 1953, the petitioners sent a letter to the Quezon City Assessor requesting exemption from payment of real estate tax on the lot, building and other improvements comprising the hospital stating that the same was established for charitable and humanitarian purposes and not for commercial gain (Exhibit "F-2", pp. 8-9, BIR rec.). After an inspection of the premises in question and after a careful study of the case, the exemption from real property taxes was granted effective the years 1953, 1954 and 1955. Subsequently, however, in a letter dated August 10, 1955 (Exhibit "E", p. 65, CTA rec.) the Quezon City Assessor notified the petitioners that the aforesaid properties were re-classified from exempt to "taxable" and thus assessed for real property taxes effective 1956, enclosing therewith copies of Tax Declarations Nos. 19321 to 19322 covering the said properties. The petitioners

appealed the assessment to the Quezon City Board of Assessment Appeals, which, in a decision dated March 31, 1956 and received by the former on May 17, 1956, affirmed the decision of the City Assessor. A motion for reconsideration thereof was denied on March 8, 1957. From this decision, the petitioners instituted the instant appeal. 1awphl.nt The building involved in this case is principally used as a hospital. It is mainly a surgical and orthopedic hospital with emphasis on obstetrical cases, the latter constituting 90% of the total number of cases registered therein. The hospital has thirty-two (32) beds, of which twenty (20) are for charity-patients and twelve (12) for pay-patients. From the evidence presented by petitioners, it is made to appear that there are two kinds of charity patients (a) those who come for consultation only ("out-charity patients"); and (b) those who remain in the hospital for treatment ("lying-in-patients"). The out-charity patients are given free consultation and prescription, although sometimes they are furnished with free medicines which are not costly like aspirin, sulfatiazole, etc. The charity lying-in-patients are given free medical service and medicine although the food served to the pay-patients is very much better than that given to the former. Although no condition is imposed by the hospital on the admission of charity lying-in-patients, they however, usually give donations to the hospital. On the other hand, the pay-patients are required to pay for hospital services ranging from the minimum charge of P5.00 to the maximum of P40.00 for each day of stay in the hospital. The income realized from pay-patients is spent for the improvement of the charity wards. The hospital personnel is composed of three nurses, two graduate midwives, a resident physician receiving a salary of P170.00 a month and the petitioner, Dr. Ester Ochangco Herrera, as directress. As such directress, the latter does not receive any salary. Petitioners also operate within the premises of the hospital the "St. Catherine's School of Midwifery" which was granted government recognition by the Secretary of Education on February 1, 1955 (Exhibit "F-3", p. 10, BIR rec.) This school has an enrollment of about two hundred students. The students are charged a matriculation fee of P300.00 for 1- years, plus P50.00 a month for board and lodging, which includes transportation to the St. Mary's Hospital. The students practice in the St. Catherine's Hospital, as well as in the St. Mary's Hospital, which is also owned by the petitioners. A separate set of accounting books is maintained by the school for midwifery distinct from that kept by the hospital. The petitioners alleged that the accounts of the school are not included in Exhibits "A", "A-1", "A-2", "B", "B-1", "B-2", "C", "C-1" and "C-2" which relate to the hospital only. However, the petitioners have refused to submit a separate statement of accounts of the school. A brief tabulation indicating the amount of income of the hospital for the years 1954, 1955 and 1956, and its operational expenses, is as follows:

1954 Income Charity Ward Pay Ward Expenses P 5,280.04 P10,803.26 P16,083.30 (Exhibits "A", "A-1" and "A-2") 1955 Income Charity Ward Pay Ward P17,433.30 Expenses P 6,859.32 14,038.92 Deficit P3,464.94 Deficit P1,303.80

