EN BANC

[G.R. No. 118233. December 10, 1999]

ANTONIO Z. REYES, ELISEO P. OCAMPO and EDITHA ARCIAGA-SANTOS, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE FRANKLIN DRILON and MAYOR JINGGOY ESTRADA (JOSE EJERCITO) OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF SAN JUAN, METRO MANILA, respondents. RESOLUTION QUISUMBING, J.: For review is the decision[1] of the Court of Appeals, dated August 3, 1994 and its resolution [2] dated December 8, 1994 in CA G.R. SP No. 32473. Said decision dismissed the prohibition case brought by the petitioners against respondent officials of the Municipality of San Juan to stop the enforcement of Tax Ordinance Nos. 87, 91, 95, 100 and 101. The factual antecedents are as follows: The Sangguniang Bayan of San Juan, Metro Manila implemented several tax ordinances as follows: Ordinance No. 87 Title An ordinance imposing a municipal tax of fifty percent (50%) of one percent (1%) of the gross receipt on business of printing and publication An ordinance imposing a transfer tax equivalent to fifty percent (50%) of one percent (1%) of the total consideration on the sale, donation, barter or any other mode of transferring ownership or title of real property situated in San Juan, Metro Manila, or its fair market value, whichever is higher An ordinance imposing fifty percent (50%) of one percent of (1%) for social housing tax on the assessed value of all real estate property in San Juan, Metro Manila in excess of P50,000.00 value as provided in the New Urban Land Reform Law, also known as R.A. 7279. An ordinance imposing new rates of business taxes of the Municipality of San Juan Metro Manila An ordinance levying an annual Ad Valorem tax on real property and an additional tax accruing to the special education fund (SEF)

91

95

100 101

On May 21, 1993, petitioners filed an appeal with the Department of Justice assailing the constitutionality of these tax ordinances allegedly because they were promulgated without previous public hearings thereby constituting deprivation of property without due process of law. On June 10, 1993, respondent Secretary of Justice dismissed the appeal for having been filed out of time. Citing Section 187, R.A. No. 7160, he said: It appears that the tax ordinances in question took effect on September 24, 1992, in the case of Tax Ordinance No. 87, until October 22, 1992, in the case of Tax Ordinance Nos. 91 and 95, and until October 29, 1992, in the case of Tax Ordinance Nos. 100 and 101, or more than thirty (30) days from the effectivity thereof when the appeal was filed and received by this Department on May 21, 1993 and therefore not in accordance with the requirements provided for under Section 187 of the Local Government Code of 1991. WHEREFORE, the instant appeal, having been filed out of time, is hereby DISMISSED.[3] Undaunted, petitioners filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari and prohibition (CA-G.R. SP No. 32473). But respondent court affirmed the decision of the Secretary. On December 8, 1994, the motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioners was denied for lack of merit.

Hence, the present petition for review, raising the following questions: 1. Whether or not the questioned tax ordinances are violative of the Constitution, considering the undisputed fact that no public hearings were ever held on the ordinances before they were passed and approved as required by the Local Government Code of 1991, thereby constituting as they do a deprivation of property without due process; 2. Whether or not the wording of the law under Section 187 of the Local Government Code of 1991 that any question on the constitutionality x x x of tax ordinance x x x may be raised on appeal within thirty (30) days from the effectivity thereof x x x is a reductio ad absurdum, since if the tax ordinance is found to be unconstitutional, it will be considered as never having become effective at all from the very beginning, for which reason the thirty-day appeal period cannot be reckoned and cannot be enforced; 3. Whether or not the constitutionality of a tax ordinance, or any law for that matter, can be questioned at any time despite the prescription of a limited period within which to question it, as in the case at bar; and 4. Whether or not the constitutionality of an ordinance or a law may be questioned even if the question of constitutionality may not have been originally or initially raised, or is not the lis mota of the case, if it appears that a determination of the question of constitutionality is necessary to a decision of the case.[4] In our view, the pertinent issues for our resolution now are: 1. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the decision of the Secretary of Justice who dismissed the prohibition suit, on the ground that it was filed out of time? 2. Whether or not lack of mandatory public hearings prior to enacting Municipal Ordinance Nos. 87, 91, 95, 100 and 101 render them void on the ground of deprivation of property without due process? 3. Whether or not the constitutional validity of Sec. 187 of the Local Government Code could be raised for the first time on appeal? According to petitioners, respondent Secretary erred in declaring that they failed to file their appeal on time. Also, they assail Municipal Ordinance Nos. 87, 91, 95, 100 and 101, for alleged failure of the Municipal Council of San Juan to conduct mandatory public hearings. Because of this, they claim the ordinances are inoperative, as though they were never passed. Consequently, no prescriptive thirty-day period to question the validity of the ordinance could toll to bar their appeal to the Department of Justice. Sec. 187 of R.A. 7160, cited by respondent Secretary, provides as follows: Sec. 187-- Procedure for Approval and Effectivity of Tax Ordinances and Revenue Measures; Mandatory Public Hearings. -- The procedure for approval of local tax ordinances and revenue measures shall be in accordance with the provisions of this Code: Provided, That public hearings shall be conducted for the purpose prior to the enactment thereof: Provided further, That any question on the constitutionality or legality of tax ordinances or revenue measures may be raised on appeal within thirty (30) days from the effectivity thereof to the Secretary of Justice who shall render a decision within sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of the appeal: Provided, however, That such appeal shall not have the effect of suspending the effectivity of the ordinance and the accrual and payment of the tax, fee, or charge levied therein: Provided, finally , That within thirty (30) days after receipt of the decision or the lapse of the sixty-day period without the Secretary of Justice acting upon the appeal, the aggrieved party may file appropriate proceedings with a court of competent jurisdiction. Clearly, the law requires that the dissatisfied taxpayer who questions the validity or legality of a tax ordinance must file his appeal to the Secretary of Justice, within 30 days from effectivity thereof. In case the Secretary decides the appeal, a period also of 30 days is allowed for an aggrieved party to go to court. But if the Secretary does not act thereon, after the lapse of 60 days, a party could already proceed to seek relief in court. These three separate periods are clearly given for compliance as a prerequisite before seeking redress in a competent court. Such statutory periods are set to prevent delays as well as enhance the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial functions.[5] For this reason the courts construe these provisions of statutes as mandatory.[6] A municipal tax ordinance empowers a local government unit to impose taxes. The power to tax is the most effective instrument to raise needed revenues to finance and support the myriad activities of local government units for the delivery of basic services essential to the promotion of the general welfare and enhancement of peace, progress, and prosperity of the people.[7] Consequently, any delay in implementing tax measures would be to the detriment of the public. It is for this reason that protests over tax ordinances are required to be done within certain time frames. In the instant case, it is our view that the failure of petitioners to appeal to the Secretary of Justice within 30 days as required by Sec. 187 of R.A. 7160 is fatal to their cause. On the second issue, petitioners allege that the Sangguniang Bayan of San Juan did not comply with the prescribed procedure for enacting an ordinance because they failed to conduct public hearings. In Figuerres vs. Court of Appeals,[8] where the municipality failed to conduct public hearings prior to enacting the revisions on the schedule of fair market values and assessment level of classes of real estate properties, the Court said:

Petitioner is right in contending that public hearings are required to be conducted prior to the enactment of an ordinance imposing real property taxes. R.A. No. 7160, Sec. 186, provides that an ordinance levying taxes, fees, or charges shall not be enacted without any prior public hearing conducted for the purpose. However, it is noteworthy that apart from her bare assertions, petitioner Figuerres has not presented any evidence to show that no public hearings were conducted prior to the enactment of the ordinances in question. On the other hand, the Municipality of Mandaluyong claims that public hearings were indeed conducted before the subject ordinances were adopted, although it likewise failed to submit any evidence to establish this allegation. However, in accordance with the presumption of validity in favor of an ordinance, their constitutionality or legality should be upheld in the absence of evidences showing that procedure prescribed by law was not observed in their enactment. x x x Furthermore, the lack of a public hearing is a negative allegation essential to petitioners cause of action in the present case. Hence, as petitioner is the party asserting it, she has the burden of proof. Since petitioner failed to rebut the presumption of validity in favor of the subject ordinances and to discharge the burden of proving that no public hearings were conducted prior to the enactment thereof, we are constrained to uphold their constitutionality or legality.[9] We find Figuerres instructive. Petitioners have not proved in the case before us that the Sangguniang Bayan of San Juan failed to conduct the required public hearings before the enactment of Ordinance Nos. 87, 91, 95, 100 and 101. Although the Sanggunian had the control of records or the better means of proof regarding the facts alleged, petitioners are not relieved from the burden of proving their averments.[10] Proof that public hearings were not held falls on petitioners shoulders. For failing to discharge that burden, their petition was properly dismissed. In any event, for the purpose of securing certainty where doubt would be intolerable, it is a general rule that the regularity of the enactment of an officially promulgated statute or ordinance may not be impeached by parol evidence or oral testimony either of individual officers and members, or of strangers who may be interested in nullifying legislative action. [11] This rule supplements the presumption in favor of the regularity of official conduct which we have upheld repeatedly, absent a clear showing to the contrary. Finally, on the validity of Section 187 of R.A. 7160, the Local Government Code, we must stress that the constitutionality of an act of Congress will not be passed upon by the Court unless at the first opportunity that question is properly raised and presented in an appropriate case, and is necessary to a determination of the case, particularly where the issue of constitutionality is the very lis mota presented.[12] The constitutional validity of a statutory provision should not be entertained by the Court where it was not specifically raised below, insisted upon, and adequately argued.[13] Moreover, given the circumstances in this case, we find no genuine necessity to dwell on the issue of constitutional invalidity of Section 187 in relation to issue of valid enactment of the subject ordinances, as shown in the foregoing discussion. Suffice it now to say that, having resolved the first and second issues, we find no grave abuse of discretion nor reversible error in the decision of the respondent appellate court. Further constitutional scrutiny of Section 187 is unwarranted. WHEREFORE, the present petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit and the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Purisima, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.

G.R. No. 152492

October 16, 2003

PALMA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. MUNICIPALITY OF MALANGAS, ZAMBOANGA DEL SUR, respondent. DECISION PANGANIBAN, J.: In accordance with the Local Government Code of 1991, a municipal ordinance imposing fees on goods that pass through the issuing municipalitys territory is null and void. The Case The Petition for Review1 before us assails the August 31, 2001 Decision2 and the February 6, 2002 Resolution3of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR CV No. 56477. The dispositive portion of the challenged Decision reads as follows: "UPON THE VIEW WE TAKE OF THIS CASE, THUS, the assailed Decision is VACATED and SET ASIDE, and this case is ordered REMANDED to the court a quo for the reception of evidence of the parties on the matter or point delineated in the final sentence above-stated."4 The assailed Resolution denied petitioners Motion for Reconsideration. The Facts The facts are undisputed. Petitioner Palma Development Corporation is engaged in milling and selling rice and corn to wholesalers in Zamboanga City. It uses the municipal port of Malangas, Zamboanga del Sur as transshipment point for its goods. The port, as well as the surrounding roads leading to it, belong to and are maintained by the Municipality of Malangas, Zamboanga del Sur. On January 16, 1994, the municipality passed Municipal Revenue Code No. 09, Series of 1993, which was subsequently approved by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Zamboanga del Sur in Resolution No. 1330 dated August 4, 1994. Section 5G.01 of the ordinance reads: "Section 5G.01. Imposition of fees. There shall be collected service fee for its use of the municipal road[s] or streets leading to the wharf and to any point along the shorelines within the jurisdiction of the municipality and for police surveillance on all goods and all equipment harbored or sheltered in the premises of the wharf and other within the jurisdiction of this municipality in the following schedule: a) Vehicles and Equipment: rate of fee 1. Automatic per unit P10.00 2. Ford Fiera P10.00 3. Trucks P10.00 xxxxxxxxx b) Other Goods, Construction Material products: 1. Bamboo craft P20.00 2. Bangus/Kilo 0.30 xxxxxxxxx