P14,779.50

P20,898.24 (Exhibits "B", "B-1" and "B-2") 1956 Income Charity Ward Pay Ward Expenses P 5,559.89 16,249.04 P21,809.93 (Exhibits "C", "C-1" and "C-2") Aside from the St. Catherine and St. Mary hospitals, the petitioners declared that they also own lands and coconut plantations in Quezon Province, and other real estate in the City of Manila consisting of apartments for rent. The petitioner, Jose V. Herrera, is an architect, actively engaged in the practice of his profession, with office at Tuason Building, Escolta, Manila. He was formerly Chairman, Board of Examiners for Architects and Chairman, Board of Architects connected with the United Nations. He was also connected with the Allied Technologists which constructed the Veterans Hospital in Quezon City. The only issue raised, is whether or not the lot, building and other improvements occupied by the St. Catherine Hospital are exempt from the real property tax. The resolution of this question boils down to the corollary issue as to whether or not the said properties are used exclusively for charitable or educational purposes. (Petitioners' brief, pp. 24-29). The Court of Tax Appeals decided the issue in the negative, upon the ground that the St. Catherine's Hospital "has a pay ward for ... pay-patients, who are charged for the use of the private rooms, operating room, laboratory room, delivery room, etc., like other hospitals operated for profit" and that "petitioners and their family occupy a portion of the building for their residence." With respect to petitioners' claim for exemption based upon the operation of the school of midwifery, the Court conceded that "the proposition might be proper if the property used for the school of midwifery were separate and distinct from the hospital." It added, however, that, "in the instant case, the portions of the building used for classrooms of the school of midwifery have not been shown to be exclusively for school purposes"; that said portions "rather ... have a dual use, i.e., for classroom and for hospital use, the latter not being a purpose that renders the property tax exempt;" that part of the building and lot in question "is used as a hospital, part as residence of the petitioners, part as garage, part as dormitory and part as school"; and that "the portion dedicated to educational and charitable purposes can not be identified from those destined to other uses; and the building is itself an indivisible unit of property." It should be noted, however, that, according to the very statement of facts made in the decision appealed from, of the thirty-two (32) beds in the hospital, twenty (20) are for charity-patients; that "the income realized from pay-patients is spent for improvement of the charity wards;" and that "petitioners, Dr. Ester Ochangco Herrera, as directress" of said hospital, "does not receive any salary," although its resident physician gets a monthly salary of P170.00. It is well settled, in this connection, that the admission of pay-patients does not detract from the charitable character of a hospital, if all its funds are devoted "exclusively to the maintenance of the institution" as a "public charity" (84 C.J.S., 617; see, also, 51 Am. Jur. 607; Cooley on Taxation, Vol. 2, p. 1562; 144 A.L.R., 1489-1492). "In other words, where rendering charity is its primary object, and the funds derived from payments made by patients able to pay are devoted to the benevolent purposes of the institution, the mere fact that a profit has been made will not deprive the hospital of its benevolent character" (Prairie Du Chien Sanitarium Co. vs. City of Prairie Du Chien, 242 Wis. 262, 7 NW [2d] 832, 144 A.L.R. 1480). Deficit P 341.53