41. Rice and corn grits/sack 0.50"5 Accordingly, the service fees imposed by Section 5G.01 of the ordinance was paid by petitioner under protest. It contended that under Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991, municipal governments did not have the authority to tax goods and vehicles that passed through their jurisdictions. Thereafter, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pagadian City, petitioner filed against the Municipality of Malangas on November 20, 1995, an action for declaratory relief assailing the validity of Section 5G.01 of the municipal ordinance. On the premise that the case involved the validity of a municipal ordinance, the RTC directed respondent to secure the opinion of the Office of the Solicitor General. The trial court likewise ordered that the opinions of the Departments of Finance and of Justice be sought. As these opinions were still unavailable as of October 17, 1996, petitioners counsel filed, without objection from respondent, a Manifestation seeking the submission of the case for the RTCs decision on a pure question of law. In due time, the trial court rendered its November 13, 1996 Decision declaring the entire Municipal Revenue Code No. 09 as ultra vires and, hence, null and void. Ruling of the Court of Appeals The CA held that local government units already had revenue-raising powers as provided for under Sections 153 and 155 of RA No. 7160. It ruled as well that within the purview of these provisions -- and therefore valid -- is Section 5G.01, which provides for a "service fee for the use of the municipal road or streets leading to the wharf and to any point along the shorelines within the jurisdiction of the municipality" and "for police surveillance on all goods and all equipment harbored or sheltered in the premises of the wharf and other within the jurisdiction of this municipality." However, since both parties had submitted the case to the trial court for decision on a pure question of law without a fullblown trial on the merits, the CA could not determine whether the facts of the case were within the ambit of the aforecited sections of RA No. 7160. The appellate court ruled that petitioner still had to adduce evidence to substantiate its allegations that the assailed ordinance had imposed fees on the movement of goods within the Municipality of Malangas in the guise of a toll fee for the use of municipal roads and a service fee for police surveillance. Thus, the CA held that the absence of such evidence necessitated the remand of the case to the trial court. Hence, this Petition.6 Issues Petitioner raises the following issues for our consideration: "1. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred when it ordered that the extant case be remanded to the lower court for reception of evidence. "2. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred when it ruled that a full blown trial on the merits is necessary and that plaintiff-appellee, now petitioner, has to adduce evidence to substantiate its thesis that the assailed municipal ordinance, in fact, imposes fees on the movement of goods within the jurisdiction of the defendant and that this imposition is merely in the guise of a toll fee for the use of municipal roads and service fee for police surveillance. "3. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred when it did not rule that the questioned municipal ordinance is contrary to the provisions of R.A. No. 7160 or the Local Government Code of the Philippines."7 In brief, the issues boil down to the following: 1) whether Section 5G.01 of Municipal Revenue Code No. 09 is valid; and 2) whether the remand of the case to the trial court is necessary. The Courts Ruling The Petition is meritorious. First Issue:

Validity of the Imposed Fees Petitioner argues that while respondent has the power to tax or impose fees on vehicles using its roads, it cannot tax the goods that are transported by the vehicles. The provision of the ordinance imposing a service fee for police surveillance on goods is allegedly contrary to Section 133(e) of RA No. 7160, which reads: "Section 133. Common Limitations on the Taxing Powers of Local Government Units. Unless otherwise provided herein, the exercise of the taxing powers of provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays shall not extend to the levy of the following: xxxxxxxxx e) Taxes, fees and charges and other impositions upon goods carried into and out of, or passing through, the territorial jurisdictions of local government units in the guise of charges for wharfage, tolls for bridges or otherwise, or other taxes, fees or charges in any form whatsoever upon such goods or merchandise;" On the other hand, respondent maintains that the subject fees are intended for services rendered, the use of municipal roads and police surveillance. The fees are supposedly not covered by the prohibited impositions under Section 133(e) of RA No. 7160.8 It further contends that it was empowered by the express mandate of Sections 153 and 155 of RA No. 7160 to enact Section 5G.01 of the ordinance. The pertinent provisions of this statute read as follows: "Section 153. Service Fees and Charges. -- Local government units may impose and collect such reasonable fees and charges for services rendered. xxxxxxxxx "Section 155. Toll Fees or Charges. -- The sanggunian concerned may prescribe the terms and conditions and fix the rates for the imposition of toll fees or charges for the use of any public road, pier or wharf, waterway, bridge, ferry or telecommunication system funded and constructed by the local government unit concerned: Provided, That no such toll fees or charges shall be collected from officers and enlisted men of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and members of the Philippine National Police on mission, post office personnel delivering mail, physically-handicapped, and disabled citizens who are sixty-five (65) years or older.1a\^/phi1.net "When public safety and welfare so requires, the sanggunian concerned may discontinue the collection of the tolls, and thereafter the said facility shall be free and open for public use." Respondent claims that there is no proof that the P0.50 fee for every sack of rice or corn is a fraudulent legislation enacted to subvert the limitation imposed by Section 133(e) of RA No. 7160. Moreover, it argues that allowing petitioner to use its roads without paying the P0.50 fee for every sack of rice or corn would contravene the principle of unjust enrichment. By express language of Sections 153 and 155 of RA No. 7160, local government units, through their Sanggunian, may prescribe the terms and conditions for the imposition of toll fees or charges for the use of any public road, pier or wharf funded and constructed by them. A service fee imposed on vehicles using municipal roads leading to the wharf is thus valid. However, Section 133(e) of RA No. 7160 prohibits the imposition, in the guise of wharfage, of fees -- as well as all other taxes or charges in any form whatsoever -- on goods or merchandise. It is therefore irrelevant if the fees imposed are actually for police surveillance on the goods, because any other form of imposition on goods passing through the territorial jurisdiction of the municipality is clearly prohibited by Section 133(e). Under Section 131(y) of RA No. 7160, wharfage is defined as "a fee assessed against the cargo of a vessel engaged in foreign or domestic trade based on quantity, weight, or measure received and/or discharged by vessel." It is apparent that a wharfage does not lose its basic character by being labeled as a service fee "for police surveillance on all goods." Unpersuasive is the contention of respondent that petitioner would unjustly be enriched at the formers expense. Though the rules thereon apply equally well to the government,9 for unjust enrichment to be deemed present, two conditions must generally concur: (a) a person is unjustly benefited, and (b) such benefit is derived at anothers expense or damage.10 In the instant case, the benefits from the use of the municipal roads and the wharf were not unjustly derived by petitioner. Those benefits resulted from the infrastructure that the municipality was mandated by law to provide.11There is no unjust

enrichment where the one receiving the benefit has a legal right or entitlement thereto, or when there is no causal relation between ones enrichment and the others impoverishment.12 Second Issue: Remand of the Case Petitioner asserts that the remand of the case to the trial court for further reception of evidence is unnecessary, because the facts are undisputed by both parties. It has already been clearly established, without need for further evidence, that petitioner transports rice and corn on board trucks that pass through the municipal roads leading to the wharf. Under protest, it paid the service fees, a fact that respondent has readily admitted without qualification. Respondent, on the other hand, is silent on the issue of the remand of the case to the trial court. The former merely defends the validity of the ordinance, arguing neither for nor against the remand. We rule against the remand. Not only is it frowned upon by the Rules of Court;13 it is also unnecessary on the basis of the facts established by the admissions of the parties. Besides, the fact sought to be established with the reception of additional evidence is irrelevant to the due settlement of the case. The pertinent portion of the assailed CA Decision reads: "To be stressed is the fact that local government units now have the following common revenue raising powers under the Local Government Code: Section 153. Service Fees and Charges. -- Local government units may impose and collect such reasonable fees and charges for services rendered. xxxxxxxxx Section 155. Toll Fees or Charges. -- The Sanggunian concerned may prescribe the terms and conditions and fix the rates for the imposition of toll fees or charges for the use of any public road, pier or wharf, waterway, bridge, ferry or telecommunication system funded and constructed by the local government unit concerned: Provided, That no such toll fees or charges shall be collected from officers and enlisted men of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and members of the Philippine National Police on mission, post office personnel delivering mail, physically-handicapped, and disabled citizens who are sixty-five (65) years or older. When public safety and welfare so requires, the Sanggunian concerned may discontinue the collection of the tolls, and thereafter the said facility shall be free and open for public use. x x x "As we see it, the disputed municipal ordinance, which provides for a service fee for the use of the municipal road or streets leading to the wharf and to any point along the shorelines within the jurisdiction of the municipality and for police surveillance on all goods and all equipment harbored or sheltered in the premises of the wharf and other within the jurisdiction of this municipality, seems to fall within the compass of the above cited provisions of R.A. No. 7160. As elsewhere indicated, the parties in this case, nonetheless, chose to submit the issue to the Trial Court on a pure question of law, without a full-blown trial on the merits: consequently, we are not prepared to say, at this juncture, that the facts of the case inevitably call for the application, and/or that these make out a clear-cut case within the ambit and purview, of the aforecited section. The plaintiff, thus, has to adduce evidence to substantiate its thesis that the assailed municipal ordinance, in fact, imposes fees on the movement of goods within the jurisdiction of the defendant, and that this imposition is merely in the guise of a toll fee for the use of municipal roads and service fee for police surveillance. Competent evidence upon this score must, thus, be presented."14 We note that Section 5G.01 imposes two types of service fees: 1) one for the use of the municipal roads and 2) another for police surveillance on all goods and equipment sheltered in the premises of the wharf. The amount of service fees, however, is based on the type of vehicle that passes through the road and the type of goods being transported.1a\^/phi1.net While both parties admit that the service fees imposed are for the use of the municipal roads, petitioner maintains that the service fee for police surveillance on goods harbored on the wharf is in the guise of a wharfage,15 a prohibited imposition under Section 133(e) of RA No. 7160.

Thus, the CA held that the case should be remanded to the trial court in order to resolve this factual dispute. The appellate court noted that under Section 155 of RA No. 7160, municipalities apparently now have the power to impose fees for the use of municipal roads. Nevertheless, a remand is still unnecessary even if the service fee charged against the goods are for police surveillance, because Section 133(e) of RA No. 7160 expressly prohibits the imposition of all other taxes, fees or charges in any form whatsoever upon the merchandise or goods that pass through the territorial jurisdiction of local government units. It is therefore immaterial to the instant case whether the service fee on the goods is for police surveillance or not, since the subject provision of the revenue ordinance is invalid. Reception of further evidence to establish this fact would not legalize the imposition of such fee in any way. Furthermore, neither party disputes any of the other material facts of the case. From their respective Briefs before the CA and their Memoranda before this Court, they do not dispute the fact that petitioner, from its principal place of business, transports rice and corn on board trucks bound for respondents wharf. The trucks traverse the municipal roads en route to the wharf, where the sacks of rice and corn are manually loaded into marine vessels bound for Zamboanga City. Likewise undisputed is the fact that respondent imposed and collected fees under the ordinance from petitioner. The former admits that it has been collecting, in addition to the fees on vehicles, P0.50 for every sack of rice or corn that the latter has been shipping through the wharf.16 The foregoing allegations are formal judicial admissions that are conclusive upon the parties making them. They require no further proof in accordance with Section 4 of Rule 129 of the Rules of Court, which reads: "SEC. 4. Judicial admissions. An admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made." Judicial admissions made by parties in the pleadings, in the course of the trial, or in other proceedings in the same case are conclusive. No further evidence is required to prove them. Moreover, they cannot be contradicted unless it is shown that they have been made through palpable mistake, or that they have not been made at all.17 WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are hereby SET ASIDE. The imposition of a service fee for police surveillance on all goods harbored or sheltered in the premises of the municipal port of Malangas under Sec. 5G.01 of the Malangas Municipal Revenue Code No. 09, series of 1993, is declared NULL AND VOID for being violative of Republic Act No. 7160. SO ORDERED. Puno, (Chairman), Sandoval-Gutierrez and Carpio-Morales, JJ., concur. Corona, J., on leave.

[G.R. No. 125948. December 29, 1998]

FIRST PHILIPPINE INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HONORABLE PATERNO V. TAC-AN, BATANGAS CITY and ADORACION C. ARELLANO, in her official capacity as City Treasurer of Batangas, respondents. DECISION MARTINEZ, J.: This petition for review on certiorari assails the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated November 29, 1995, in CA-G.R. SP No. 36801, affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Batangas City, Branch 84, in Civil Case No. 4293, which dismissed petitioners' complaint for a business tax refund imposed by the City of Batangas. Petitioner is a grantee of a pipeline concession under Republic Act No. 387, as amended, to contract, install and operate oil pipelines. The original pipeline concession was granted in 1967[1] and renewed by the Energy Regulatory Board in 1992.[2] Sometime in January 1995, petitioner applied for a mayor's permit with the Office of the Mayor of Batangas City. However, before the mayor's permit could be issued, the respondent City Treasurer required petitioner to pay a local tax based on its gross receipts for the fiscal year 1993 pursuant to the Local Government Code. [3] The respondent City Treasurer assessed a business tax on the petitioner amounting to P956,076.04 payable in four installments based on the gross receipts for products pumped at GPS-1 for the fiscal year 1993 which amounted to P181,681,151.00. In order not to hamper its operations, petitioner paid the tax under protest in the amount of P239,019.01 for the first quarter of 1993. On January 20, 1994, petitioner filed a letter-protest addressed to the respondent City Treasurer, the pertinent portion of which reads: "Please note that our Company (FPIC) is a pipeline operator with a government concession granted under the Petroleum Act. It is engaged in the business of transporting petroleum products from the Batangas refineries, via pipeline, to Sucat and JTF Pandacan Terminals. As such, our Company is exempt from paying tax on gross receipts under Section 133 of the Local Government Code of 1991 x x x x "Moreover, Transportation contractors are not included in the enumeration of contractors under Section 131, Paragraph (h) of the Local Government Code. Therefore, the authority to impose tax 'on contractors and other independent contractors' under Section 143, Paragraph (e) of the Local Government Code does not include the power to levy on transportation contractors. "The imposition and assessment cannot be categorized as a mere fee authorized under Section 147 of the Local Government Code. The said section limits the imposition of fees and charges on business to such amounts as may be commensurate to the cost of regulation, inspection, and licensing. Hence, assuming arguendo that FPIC is liable for the license fee, the imposition thereof based on gross receipts is violative of the aforecited provision. The amount of P956,076.04 (P239,019.01 per quarter) is not commensurate to the cost of regulation, inspection and licensing. The fee is already a revenue raising measure, and not a mere regulatory imposition."[4] On March 8, 1994, the respondent City Treasurer denied the protest contending that petitioner cannot be considered engaged in transportation business, thus it cannot claim exemption under Section 133 (j) of the Local Government Code.[5] On June 15, 1994, petitioner filed with the Regional Trial Court of Batangas City a complaint[6] for tax refund with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction against respondents City of Batangas and Adoracion Arellano in her capacity as City Treasurer. In its complaint, petitioner alleged, inter alia, that: (1) the imposition and collection of the business tax on its gross receipts violates Section 133 of the Local Government Code; (2) the authority of cities to impose and collect a tax on the gross receipts of "contractors and independent contractors" under Sec. 141 (e) and 151 does not include the authority to collect such taxes on transportation contractors for, as defined under Sec. 131 (h), the term "contractors" excludes transportation contractors; and, (3) the City Treasurer illegally and erroneously imposed and collected the said tax, thus meriting the immediate refund of the tax paid.[7] Traversing the complaint, the respondents argued that petitioner cannot be exempt from taxes under Section 133 (j) of the Local Government Code as said exemption applies only to "transportation contractors and persons engaged in the transportation by hire and common carriers by air, land and water." Respondents assert that pipelines are not included in the term "common carrier" which refers solely to ordinary carriers such as trucks, trains, ships and the like. Respondents further posit that the term "common carrier" under the said code pertains to the mode or manner by which a product is delivered to its destination.[8] On October 3, 1994, the trial court rendered a decision dismissing the complaint, ruling in this wise:

"xxx Plaintiff is either a contractor or other independent contractor. xxx the exemption to tax claimed by the plaintiff has become unclear. It is a rule that tax exemptions are to be strictly construed against the taxpayer, taxes being the lifeblood of the government. Exemption may therefore be granted only by clear and unequivocal provisions of law. "Plaintiff claims that it is a grantee of a pipeline concession under Republic Act 387, (Exhibit A) whose concession was lately renewed by the Energy Regulatory Board (Exhibit B). Yet neither said law nor the deed of concession grant any tax exemption upon the plaintiff. "Even the Local Government Code imposes a tax on franchise holders under Sec. 137 of the Local Tax Code. Such being the situation obtained in this case (exemption being unclear and equivocal) resort to distinctions or other considerations may be of help: 1. That the exemption granted under Sec. 133 (j) encompasses only common carriers so as not to overburden the riding public or commuters with taxes. Plaintiff is not a common carrier, but a special carrier extending its services and facilities to a single specific or "special customer" under a "special contract." The Local Tax Code of 1992 was basically enacted to give more and effective local autonomy to local governments than the previous enactments, to make them economically and financially viable to serve the people and discharge their functions with a concomitant obligation to accept certain devolution of powers, x x x So, consistent with this policy even franchise grantees are taxed (Sec. 137) and contractors are also taxed under Sec. 143 (e) and 151 of the Code."[9]

2.

Petitioner assailed the aforesaid decision before this Court via a petition for review. On February 27, 1995, we referred the case to the respondent Court of Appeals for consideration and adjudication.[10] On November 29, 1995, the respondent court rendered a decision[11] affirming the trial court's dismissal of petitioner's complaint. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied on July 18, 1996.[12] Hence, this petition. At first, the petition was denied due course in a Resolution dated November 11, 1996.[13] Petitioner moved for a reconsideration which was granted by this Court in a Resolution[14] of January 20, 1997. Thus, the petition was reinstated. Petitioner claims that the respondent Court of Appeals erred in holding that (1) the petitioner is not a common carrier or a transportation contractor, and (2) the exemption sought for by petitioner is not clear under the law. There is merit in the petition. A "common carrier" may be defined, broadly, as one who holds himself out to the public as engaged in the business of transporting persons or property from place to place, for compensation, offering his services to the public generally. Article 1732 of the Civil Code defines a "common carrier" as "any person, corporation, firm or association engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both, by land, water, or air, for compensation, offering their services to the public." The test for determining whether a party is a common carrier of goods is: 1. He must be engaged in the business of carrying goods for others as a public employment, and must hold himself out as ready to engage in the transportation of goods for person generally as a business and not as a casual occupation; He must undertake to carry goods of the kind to which his business is confined; He must undertake to carry by the method by which his business is conducted and over his established roads; and The transportation must be for hire.[15]

2. 3. 4.

Based on the above definitions and requirements, there is no doubt that petitioner is a common carrier. It is engaged in the business of transporting or carrying goods, i.e. petroleum products, for hire as a public employment. It undertakes to carry for all persons indifferently, that is, to all persons who choose to employ its services, and transports the goods by land and for compensation. The fact that petitioner has a limited clientele does not exclude it from the definition of a common carrier. In De Guzman vs. Court of Appeals[16] we ruled that: "The above article (Art. 1732, Civil Code) makes no distinction between one whose principal business activity is the carrying of persons or goods or both, and one who does such carrying only as an ancillary activity (in local idiom, as a 'sideline'). Article 1732 x

x x avoids making any distinction between a person or enterprise offering transportation service on a regular or scheduled basis and one offering such service on an occasional, episodic or unscheduled basis. Neither does Article 1732 distinguish between a carrier offering its services to the 'general public,' i.e., the general community or population, and one who offers services or solicits business only from a narrow segment of the general population. We think that Article 1877 deliberately refrained from making such distinctions. So understood, the concept of 'common carrier' under Article 1732 may be seen to coincide neatly with the notion of 'public service,' under the Public Service Act (Commonwealth Act No. 1416, as amended) which at least partially supplements the law on common carriers set forth in the Civil Code. Under Section 13, paragraph (b) of the Public Service Act, 'public service' includes: 'every person that now or hereafter may own, operate, manage, or control in the Philippines, for hire or compensation, with general or limited clientele, whether permanent, occasional or accidental, and done for general business purposes, any common carrier, railroad, street railway, traction railway, subway motor vehicle, either for freight or passenger, or both, with or without fixed route and whatever may be its classification, freight or carrier service of any class, express service, steamboat, or steamship line, pontines, ferries and water craft, engaged in the transportation of passengers or freight or both, shipyard, marine repair shop, wharf or dock, ice plant, ice-refrigeration plant, canal, irrigation system gas, electric light heat and power, water supply and power petroleum, sewerage system, wire or wireless communications systems, wire or wireless broadcasting stations and other similar public services.' "(Underscoring Supplied) Also, respondent's argument that the term "common carrier" as used in Section 133 (j) of the Local Government Code refers only to common carriers transporting goods and passengers through moving vehicles or vessels either by land, sea or water, is erroneous. As correctly pointed out by petitioner, the definition of "common carriers" in the Civil Code makes no distinction as to the means of transporting, as long as it is by land, water or air. It does not provide that the transportation of the passengers or goods should be by motor vehicle. In fact, in the United States, oil pipe line operators are considered common carriers.[17] Under the Petroleum Act of the Philippines (Republic Act 387), petitioner is considered a "common carrier." Thus, Article 86 thereof provides that: "Art. 86. Pipe line concessionaire as a common carrier. - A pipe line shall have the preferential right to utilize installations for the transportation of petroleum owned by him, but is obligated to utilize the remaining transportation capacity pro rata for the transportation of such other petroleum as may be offered by others for transport, and to charge without discrimination such rates as may have been approved by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources." Republic Act 387 also regards petroleum operation as a public utility. Pertinent portion of Article 7 thereof provides: "that everything relating to the exploration for and exploitation of petroleum x x and everything relating to the manufacture, refining, storage, or transportation by special methods of petroleum, is hereby declared to be a public utility." (Underscoring Supplied) The Bureau of Internal Revenue likewise considers the petitioner a "common carrier." In BIR Ruling No. 069-83, it declared: "x x x since [petitioner] is a pipeline concessionaire that is engaged only in transporting petroleum products, it is considered a common carrier under Republic Act No. 387 x x x. Such being the case, it is not subject to withholding tax prescribed by Revenue Regulations No. 13-78, as amended." From the foregoing disquisition, there is no doubt that petitioner is a "common carrier" and, therefore, exempt from the business tax as provided for in Section 133 (j), of the Local Government Code, to wit: "Section 133. Common Limitations on the Taxing Powers of Local Government Units. - Unless otherwise provided herein, the exercise of the taxing powers of provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays shall not extend to the levy of the following : xxx (j) xxx xxx

Taxes on the gross receipts of transportation contractors and persons engaged in the transportation of passengers or freight by hire and common carriers by air, land or water, except as provided in this Code."

The deliberations conducted in the House of Representatives on the Local Government Code of 1991 are illuminating: "MR. AQUINO (A). Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we would like to proceed to page 95, line 1. It states : "SEC.121 [now Sec. 131]. Common Limitations on the Taxing Powers of Local Government Units." x x x MR. AQUINO (A.). Thank you Mr. Speaker. Still on page 95, subparagraph 5, on taxes on the business of transportation. This appears to be one of those being deemed to be exempted from the taxing powers of the local government units. May we know the reason why the transportation business is being excluded from the taxing powers of the local government units? MR. JAVIER (E.). Mr. Speaker, there is an exception contained in Section 121 (now Sec. 131), line 16, paragraph 5. It states that local government units may not impose taxes on the business of transportation, except as otherwise provided in this code. Now, Mr. Speaker, if the Gentleman would care to go to page 98 of Book II, one can see there that provinces have the power to impose a tax on business enjoying a franchise at the rate of not more than one-half of 1 percent of the gross annual receipts. So, transportation contractors who are enjoying a franchise would be subject to tax by the province. That is the exception, Mr. Speaker. What we want to guard against here, Mr. Speaker, is the imposition of taxes by local government units on the carrier business. Local government units may impose taxes on top of what is already being imposed by the National Internal Revenue Code which is the so-called "common carriers tax." We do not want a duplication of this tax, so we just provided for an exception under Section 125 [now Sec. 137] that a province may impose this tax at a specific rate. MR. AQUINO (A.). Thank you for that clarification, Mr. Speaker. x x x[18] It is clear that the legislative intent in excluding from the taxing power of the local government unit the imposition of business tax against common carriers is to prevent a duplication of the so-called "common carrier's tax." Petitioner is already paying three (3%) percent common carrier's tax on its gross sales/earnings under the National Internal Revenue Code.[19] To tax petitioner again on its gross receipts in its transportation of petroleum business would defeat the purpose of the Local Government Code. WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The decision of the respondent Court of Appeals dated November 29, 1995 in CA-G.R. SP No. 36801 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. SO ORDERED. Bellosillo, (Chairman), Puno, and Mendoza, JJ., concur.