P21,467.40

Thus, we have held that the U.S.T. Hospital was not established for profit-making purposes, although it had 140 paying beds maintained only to partly finance the expenses of the free wards, containing 203 beds for charity patients (U.S.T. Hospital Employees Association vs. Sto. Tomas University Hospital, L-6988, May 24, 1954), that St. Paul's Hospital of Iloilo, a corporation organized for "charitable educational and religious purposes" can not be considered as engaged in business merely because its pharmacy department charges paying patients the cost of their medicine, plus 10% thereof, to partly offset the cost of medicines supplied free of charge to charity patients (Collector of Internal Revenue vs. St. Paul's Hospital of Iloilo, L-12127, May 25, 1959), and that the amendment of the original articles of incorporation of the University of Visayas to convert it from a non-stock to a stock corporation and the increase of its assets from P9,000 to P50,000, distributed among the members of the original non-stock corporation in terms of shares of stock, as well as the subsequent move of its board of trustees to double the stock dividends of the corporation, in view of a gain of P200,000.00 in property, besides good-will, which was not carried out, does not justify the inference that the corporation has become one for business and profit, none of its profits having inured to the benefit of any stockholder or individual (Collector of Internal Revenue vs. University of Visayas, L-13554, February 28, 1961). 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 C.J.S., 621), such as "athletic fields," including "a farm used for the inmates of the institution" (Cooley on Taxation, Vol. 2, p. 1430). Within the purview of the Constitutional exemption from taxation, the St. Catherine's Hospital is, therefore, a charitable institution, and the fact that it admits pay-patients does not bar it from claiming that it is devoted exclusively to benevolent purposes, it being admitted that the income derived from paypatients is devoted to the improvement of the charity wards, which represent almost two-thirds (2/3) of the bed capacity of the hospital, aside from "out-charity patients" who come only for consultation. Again, the existence of "St. Catherine's School of Midwifery", with an enrollment of about 200 students, who practice partly in St. Catherine's Hospital and partly in St. Mary's Hospital, which, likewise, belongs to petitioners herein, does not, and cannot, affect the exemption to which St. Catherine's Hospital is entitled under our fundamental law. On the contrary, it furnishes another ground for exemption. Seemingly, the Court of Tax Appeals was impressed by the fact that the size of said enrollment and the matriculation fee charged from the students of midwifery, aside from the amount they paid for board and lodging, including transportation to St. Mary's Hospital, warrants the belief that petitioners derive a substantial profit from the operation of the school aforementioned. Such factor is, however, immaterial to the issue in the case at bar, for "all lands, building and improvements used exclusively for religious, charitable or educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation," pursuant to the Constitution, regardless of whether or not material profits are derived from the operation of the institutions in question. In other words, Congress may, if it deems fit to do so, impose taxes upon such "profits", but said "lands, buildings and improvements" are beyond its taxing power. Similarly, the garage in the building above referred to which was obviously essential to the operation of the school of midwifery, for the students therein enrolled practiced, not only in St. Catherine's Hospital, but, also, in St. Mary's Hospital, and were entitled to transportation thereto for Mrs. Herrera received no compensation as directress of St. Catherine's Hospital were incidental to the operation of the latter and of said school, and, accordingly, did not affect the charitable character of said hospital and the educational nature of said school. WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals, as well as that of the Assessment Board of Appeals of Quezon City, are hereby reversed and set aside, and another one entered declaring that

the lot, building and improvements constituting the St. Catherine's Hospital are exempt from taxation under the provisions of the Constitution, without special pronouncement as to costs. It is 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 (m2) 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 4th quarter 1945 1st quarter 1946 2nd quarter 1946 3rd quarter 1946 4th quarter 1946 1st quarter 1947 2nd quarter 1947 3rd quarter 1947 4th quarter 1947 1st quarter 1948 2nd quarter 1948 3rd quarter 1948 4th quarter 1948 1st quarter 1949 2nd quarter 1949 3rd quarter 1949 4th quarter 1949 1st quarter 1950 2nd quarter 1950 3rd quarter 1950 4th quarter 1950 1st quarter 1951 2nd quarter 1951 3rd quarter 1951 4th quarter 1951 Amount of Sales P1,244.21 2,206.85 1,950.38 2,235.99 3,256.04 13,241.07 15,774.55 14,654.13 12,590.94 11,143.90 14,715.26 38,333.83 16,179.90 23,975.10 17,802.08 16,640.79 15,961.38 18,562.46 21,816.32 25,004.55 45,287.92 37,841.21 29,103.98 20,181.10 22,968.91

1st quarter 1952 2nd quarter 1952 3rd quarter 1952 4th quarter 1952 1st quarter 1953

23,002.65 17,626.96 17,921.01 24,180.72 29,516.21

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 plaintiff-appellant'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 reenactment 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. 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 "half-baked 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 two-fold: (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. 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 "half-baked 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 two-fold: (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.