[G. R. No. 131512. January 20, 2000] LAND TRANSPORTATION OFFICE [LTO], represented by Assistant Secretary Manuel F. Bruan, LTO Regional Office, Region X represented by its Regional Director, Timoteo A. Garcia; and LTO Butuan represented by Rosita G. Sadiaga, its Registrar, petitioners, vs. CITY OF BUTUAN, represented in this case by Democrito D. Plaza II, City Mayor, respondents. DECISION VITUG, J.: The 1987 Constitution enunciates the policy that the territorial and political subdivisions shall enjoy local autonomy.[1] In obedience to that, mandate of the fundamental law, Republic Act ("R.A.") No.7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code,[2] expresses that the territorial and political subdivisions of the State shall enjoy genuine and meaningful local autonomy in order to enable them to attain their fullest development as self-reliant communities and make them more effective partners in the attainment of national goals, and that it is a basic aim of the State to 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. While the Constitution seeks to strengthen local units and ensure their viability, clearly, however, it has never been the intention of that organic law to create animperium in imperio and install an intra sovereign political subdivision independent of a single sovereign state. The Court is asked in this instance to resolve the issue of whether under the present set up the power of the Land Registration Office ("LTO") to register, tricycles in particular, as well as to issue licenses for the driving thereof, has likewise devolved to local government units. The Regional Trial Court (Branch 2) of Butuan City held:[3] that the authority to register tricycles, the grant of the corresponding franchise, the issuance of tricycle drivers' license, and the collection of fees therefor had all been vested in the Local Government Units ("LGUs"). Accordingly, it decreed the issuance of a permanent writ of injunction against LTO, prohibiting and enjoining LTO, as well as its employees and other persons acting in its behalf, from (a) registering tricycles and (b) issuing licenses to drivers of tricycles. The Court of Appeals, on appeal to it, sustained the trial court. The adverse rulings of both the court a quo and the appellate court prompted the LTO to file the instant petition for review on certiorari to annul and set aside the decision,[4] dated 17 November 1997, of the Court of Appeals affirming the permanent injunctive writ order of the Regional Trial Court (Branch 2) of Butuan City. Respondent City of Butuan asserts that one of the salient provisions introduced by the Local Government Code is in the area of local taxation which allows LGUs to collect registration fees or charges along with, in its view, the corresponding issuance of all kinds of licenses or permits for the driving of tricycles. The 1987 Constitution provides: "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. Such taxes, fees, and charges shall accrue exclusively to the local governments."[5] Section 129 and Section 133 of the Local Government Code read: "SEC. 129. Power to Create Sources of Revenue. - Each local government unit shall exercise its power to create its own sources of revenue and to levy taxes, fees, and charges subject to the provisions herein, consistent with the basic policy of local autonomy. Such taxes, fees, and charges shall accrue exclusively to the 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 barangays shall not extend to the levy of the following: "xxx.......xxx.......xxx. "(I) Taxes, fees or charges for the registration of motor vehicles and for the issuance of all kinds of licenses or permits for the driving thereof, except tricycles." Relying on the foregoing provisions of the law, the Sangguniang Panglungsod ("SP") of Butuan, on 16 August 1992, passed SP Ordinance No.916-92 entitled"An Ordinance Regulating the Operation of Tricycles-for-Hire, providing mechanism for the issuance of Franchise, Registration and Permit, and Imposing Penalties for Violations thereof and for other Purposes." The ordinance provided for, among other things, the payment of franchise fees for the grant of the franchise of tricycles-for-hire, fees for the registration of the vehicle, and fees for the issuance of a permit for the driving thereof. Petitioner LTO explains that one of the functions of the national government that, indeed, has been transferred to local government units is the franchising authority over tricycles-for-hire of the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board ("LTFRB") but not, it asseverates, the authority of LTO to register all motor vehicles and to issue to qualified persons of licenses to drive such vehicles. In order to settle the variant positions of the parties, the City of Butuan, represented by its City Mayor Democrito D. Plaza, filed on 28 June 1994 with the trial court a petition for "prohibition, mandamus, injunction with a prayer for preliminary restraining order exparte" seeking the declaration of the validity of SP Ordinance No.962-93 and the prohibition of the registration of tricycles-for-hire and the issuance of licenses for the driving thereof by the LTO. LTO opposed the prayer in the petition. On 20 March 1995, the trial court rendered a resolution; the dispositive portion read: "In view of the foregoing, let a permanent injunctive writ be issued against the respondent Land Transportation Office and the other respondents, prohibiting and enjoining them, their employees, officers, attorney's or other persons acting in their behalf from forcing or compelling Tricycles to be registered with, and drivers to secure their licenses from respondent LTO or secure franchise from LTFRB and from collecting fees thereon. It should be understood that the registration, franchise of tricycles and driver's license/permit granted or issued by the City of Butuan are valid only within the territorial limits of Butuan City. "No pronouncement as to costs."[6] Petitioners timely moved for a reconsideration of the above resolution but it was to no avail. Petitioners then appealed to the Court of Appeals. In its now assailed decision, the appellate court, on 17 November 1997, sustained the trial court. It ruled: "WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED and the questioned permanent injunctive writ issued by the court a quo dated March 20, 1995 AFFIRMED."[7] Coming up to this Court, petitioners raise this sole assignment of error, to wit: "The Court of Appeals [has] erred in sustaining the validity of the writ of injunction issued by the trial court which enjoined LTO from (1) registering tricycles-for-hire and (2) issuing licenses for the driving thereof since the Local Government Code devolved only the franchising authority of the LTFRB. Functions of the LTO were not devolved to the LGU's."[8] The petition is impressed with merit. The Department of Transportation and Communications[9] ("DOTC"), through the LTO and the LTFRB, has since been tasked with implementing laws pertaining to land transportation. The LTO is a line agency under the DOTC whose powers and functions, pursuant to Article III, Section 4 (d) (1),[10] of R.A. No.4136, otherwise known as Land Transportation and Traffic Code, as amended, deal primarily with the registration of all motor vehicles and the licensing of drivers thereof. The LTFRB, upon the other hand, is the governing body tasked by E.O. No. 202, dated 19 June 1987, to regulate the operation of public utility or "for hire" vehicles and to

grant franchises or certificates of public convenience ("CPC").[11] Finely put, registration and licensing functions are vested in the LTO whilefranchising and regulatory responsibilities had been vested in the LTFRB. Under the Local Government Code, certain functions of the DOTC were transferred to the LGUs, thusly: "SEC. 458. Powers, Duties, Functions and Compensation. - "xxx.......xxx.......xxx "(3) Subject to the provisions of Book II of this Code, enact ordinances granting franchises and authorizing the issuance of permits or licenses, upon such conditions and for such purposes intended to promote the general welfare of the inhabitants of the city and pursuant to this legislative authority shall: "xxx.......xxx.......xxx. "(VI) Subject to the guidelines prescribed by the Department of Transportation and Communications, regulate the operation of tricycles andgrant franchises for the operation thereof within the territorial jurisdiction of the city." (Emphasis supplied) LGUs indubitably now have the power to regulate the operation of tricycles-for-hire and to grant franchises for the operation thereof. "To regulate" means to fix, establish, or control; to adjust by rule, method, or established mode; to direct by rule or restriction; or to subject to governing principles or laws.[12] A franchise is defined to be a special privilege to do certain things conferred by government on an individual or corporation, and which does not belong to citizens generally of common right.[13] On the other hand, "to register" means to record formally and exactly, to enroll, or to enter precisely in a list or the like,[14] and a "driver's license" is the certificate or license issued by the government which authorizes a person to operate a motor vehicle.[15] The devolution of the functions of the DOTC, performed by the LTFRB, to the LGUs, as so aptly observed by the Solicitor General, is aimed at curbing the alarming increase of accidents in national highways involving tricycles. It has been the perception that local governments are in good position to achieve the end desired by the law-making body because of their proximity to the situation that can enable them to address that serious concern better than the national government. It may not be amiss to state, nevertheless, that under Article 458 (a)[3-VI] of the Local Government Code, the power of LGUs to regulate the operation of tricycles and to grant franchises for the operation thereof is still subject to the guidelines prescribed by the DOTC. In compliance therewith, the Department of Transportation and Communications ("DOTC") issued "Guidelines to Implement the Devolution of LTFRBs Franchising Authority over Tricycles-For-Hire to Local Government units pursuant to the Local Government Code." Pertinent provisions of the guidelines state: "In lieu of the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) in the DOTC, the Sangguniang Bayan/Sangguniang Panglungsod (SB/SP) shall perform the following: "(a) Issue, amend, revise, renew, suspend, or cancel MTOP and prescribe the appropriate terms and conditions therefor; "xxx.......xxx.......xxx. "Operating Conditions: "1. For safety reasons, no tricycles should operate on national highways utilized by 4 wheel vehicles greater than 4 tons and where normal speed exceed 40 KPH. However, the SB/SP may provide exceptions if there is no alternative routs. "2. Zones must be within the boundaries of the municipality/city. However, existing zones within more than one municipality/city shall be maintained, provided that operators serving said zone shall secure MTOP's from each of the municipalities/cities having jurisdiction over the areas covered by the zone. "3. A common color for tricycles-for-hire operating in the same zone may be imposed. Each unit shall be assigned and bear an identification number, aside from its LTO license plate number.

"4. An operator wishing to stop service completely, or to suspend service for more than one month, should report in writing such termination or suspension to the SB/SP which originally granted the MTOP prior thereto. Transfer to another zone may be permitted upon application. "5. The MTOP shall be valid for three (3) years, renewable for the same period. Transfer to another zone, change of ownership of unit or transfer of MTOP shall be construed as an amendment to an MTOP and shall require appropriate approval of the SB/SP. "6. Operators shall employ only drivers duly licensed by LTO for tricycles-for-hire. "7. No tricycle-for-hire shall be allowed to carry more passengers and/or goods than it is designed for. "8. A tricycle-for-hire shall be allowed to operate like a taxi service, i.e., service is rendered upon demand and without a fixed route within a zone."[16] Such as can be gleaned from the explicit language of the statute, as well as the corresponding guidelines issued by DOTC, the newly delegated powers pertain to the franchising and regulatory powers theretofore exercised by the LTFRB and not to the functions of the LTO relative to the registration of motor vehicles and issuance of licenses for the driving thereof. Clearly unaffected by the Local Government Code are the powers of LTO under R.A. No.4136 requiring the registration of all kinds of motor vehicles "used or operated on or upon any public highway" in the country. Thus "SEC. 5. All motor vehicles and other vehicles must be registered. - (a) No motor vehicle shall be used or operated on or upon any public highway of the Philippines unless the same is properly registered for the current year in accordance with the provisions of this Act (Article 1, Chapter II, R.A. No. 4136). The Commissioner of Land Transportation and his deputies are empowered at anytime to examine and inspect such motor vehicles to determine whether said vehicles are registered, or are unsightly, unsafe, improperly marked or equipped, or otherwise unfit to be operated on because of possible excessive damage to highways, bridges and other infrastructures.[17] The LTO is additionally charged with being the central repository and custodian of all records of all motor vehicles.[18] The Court shares the apprehension of the Solicitor General if the above functions were to likewise devolve to local government units; he states: "If the tricycle registration function of respondent LTO is decentralized, the incidence of theft of tricycles will most certainly go up, and stolen tricycles registered in one local government could be registered in another with ease. The determination of ownership thereof will also become very difficult. "Fake driver's licenses will likewise proliferate. This likely scenario unfolds where a tricycle driver, not qualified by petitioner LTO's testing, could secure a license from one municipality, and when the same is confiscated, could just go another municipality to secure another license. "Devolution will entail the hiring of additional personnel charged with inspecting tricycles for road worthiness, testing drivers, and documentation. Revenues raised from tricycle registration may not be enough to meet salaries of additional personnel and incidental costs for tools and equipment."[19] The reliance made by respondents on the broad taxing power of local government units, specifically under Section 133 of the Local Government Code, is tangential. Police power and taxation, along with eminent domain, are inherent powers of sovereignty which the State might share with local government units by delegation given under a constitutional or a statutory fiat. All these inherent powers are for a public purpose and legislative in nature but the similarities just about end there. The basic aim of police power is public good and welfare. Taxation, in its case, focuses on the power of government to raise revenue in order to support its existence and carry out its legitimate objectives. Although correlative to each other in many respects, the grant of one does not necessarily carry with it the grant of the other. The two powers are, by tradition and jurisprudence, separate and distinct powers, varying in their respective concepts, character, scopes and limitations. To construe the tax provisions of Section 133(1) indistinctively would result in the repeal to that extent of LTO's regulatory power which evidently has not been intended. If it were otherwise, the law could have just said so in Section 447 and 458 of Book III of the Local Government Code in the same manner that the specific devolution of LTFRB's power on franchising of tricycles has been provided. Repeal by implication is not favored.[20] The power over tricycles granted under Section 458(a)(3)(VI) of the Local Government Code to LGUs is the power to regulate their operation and to grant franchises for the operation thereof. The exclusionary clause contained in the tax provisions of Section 133(1) of the Local Government Code must not be held to have had the effect of withdrawing the express power of LTO to cause the registration of all motor vehicles and the issuance of

licenses for the driving thereof. These functions of the LTO are essentially regulatory in nature, exercised pursuant to the police power of the State, whose basic objectives are to achieve road safety by insuring the road worthiness of these motor vehicles and the competence of drivers prescribed by R. A. 4136. Not insignificant is the rule that a statute must not be construed in isolation but must be taken in harmony with the extant body of laws.[21] The Court cannot end this decision without expressing its own serious concern over the seeming laxity in the grant of franchises for the operation of tricycles-for-hire and in allowing the indiscriminate use by such vehicles on public highways and principal thoroughfares. Senator Aquilino C. Pimentel, Jr., the principal author, and sponsor of the bill that eventually has become to be known as the Local Government Code, has aptly remarked: "Tricycles are a popular means of transportation, specially in the countryside. They are, unfortunately, being allowed to drive along highways and principal thoroughfares where they pose hazards to their passengers arising from potential collisions with buses, cars and jeepneys. "The operation of tricycles within a municipality may be regulated by the Sangguniang Bayan. In this connection, the Sangguniangconcerned would do well to consider prohibiting the operation of tricycles along or across highways invite collisions with faster and bigger vehicles and impede the flow of traffic."[22] The need for ensuring public safety and convenience to commuters and pedestrians alike is paramount. It might be well, indeed, for public officials concerned to pay heed to a number of provisions in our laws that can warrant in appropriate cases an incurrence of criminal and civil liabilities. Thus The Revised Penal Code "Art. 208. Prosecution of offenses; negligence and tolerance. - The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period and suspension shall be imposed upon any public officer, or officer of the law, who, in dereliction of the duties of his office, shall maliciously refrain from instituting prosecution for the punishment of violators of the law, or shall tolerate the commission of offenses." The Civil Code "Art. 27. Any person suffering material or moral loss because a public servant or employee refuses or neglects, without just cause, to perform his official duty may file an action for damages and other relief against the latter, without prejudice to any disciplinary administrative action that may be taken." "Art. 34. When a member of a city or municipal police force refuses or fails to render aid or protection to any person in case of danger to life or property, such peace officer shall be primarily liable for damages, and the city or municipality shall be subsidiarily responsible therefor. The civil action herein recognized shall be independent of any criminal, proceedings, and a preponderance of evidence shall suffice to support such action." "Art. 2189. Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be liable for damages for the death of, or injuries suffered by, any person by reason of the defective condition of roads, streets, bridges, public buildings, and other public works under their control or supervision." The Local Government Code "Sec. 24. Liability for Damages. - Local government units and their officials are not exempt from liability for death or injury to persons or damage to property." WHEREFORE, the assailed decision which enjoins the Land Transportation Office from requiring the due registration of tricycles and a license for the driving thereof is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. No pronouncements on costs. Let copies of this decision be likewise furnished the Department of Interior and Local Governments, the Department of Public Works and Highways and the Department of Transportation and Communication. SO ORDERED.

Melo, (Chairman), Panganiban, Purisima, and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.

G.R. No. L-45355 January 12, 1990 THE PROVINCE OF MISAMIS ORIENTAL, represented by its PROVINCIAL TREASURER, petitioner, vs. CAGAYAN ELECTRIC POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, INC. (CEPALCO), respondent. Jaime A. Chaves for petitioner. Quiason, Makalintal, Barot & Torres for respondent.

GRIO-AQUINO, J.: The issue in this case is a legal one: whether or not a corporation whose franchise expressly provides that the payment of the "franchise tax of three per centum of the gross earnings shall be in lieu of all taxes and assessments of whatever authority upon privileges, earnings, income, franchise, and poles, wires, transformers, and insulators of the grantee." (p. 20, Rollo), is exempt from paying a provincial franchise tax. Cagayan Electric Power and Light Company, Inc. (CEPALCO for short) was granted a franchise on June 17, 1961 under Republic Act No. 3247 to install, operate and maintain an electric light, heat and power system in the City of Cagayan de Oro and its suburbs. Said franchise was amended on June 21, 1963 by R.A. No. 3570 which added the municipalities of Tagoloan and Opol to CEPALCO's sphere of operation, and was further amended on August 4, 1969 by R.A. No. 6020 which extended its field of operation to the municipalities of Villanueva and Jasaan. R.A. Nos. 3247, 3570 and 6020 uniformly provide that: Sec. 3. In consideration of the franchise and rights hereby granted, the grantee shall pay a franchise tax equal to three per centum of the gross earnings for electric current sold under this franchise, of which two per centum goes into the National Treasury and one per centum goes into the treasury of the Municipalities of Tagoloan, Opol, Villanueva and Jasaan and Cagayan de Oro City, as the case may be: Provided, That the said franchise tax of three per centum of the gross earnings shall be in lieu of all taxes and assessments of whatever authority upon privileges earnings, income, franchise,and poles, wires, transformers, and insulators of the grantee from which taxes and assessments the grantee is hereby expressly exempted. (Emphasis supplied.) On June 28, 1973, the Local Tax Code (P.D. No. 231) was promulgated, Section 9 of which provides: Sec. 9. Franchise Tax.Any provision of special laws to the contrary notwithstanding, the province may impose a tax on businesses enjoying franchise, based on the gross receipts realized within its territorial jurisdiction, at the rate of not exceeding one-half of one per cent of the gross annual receipts for the preceding calendar year. In the case of newly started business, the rate shall not exceed three thousand pesos per year. Sixty per cent of the proceeds of the tax shall accrue to the general fund of the province and forty per cent to the general fund of the municipalities serviced by the business on the basis of the gross annual receipts derived therefrom by the franchise holder. In the case of a newly started business, forty per cent of the proceeds of the tax shall be divided equally among the municipalities serviced by the business. (Emphasis supplied.)

Pursuant thereto, the Province of Misamis Oriental (herein petitioner) enacted Provincial Revenue Ordinance No. 19, whose Section 12 reads: Sec. 12. Franchise Tax.There shall be levied, collected and paid on businesses enjoying franchise tax of one-half of one per cent of their gross annual receipts for the preceding calendar year realized within the territorial jurisdiction of the province of Misamis Oriental. (p. 27, Rollo.) The Provincial Treasurer of Misamis Oriental demanded payment of the provincial franchise tax from CEPALCO. The company refused to pay, alleging that it is exempt from all taxes except the franchise tax required by R.A. No. 6020. Nevertheless, in view of the opinion rendered by the Provincial Fiscal, upon CEPALCO's request, upholding the legality of the Revenue Ordinance, CEPALCO paid under protest on May 27, 1974 the sum of P 4,276.28 and appealed the fiscal's ruling to the Secretary of Justice who reversed it and ruled in favor of CEPALCO. On June 26, 1976, the Secretary of Finance issued Local Tax Regulation No. 3-75 adopting entirely the opinion of the Secretary of Justice. On February 16, 1976, the Province filed in the Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental a complaint for declaratory relief praying, among others, that the Court exercise its power to construe P.D. No. 231 in relation to the franchise of CEPALCO (R.A. No. 6020), and to declare the franchise as having been amended by P.D. No. 231. The Court dismissed the complaint and ordered the Province to return to CEPALCO the sum of P4,276.28 paid under protest. The Province has appealed to this Court, alleging that the lower court erred in holding that: 1) CEPALCO's tax exemption under Section 3 of Republic Act No. 6020 was not amended or repealed by P.D. No. 231; 2) the imposition of the provincial franchise tax on CEPALCO would subvert the purpose of P.D. No. 231; 3) CEPALCO is exempt from paying the provincial franchise tax; and 4) petitioner should refund CEPALCO's tax payment of P4,276.28. We find no merit in the petition for review. There is no provision in P.D. No. 231 expressly or impliedly amending or repealing Section 3 of R.A. No. 6020. The perceived repugnancy between the two statutes should be very clear before the Court may hold that the prior one has been repealed by the later, since there is no express provision to that effect (Manila Railroad Co. vs. Rafferty, 40 Phil. 224). The rule is that a special and local statute applicable to a particular case is not repealed by a later statute which is general in its terms, provisions and application even if the terms of the general act are broad enough to include the cases in the special law (id.) unless there is manifest intent to repeal or alter the special law. Republic Acts Nos. 3247, 3570 and 6020 are special laws applicable only to CEPALCO, while P.D. No. 231 is a general tax law. The presumption is that the special statutes are exceptions to the general law (P.D. No. 231) because they pertain to a special charter granted to meet a particular set of conditions and circumstances. The franchise of respondent CEPALCO expressly exempts it from payment of "all taxes of whatever authority" except the three per centum (3%) tax on its gross earnings. In an earlier case, the phrase "shall be in lieu of all taxes and at any time levied, established by, or collected by any authority" found in the franchise of the Visayan Electric Company was held to exempt the company from payment of the 5% tax on corporate franchise provided in Section 259 of the Internal Revenue Code (Visayan Electric Co. vs. David, 49 O.G. [No. 4] 1385). Similarly, we ruled that the provision: "shall be in lieu of all taxes of every name and nature" in the franchise of the Manila Railroad (Subsection 12, Section 1, Act No. 1510) exempts the Manila Railroad from payment of internal revenue tax for its importations of coal and oil under Act No. 2432 and the Amendatory Acts of the Philippine Legislature (Manila Railroad vs. Rafferty, 40 Phil. 224).

The same phrase found in the franchise of the Philippine Railway Co. (Sec. 13, Act No. 1497) justified the exemption of the Philippine Railway Company from payment of the tax on its corporate franchise under Section 259 of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended by R.A. No. 39 (Philippine Railway Co. vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, 91 Phil. 35). Those magic words: "shall be in lieu of all taxes" also excused the Cotabato Light and Ice Plant Company from the payment of the tax imposed by Ordinance No. 7 of the City of Cotabato (Cotabato Light and Power Co. vs. City of Cotabato, 32 SCRA 231). So was the exemption upheld in favor of the Carcar Electric and Ice Plant Company when it was required to pay the corporate franchise tax under Section 259 of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended by R.A. No. 39 (Carcar Electric & Ice Plant vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, 53 O.G. [No. 4] 1068). This Court pointed out that such exemption is part of the inducement for the acceptance of the franchise and the rendition of public service by the grantee. As a charter is in the nature of a private contract, the imposition of another franchise tax on the corporation by the local authority would constitute an impairment of the contract between the government and the corporation. Recently, this Court ruled that the franchise (R.A. No. 3843) of the Lingayen Gulf Electric Power Company which provided that the company shall pay: tax equal to 2% per annum of the gross receipts . . . and shall be in lieu of any and all taxes . . . now or in the future . . . from which taxes . . . the grantee is hereby expressly exempted and . . . no other tax . . . other than the franchise tax of 2% on the gross receipts as provided for in the original franchise shall be collected. exempts the company from paying the franchise tax under Section 259 of the National Internal Revenue Code (Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Lingayen Gulf Electric Power Co., Inc., G.R. No. 23771, August 4, 1988). On the other hand, the Balanga Power Plant Company, Imus Electric Company, Inc., Guagua Electric Company, Inc. were subjected to the 5% tax on corporate franchise under Section 259 of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, because Act No. 667 of the Philippine Commission and the ordinance or resolutions granting their respective franchises did not contain the "in-lieu-of-all-taxes" clause (Balanga Power Plant Co. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. L-20499, June 30, 1965; Imus Electric Co. vs. Court of Tax Appeals, G.R. No. L-22421, March 18, 1967; Guagua Electric Light vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. L-23611, April 24, 1967). Local Tax Regulation No. 3-75 issued by the Secretary of Finance on June 26, 1976, has made it crystal clear that the franchise tax provided in the Local Tax Code (P.D. No. 231, Sec. 9) may only be imposed on companies with franchises that do not contain the exempting clause. Thus it provides: The franchise tax imposed under local tax ordinance pursuant to Section 9 of the Local Tax Code, as amended, shall be collected from businesses holding franchise but not from business establishments whose franchise contain the "in-lieu-of-all-taxes-proviso". Manila Electric Company vs. Vera, 67 SCRA 351, cited by the petitioner, is not applicable here because what the Government sought to impose on Meralco in that case was not a franchise tax but a compensating tax on the poles, wires, transformers and insulators which it imported for its use. WHEREFORE, the petition for review is denied, and the decision of the Court of First Instance is hereby affirmedin toto. No costs. SO ORDERED. Narvasa, Cruz, Gancayco and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 127708. March 25, 1999]

CITY GOVERNMENT OF SAN PABLO, LAGUNA, CITY TREASURER OF SAN PABLO, LAGUNA, and THE SANGGUNIANG PANGLUNSOD OF SAN PABLO, LAGUNA, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE BIENVENIDO V. REYES, in his capacity as Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 29, San Pablo City and the MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, respondents. DECISION GONZAGA-REYES, J.: This is a petition under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court to review on a pure question of law the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Pablo City, Branch 29 in Civil Case No. SP-4459(96), entitled Manila Electric Company vs. City of San Pablo, Laguna, City Treasurer of San Pablo Laguna, and the Sangguniang Panglunsod of San Pablo City, Laguna. The RTC declared the imposition of franchise tax under Section 2.09 Article D of Ordinance No. 56 otherwise known as the Revenue Code of the City of San Pablo as ineffective and void insofar as the respondent MERALCO is concerned for being violative of Act No. 3648, Republic Act No. 2340 and PD 551. The RTC also granted MERALCOS claim for refund of franchise taxes paid under protest. The following antecedent facts are undisputed: Act No. 3648 granted the Escudero Electric Services Company, a legislative franchise to maintain and operate an electric light and power system in the City of San Pablo and nearby municipalities Section 10 of Act No. 3648 provides: x x x In consideration of the franchise and rights hereby granted, the grantee shall pay unto the municipal treasury of each municipality in which it is supplying electric current to the public under this franchise, a tax equal to two percentum of the gross earnings from electric current sold or supplied under this franchise in each said municipality. Said tax shall be due and payable quarterly and shall be in lieu of any and all taxes of any kind, nature or description levied, established or collected by any authority whatsoever, municipal, provincial or insular, now or in the future, on its poles, wires, insulators, switches, transformers, and structures, installations, conductors, and accessories place in and over and under all public property, including public streets and highways, provincial roads, bridges and public squares, and on its franchise, rights, privileges, receipts, revenues and profits from which taxes the grantee is hereby expressly exempted. Escuderos franchise was transferred to the plaintiff (herein respondent) MERALCO under Republic Act No. 2340. Presidential Decree No. 551 was enacted on September 11, 1974. Section 1 thereof provides the following: Section 1. Any provision of law or local ordinance to the contrary notwithstanding, the franchise tax payable by all grantees of franchise to generate, distribute and sell electric current for light, heat and power shall be two percent (2%) of their gross receipts received from the sale of electric current and from transactions incident to the generation, distribution and sale of electric current. Such franchise tax shall be payable to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue or his duly authorized representative on or before the twentieth day of the month following the end of each calendar quarter or month as may be provided in the respective franchise or pertinent municipal regulation and shall, any provision of the Local Tax Code or any other law to the contrary notwithstanding, be in

lieu of all taxes and assessments of whatever nature imposed by any national or local authority on earnings, receipts, income and privilege of generation, distribution and sale of electric current. Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the LGC) took effect on January 1, 1992. The said Code authorizes the province/city to impose a tax on business enjoying a franchise at a rate not exceeding fifty percent (50%) of one percent (1%) of the gross annual receipts for the preceding calendar year realized within its jurisdiction. On October 5, 1992, the Sangguniang Panglunsod of San Pablo City enacted Ordinance No. 56, otherwise known as the Revenue Code of the City of San Pablo. The said Ordinance took effect on October 30, 1992:[1] Section 2.09 Article D of said Ordinance provides: Sec. 2.09. Franchise Tax There is hereby imposed a tax on business enjoying a franchise, at a rate of fifty percent (50%) of one percent (1%) of the gross annual receipts, which shall include both cash sales and sales on account realized during the preceding calendar year within the city. Pursuant to the above-quoted Section 2.09, the petitioner City Treasurer sent to private respondent a letter demanding payment of the aforesaid franchise tax. From 1994 to 1996, private respondent paid under protest a total amount of P1,857,711.67.[2] The private respondent subsequently filed this action before the Regional Trial Court to declare Ordinance No. 56 null and void insofar as it imposes the franchise tax upon private respondent MERALCO[3] and to claim for a refund of the taxes paid. The Court ruled in favor of MERALCO and upheld its argument that the LGC did not expressly or impliedly repeal the tax exemption/incentive enjoyed by it under its charter. The dispositive portion of the decision reads: WHEREFORE, the imposition of a franchise tax under Sec. 2.09 Article D of Ordinance No. 56 otherwise known as the Revenue Code of the City of San Pablo, is declared ineffective and null and void insofar as the plaintiff MERALCO is concerned for being violative of Republic Act No. 2340, PD 551, and Republic Act No. 7160 and the defendants are ordered to refund to the plaintiff the amount of ONE MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED FIFTY SEVEN THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED ELEVEN & 67/100 (P1,857,711.67) and such other amounts as may have been paid by the plaintiff under said Revenue Ordinance No. 56 after the filing of the complaint.[4] SO ORDERED. Its motion for reconsideration having been denied by the trial court [5] the petitioners filed the instant petition with this Court raising pure questions of law based on the following grounds: I. RESPONDENT JUDGE GRAVELY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT ACT NO. 3648, REPUBLIC ACT NO. 2340 AND PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 551 AS AMENDED, INSOFAR AS THEY GRANT TAX INCENTIVES, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES TO PRIVATE RESPONDENT, HAVE NOT BEEN REPEALED BY REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7160. II. RESPONDENT JUDGE GRAVELY ERRED IN RULING THAT SECTION 193 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7160 HAS NOT WITHDRAWN THE TAX INCENTIVES, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES BEING ENJOYED BY THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT UNDER ACT NO. 3648, REPUBLIC ACT NO. 2340 AND PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 551, AS AMENDED. III. RESPONDENT JUDGE GRAVELY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE FRANCHISE TAX IN QUESTION CONSTITUTES AN IMPAIRMENT OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AND THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT. Petitioners position is the RA 7160 (LGC) expressly repealed Act No. 3648, Republic Act No. 2340 and Presidential Decree 551 and that pursuant to the provisions of Sections 137 and 193 of the LGC, the province or city now has the power to impose a franchise tax on a business enjoying a franchise. Petitioners rely on the ruling in the case of Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority vs. Marcos[6] where the Supreme Court held that the exemption from real property tax granted to Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority under its charter has been withdrawn upon the effectivity of the LGC. In addition, the petitioners cite in their Memorandum dated December 8, 1997 an administrative interpretation made by the Bureau of Local Government Finance of the Department of Finance in its 3 rd indorsement dated February 15, 1994 to the effect that the earlier ruling of the Department of Finance that holders of franchise which contain the phrase in lieu of all taxes proviso are exempt from the payment of any kind of tax is no longer applicable upon the effectivity of the LGC in view of the withdrawal of tax exemption privileges as provided in Sections 193 and 234 thereof.

We resolve to reverse the court a quo. The pivotal issue is whether the City of San Pablo may impose a local franchise tax pursuant to the LGC upon the Manila Electric Company which pays a tax equal to two percent of its gross receipts in lieu of all taxes and assessments of whatever nature imposed by any national or local authority on savings or income. It is necessary to reproduce the pertinent provisions of the LGC. Section 137 Franchise Tax Notwithstanding any exemption granted by any law or other special law, the province may impose a tax on business enjoying a franchise, at a rate not exceeding fifty percent 50% of one percent 1% of the gross annual receipts for the preceding calendar year based on the incoming receipts, or realized, within its territorial jurisdiction. xxx Section 151 Scope of Taxing Powers Except as otherwise provided in this Code, the city, may levy the taxes, fees, and charges which the province or municipality may impose: Provided, however, That the taxes, fees and charges levied and collected by highly urbanized and independent component cities shall accrue to them and distributed in accordance with the provisions of this Code. The rates of taxes that the city may levy may exceed the maximum rates allowed for the province or municipality by not more than fifty percent (50%) except the rates of professional and amusement taxes. Section 193 Withdrawal of Tax Exemption Privileges. Unless otherwise provided in this Code, tax exemptions or incentives granted to, or presently enjoyed by all persons, whether natural or juridical, including government-owned or controlled corporations, except local water districts, cooperatives duly registered under R.A. 6938, non-stock and non-profit hospitals and educational institutions, are hereby withdrawn upon the effectivity of this Code. Section 534 (f) Repealing Clause All general and special laws, acts, city charters, decrees, 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. Section 534 (f), the repealing clause of the LGC, provides that all general and special laws, acts, city charters, decrees, executive orders, proclamations and administrative regulations or parts thereof which are inconsistent with any of the provisions of the Code are hereby repealed or modified accordingly. This clause partakes of the nature of a general repealing clause.[7] It is certainly not an express repealing clause because it fails to designate the specific act or acts identified by number or title, that are intended to be repealed.[8] Was there an implied repeal by Republic Act No. 7160 of the MERALCO franchise insofar as the latter impose a 2% tax in lieu of all taxes and assessments of whatever nature? We rule affirmatively. We are mindful of the established rule that repeals by implication are not favored as laws are presumed to be passed with deliberation and full knowledge of all laws existing on the subject. A general law cannot be construed to have repealed a special law by mere implication unless the intent to repeal or alter is manifest[9]and it must be convincingly demonstrated that the two laws are so clearly repugnant and patently inconsistent that they cannot co-exist.[10] It is our view that petitioners correctly rely on the provisions of Section 137 and 193 of the LGC to support their position that MERALCOs tax exemption has been withdrawn. The explicit language of Section 137 which authorizes the province to impose franchise tax notwithstanding any exemption granted by any law or other special laws" is all-encompassing and clear. The franchise tax is imposable despite any exemption enjoyed under special laws. Section 193 buttresses the withdrawal of extant tax exemption privileges. By stating that 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 1) local water districts, 2) cooperatives duly registered under R.A. 6938, (3) non-stock and nonprofit hospitals and educational institutions, are withdrawn upon the effectivity of this code, the obvious import is to limit the exemptions to the three enumerated entities. It is a basic precept of statutory construction that the express mention of one person, thing, act, or consequence excludes all others as expressed in the familiar maxim expressio unius est exlcusio alterius.[11] In the absence of any provision of the Code to the contrary, and we find no other provision of the Code to the contrary, and we find no other provision in point, any existing tax exemption or incentive enjoyed by MERALCO under existing law was clearly intended to be withdrawn. Reading together Sections 137 and 193 of the LGC, we conclude that under the LGC the local government unit may now impose a local tax at a rate not exceeding 50% of 1% of the gross annual receipts for the preceding calendar year based on the incoming receipts realized within its territorial jurisdiction. The legislative purpose to withdraw tax privileges enjoyed under existing law or charter is clearly manifested by the language used in Section 137 and 193 categorically withdrawing such exemption subject only to

the exceptions enumerated. Since it would be not only tedious and impractical to attempt to enumerate all the existing statutes providing for special tax exemptions or privileges, the LGC provided for an express, albeit general, withdrawal of such exemptions or privileges. No more unequivocal language could have been used. It is true that the phrase in lieu of all taxes found in special franchises has been held in several cases to exempt the franchise holder from payment of tax on its corporate franchise imposed by the Internal Revenue Code, as the charter is in the nature of a private contract and the exemption is part of the inducement for the acceptance of the franchise, and that the imposition of another franchise tax by the local authority would constitute an impairment of contract between the government and the corporation. [12] But these magic words contained in the phrase shall be in lieu of all taxes.[13] Have to give way to the peremptory language of the LGC specifically providing for the withdrawal of such exemption privileges. Accordingly in Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority vs. Marcos,[14] this Court held that Section 193 of the LGC prescribes the general rule, viz., the tax exemptions or incentives granted to or presently enjoyed by natural or juridical persons are withdrawn upon the effectivity of the LGC except with respect to those entities expressly enumerated. In the same vein We must hold that the express withdrawal upon effectivity of the LGC of all exemptions only as provided therein, can no longer be invoked by Meralco to disclaim liability for the local tax. Private respondents further argue that the in lieu of provision contained in PD 551, Act No. 3648 and RA 2340 does not partake of the nature of an exemption, but is a commutative tax. This contention was raised but was not upheld in Cagayan Electric Power and Light Co. Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue[15] wherein the Supreme Court stated: xxx Congress could impair petitioners legislative franchise by making it liable for income tax from which heretofore it was exempted by virtue of the exemption provided for in section 3 of its franchise xxx xxx Republic Act No. 5431, in amending section 24 of the Tax Code by subjecting to income tax all corporate tax payers not expressly exempted therein and in section 27 of the Code, had the effect of withdrawing petitioners exemption from income tax xxx Private respondents invocation of the non-impairment clause of the Constitution is accordingly unavailing. The LGC was enacted in pursuance of the constitutional policy to ensure autonomy to local governments[16] and to enable them to attain fullest development as self-reliant communities.[17] Thus in Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority vs. Marcos, supra, this Court pointed out, in upholding the withdrawal of the real estate tax exemption previously enjoyed by the Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority, as follows: Note that as 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 especially in light of the general provision on withdrawal of tax exemption privileges in Section 193 and the special provision on withdrawal of exemption from payment of real property taxes in the last paragraph of Section 234. These policy 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 partners in 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 or 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 these entities to share in the requirements of development, fiscal or otherwise, by paying the taxes and other charges due from them.[18] The Court therein concluded that: 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.[19] The power to tax is primarily vested in Congress. However, in our jurisdiction, it may be exercised by local legislative bodies, no longer merely by virtue of a valid delegation as before, but pursuant to direct authority conferred by Section 5, Article X of the Constitution.[20] Thus Article X, Section 5 of the Constitution reads: Section 5 Each Local Government unit shall have the power to create its own sources of revenue 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. Such taxes, fees and charges shall accrue exclusively to the Local Governments.

The important legal effect of Section 5 is that henceforth, in interpreting statutory provisions on municipal fiscal powers, doubts will have to be resolved in favor of municipal corporations.[21] There is further basis for the conclusion that the non-impairment of contract clause cannot be invoked to uphold Meralco's exemption from the local tax. Escudero Electric Co. was originally given the legislative franchise under Act. 3648 to operate an electric light and power system in the City of San Pablo and nearby municipalities. The term of the franchise under Act No. 3648 is a period of fifty years from the Acts approval in 1929. The said law provided that the franchise is granted upon the condition that it shall be subject to amendment, or repeal by the Congress of the United States. [22] Under the 1935,[23] the 1973[24] and the 1987[25] Constitutions, no franchise or right shall be granted except under the condition that it shall be subject to amendment, alteration or repeal by the National Assembly when the public interest so requires. With or without the reservation clause, franchises are subject to alterations through a reasonable exercise of the police power; they are also subject to alteration by the power to tax, which like police power cannot be contracted away.[26] Finally, while the matter is not of controlling significance, the Court notes that whereas the original Escudero franchise exempted the franchise holder from all taxes levied or collected now or in the future [27] this phrase is noticeably omitted in the counterpart provision of P.D. 551 that said omission is intended not to foreclose future taxes may reasonably be deduced by statutory construction. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The decision of the Regional Trial Court of San Pablo City, appealed from is hereby reversed and set aside and the complaint of MERALCO is hereby DISMISSED. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. Romero, (Chairman), Vitug, Panganiban, and Purisima, JJ., concur.

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 131359. May 5, 1999]

MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, petitioner vs. PROVINCE OF LAGUNA and BENITO R. BALAZO, in his capacity as Provincial Treasurer of Laguna, respondents. DECISION VITUG, J.: On various dates, certain municipalities of the Province of Laguna including, Bian, Sta Rosa, San Pedro, Luisiana, Calauan and Cabuyao, by virtue of existing laws then in effect, issued resolutions through their respective municipal councils granting franchise in favor of petitioner Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) for the supply of electric light, heat and power within their concerned areas. On 19 January 1983, MERALCO was likewise granted a franchise by the National Electrification Administration to operate an electric light and power service in the Municipality of Calamba, Laguna. On 12 September 1991, Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991, was enacted to take effect on 01 January 1992 enjoining local government units to create their own sources of revenue and to levy taxes, fees and charges, subject to the limitations expressed therein, consistent with the basic policy of local autonomy. Pursuant to the provisions of the Code, respondent province enacted Laguna Provincial Ordinance No. 01-92, effective 01 January 1993, providing, in part, as follows: Sec. 2.09. Franchise Tax. There is hereby imposed a tax on businesses enjoying a franchise, at a rate of fifty percent (50%) of one percent (1%) of the gross annual receipts, which shall include both cash sales and sales on account realized during the preceding calendar year within this province, including the territorial limits on any city located in the province[1] On the basis of the above ordinance, respondent Provincial Treasurer sent a demand letter to MERALCO for the corresponding tax payment. Petitioner MERALCO paid the tax, which then amounted to P19,520,628.42, under protest. A formal claim for refund was thereafter sent by MERALCO to the Provincial Treasurer of Laguna claiming that the franchise tax it had paid and continued to pay to the National Government pursuant to P.D. 551 already included the franchise tax imposed by the Provincial Tax Ordinance. MERALCO contended that the imposition of a franchise tax under Section 2.09 of Laguna Provincial Ordinance No. 0192, insofar as it concerned MERALCO, contravened the provisions of Section 1 of P.D. 551 which read: Any provision of law or local ordinance to the contrary notwithstanding, the franchise tax payable by all grantees of franchises to generate, distribute and sell electric current for light, heat and power shall be two per cent (2%) of their gross receipts received from the sale of electric current and from transactions incident to the generation, distribution and sale of electric current. Such franchise tax shall be payable to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue or his duly authorized representative on or before the twentieth day of the month following the end of each calendar quarter or month, as may be provided in the respective franchise or pertinent municipal regulation and shall, any provision of the Local Tax Code or any other law to the contrary notwithstanding, be in lieu of all taxes and assessments of whatever nature imposed by any national or local authority on earnings, receipts, income and privilege of generation, distribution and sale of electric current.

On 28 August 1995, the claim for refund of petitioner was denied in a letter signed by Governor Jose D. Lina. In denying the claim, respondents relied on a more recent law, i.e., Republic Act No. 7160 or the Local Government Code of 1991, than the old decree invoked by petitioner. On 14 February 1996, petitioner MERALCO filed with the Regional Trial Court of Sta Cruz, Laguna, a complaint for refund, with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order, against the Province of Laguna and also Benito R. Balazo in his capacity as the Provincial Treasurer of Laguna. Aside from the amount of P19,520,628.42 for which petitioner MERALCO had priority made a formal request for refund, petitioner thereafter likewise made additional payments under protest on various dates totaling P27,669,566.91. The trial court, in its assailed decision of 30 September 1997, dismissed the complaint and concluded: WHEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, JUDGMENT is hereby rendered in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff, by: 1. 2. Ordering the dismissal of the Complaint; and Declaring Laguna Provincial Tax Ordinance No. 01-92 as valid, binding, reasonable and enforceable.[2] In the instant petition, MERALCO assails the above ruling and brings up the following issues; viz: 1. Whether the imposition of a franchise tax under Section 2.09 of Laguna Provincial Ordinance No. 01-92, insofar as petitioner is concerned, is violative of the non-impairment clause of the Constitution and Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 551. 2. Whether Republic Act. No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991, has repealed, amended or modified Presidential Decree No. 551. 3. Whether the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is applicable in this case.[3] The petition lacks merit. Prefatorily, it might be well to recall that local governments do not have the inherent power to tax[4] except to the extent that such power might be delegated to them either by the basic law or by statute. Presently, under Article X of the 1987 Constitution, a general delegation of that power has been given in favor of local government units. Thus: Sec. 3. The Congress shall enact a local government code which shall provide for a more responsive and accountable local government structure instituted through a system of decentralization with effective mechanisms of recall, initiative, and referendum, allocate among the different local government units their powers, responsibilities, and resources, and provide for the qualifications, election, appointment and removal, term, salaries, powers and functions, and duties of local officials, and all other matters relating to the organization and operation of the local units. x x x xxx xxx

Sec. 5. Each local government 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. Such taxes, fees and charges shall accrue exclusively to the local governments. The 1987 Constitution has a counterpart provision in the 1973 Constitution which did come out with a similar delegation of revenue making powers to local governments.[5] Under the regime of the 1935 Constitution no similar delegation of tax powers was provided, and local government units instead derived their tax powers under a limited statutory authority. Whereas, then, the delegation of tax powers granted at that time by statute to local governments was confined and defined (outside of which the power was deemed withheld), the present constitutional rule (starting with the 1973 Constitution), however, would broadly confer such tax powers subject only to specific exceptions that the law might prescribe. Under the now prevailing Constitution, where there is neither a grant nor a prohibition by statute, the tax power must be deemed to exist although Congress may provide statutory limitations and guidelines. The basic rationale for the current rule is to safeguard the viability and self-sufficiency of local government units by directly granting them general and broad tax powers. Nevertheless, the fundamental law did not intend the delegation to be absolute and unconditional; the constitutional objective obviously is to ensure that, while the local government units are being strengthened and made more autonomous,[6] the legislature must

still see to it that (a) the taxpayer will not be over-burdened or saddled with multiple and unreasonable impositions; (b) each local government unit will have its fair share of available resources; (c) the resources of the national government will not be unduly disturbed; and (d) local taxation will be fair, uniform, and just. The Local Government Code of 1991 has incorporated and adopted, by and large the provisions of the now repealed Local Tax Code, which had been in effect since 01 July 1973, promulgated into law by Presidential Decree No. 231 [7] pursuant to the then provisions of Section 2, Article XI, of the 1973 Constitution. The 1991 Code explicitly authorizes provincial governments, notwithstanding any exemption granted by any law or other special law, x x x (to) impose a tax on businesses enjoying a franchise. Section 137 thereof provides: Sec. 137. Franchise Tax Notwithstanding any exemption granted by any law or other special law, the province may impose a tax on businesses enjoying a franchise, at a rate not exceeding fifty percent (50%) of one percent (1%) of the gross annual receipts for the preceding calendar year based on the incoming receipt, or realized, within its territorial jurisdiction. In the case of a newly started business, the tax shall not exceed one-twentieth (1/20) of one percent (1%) of the capital investment. In the succeeding calendar year, regardless of when the business started to operate, the tax shall be based on the gross receipts for the preceding calendar year, or any fraction thereof, as provided herein. (Underscoring supplied for emphasis) Indicative of the legislative intent to carry out the Constitutional mandate of vesting broad tax powers to local government units, the Local Government Code has effectively withdrawn under Section 193 thereof, tax exemptions or incentives theretofore enjoyed by certain entities. This law states: Section 193 Withdrawal of Tax Exemption Privileges Unless otherwise provided in this Code, tax exemptions or incentives granted to, or presently enjoyed by all persons, whether natural or juridical, including government-owned or controlled corporations, except local water districts, cooperatives duly registered under R.A. No. 6938, non-stock and non-profit hospitals and educational institutions, are hereby withdrawn upon the effectivity of this Code. (Underscoring supplied for emphasis) The Code, in addition, contains a general repealing clause in its Section 534; thus: Section 534. Repealing Clause. x x x. (f) All general and special laws, acts, city charters, decrees, 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. (Underscoring supplied for emphasis)[8] To exemplify, in Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority vs. Marcos,[9] the Court upheld the withdrawal of the real estate tax exemption previously enjoyed by Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority. The Court ratiocinated: x x x These policy 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 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 service 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 these entities to share in the requirements of development, fiscal or otherwise, by paying the taxes and other charges due from them.[10] Petitioner in its complaint before the Regional Trial Court cited the ruling of this Court in Province of Misamis Oriental vs. Cagayan Electric Power and Light Company, Inc.;[11] thus: In an earlier case, the phrase shall be in lieu of all taxes and at any time levied, established by, or collected by any authority found in the franchise of the Visayan Electric Company was held to exempt the company from payment of the 5% tax on corporate franchise provided in Section 259 of the Internal Revenue Code (Visayan Electric Co. vs. David, 49 O.G. [No. 4] 1385) Similarly, we ruled that the provision: shall be in lieu of all taxes of every name and nature in the franchise of the Manila Railroad (Subsection 12, Section 1, Act No. 1510) exempts the Manila Railroad from payment of internal revenue tax for its importations of coal and oil under Act No. 2432 and the Amendatory Acts of the Philippine Legislature (Manila Railroad vs. Rafferty, 40 Phil. 224).

The same phrase found in the franchise of the Philippine Railway Co. (Sec. 13, Act No. 1497) justified the exemption of the Philippine Railway Company from payment of the tax on its corporate franchise under Section 259 of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended by R.A. No. 39 (Philippine Railway Co vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, 91 Phil. 35). Those magic words, shall be in lieu of all taxes also excused the Cotabato Light and Ice Plant Company from the payment of the tax imposed by Ordinance No. 7 of the City of Cotabato (Cotabato Light and Power Co. vs. City of Cotabato, 32 SCRA 231). So was the exemption upheld in favor of the Carcar Electric and Ice Plant Company when it was required to pay the corporate franchise tax under Section 259 of the Internal Revenue Code as amended by R.A. No. 39 (Carcar Electric & Ice Plant vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, 53 O.G. [No. 4] 1068). This Court pointed out that such exemption is part of the inducement for the acceptance of the franchise and the rendition of public service by the grantee.[12] In the recent case of the City Government of San Pablo, etc., et al. vs. Hon. Bienvenido V. Reyes, et al.,[13] the Court has held that the phrase in lieu of all taxes have to give way to the peremptory language of the Local Government Code specifically providing for the withdrawal of such exemptions, privileges, and that upon the effectivity of the Local Government Code all exemptions except only as provided therein can no longer be invoked by MERALCO to disclaim liability for the local tax. In fine, the Court has viewed its previous rulings as laying stress more on the legislative intent of the amendatory law whether the tax exemption privilege is to be withdrawn or not rather than on whether the law can withdraw, without violating the Constitution, the tax exemption or not. While the Court has, not too infrequently, referred to tax exemptions contained in special franchises as being in the nature of contracts and a part of the inducement for carrying on the franchise, these exemptions, nevertheless, are far from being strictly contractual in nature. Contractual tax exemptions, in the real sense of the term and where the non-impairment clause of the Constitution can rightly be invoked, are those agreed to by the taxing authority in contracts, such as those contained in government bonds or debentures, lawfully entered into by them under enabling laws in which the government, acting in its private capacity, sheds its cloak of authority and waives its governmental immunity. Truly, tax exemptions of this kind may not be revoked without impairing the obligations of contracts.[14] These contractual tax exemptions, however, are not to be confused with tax exemptions granted under franchises. A franchise partakes the nature of a grant which is beyond the purview of the nonimpairment clause of the Constitution.[15] Indeed, Article XII, Section 11, of the 1987 Constitution, like its precursor provisions in the 1935 and the 1973 Constitutions, is explicit that no franchise for the operation of a public utility shall be granted except under the condition that such privilege shall be subject to amendment, alteration or repeal by Congress as and when the common good so requires. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED. No costs. SO ORDERED. Romero, Panganiban, Purisima, and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 126232. November 27, 1998]

THE PROVINCE OF BULACAN, ROBERTO M. PAGDANGANAN, FLORENCE CHAVEZ, and MANUEL DJ SIAYNGCO in their capacity as PROVINCIAL GOVERNOR, PROVINCIAL TREASURER, PROVINCIAL LEGAL ADVISE, respectively, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (FORMER SPECIAL 12TH DIVISION), PUBLIC CEMENT CORPORATION, respondents. DECISION ROMERO, J.: Before us is a petition for certiorari seeking the reversal of the decision of the Court of Appeals dated September 27, 1995 declaring petitioner without authority to levy taxes on stones, sand, gravel, earth and other quarry resources extracted from private lands, as well as the August 26, 1996 resolution of the appellate court denying its motion for reconsideration. The facts are as follows: On June 26, 1992, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Bulacan passed Provincial Ordinance No. 3, known as "An ordinance Enacting the Revenue Code of the Bulacan Province," which was to take effect on July 1, 1992, section 21 of the ordinance provides as follows: Section 21. Imposition of Tax. There is hereby levied and collected a tax of 10% of the fair market value in the locality per cubic meter of ordinary stones, sand, gravel, earth and other quarry resources, such, but not limited to marble, granite, volcanic cinders, basalt, tuff and rock phosphate, extracted from public lands or from beds of seas, lakes, rivers, streams, creeks and other public waters within its territorial jurisdiction. (Italics ours) Pursuant thereto, the Provincial Treasurer of Bulacan, in a letter dated November 11, 1993, assessed private respondent Republic Cement Corporation (hereafter Republic Cement) P2,524,692.13 for extracting limestone, shale and silica from several parcels of private land in the province during the third quarter of 1992 until the second quarter of 1993. Believing that the province, on the basis of above-said ordinance, had no authority to impose taxes on quarry resources extracted from private lands, Republic Cement formally contested the same on December 23, 1993. The same was, however, denied by the Provincial Treasurer on January 17, 1994. Republic Cement, consequently filed a petition for declaratory relief with the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan on February 14, 1994. The province filed a motion to dismiss Republic Cement's petition, which was granted by the trial court on May 13, 1993, which ruled that declaratory relief was improper, allegedly because a breach of the ordinance had been committed by Republic Cement. On July 11, 1994, Republic Cement filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court seeking to reverse the trial court's dismissal of their petition. The Court, in a resolution dated July 27, 1994, referred the same to the Court of Appeals, where it was docketed as CA G.R. SP No. 34915. The appellate court required petitioners to file a comment, which they did on September 7, 1994.

In the interim, the Province of Bulacan issued a warrant of levy against Republic Cement, allegedly because of its unpaid tax liabilities. Negotiations between Republic Cement and petitioners resulted in an agreement and modus vivendi on December 12, 1994, whereby Republic Cement agreed to pay under protestP1,262,346.00, 50% of the tax assessed by petitioner, in exchange for the lifting of the warrant of levy. Furthermore, Republic Cement and petitioners agreed to limit the issue for resolution by the Court of Appeals to the question as to whether or not the provincial government could impose and/or assess taxes on quarry resources extracted by Republic Cement from private lands pursuant to Section 21 of the Provincial Ordinance No. 3. This agreement and modus vivendi were embodied in a joint manifestation and motion signed by Governor Roberto Pagdanganan, on behalf of the Province of Bulacan, by Provincial Treasurer Florence Chavez, and by Provincial Legal Officer Manuel Siayngco, as petitioner's counsel and filed with the Court of Appeals on December 13, 1994. In a resolution dated December 29, 1994, the appellate court approved the same and limited the issue to be resolved to the question whether or not the provincial government could impose taxes on stones, sand, gravel, earth and other quarry resources extracted from private lands. After due trial, the Court of Appeals, on September 27, 1995, rendered the following judgment: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered declaring the Province of Bulacan under its Provincial Ordinance No. 3 entitled "An Ordinance Enacting the Revenue Code of Bulacan Province" to be without legal authority to impose and assess taxes on quarry resources extracted by RCC from private lands, hence the interpretation of Respondent Treasurer of Chapter II, Article D, Section 21 of the Ordinance, and the assessment made by the Province of Bulacan against RCC is null and void. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration, as well as their supplemental motion for reconsideration, was denied by the appellate court on august 26, 1996, hence this appeal. Petitioner's claim that the Court of Appeals erred in: 1. NOT HAVING OUTRIGHTLY DISMISSED THE SUBJECT PETITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME IS NOT THE APPROPRIATE REMEDY FROM THE TRIAL COURT'S GRANT OF THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS' (HEREIN PETITIONER) MOTION TO DISMISS; NOT DISMISSING THE SUBJECT PETITION FOR BEING VIOLATIVE OF CIRCULAR 2-90 ISSUED BY THE SUPREME COURT; NOT DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR REVIEW ON THE GROUND THAT THE TRIAL COURT'S ORDER OF MAY 13, 1994 HAD LONG BECOME FINAL AND EXECUTORY; GOING BEYOND THE PARAMETERS OF ITS APPELLATE JURISDICTION IN RENDERING THE SEPTEMBER 27, 1995 DECISION; HOLDING THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT (HEREIN PETITIONER) ARE ESTOPPED FROM RAISING THE PROCEDURAL ISSUE IN THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; THE INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 134 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE AS STATED IN THE SECOND TO THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF PAGE 5 OF ITS SEPTEMBER 27, 1995 DECISION; SUSTAINING THE ALLEGATIONS OF HEREIN RESPONDENT WHICH UNJUSTLY DEPRIVED PETITIONER THE POWER TO CREATE ITS OWN SOURCES OF REVENUE; DECLARING THAT THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE PROVINCE OF BULACAN AGAINST RCC AS NULL AND VOID WHICH IN EFFECT IS A COLLATERAL ATTACK ON PROVINCIAL ORDINANCE NO. 3; AND FAILING TO CONSIDER THE REGALIAN DOCTRINE IN FAVOR OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

9.

The issues raised by petitioners are devoid of merit. The number and diversity of errors raised by appellants impel us, however, to discuss the points raisedseriatim. In their first assignment of error, petitioners contend that instead of filing a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, Republic Cement should have appealed from the order of the trial court dismissing their petition. Citing Martinez vs. CA,[1] they allege that a motion to dismiss is a final order, the remedy against which is not a petition for certiorari, but an appeal, regardless of the questions sought to be raised on appeal, whether of fact or of law, whether involving jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion of the trial court. Petitioners' argument is misleading. While it is true that the remedy against a final order is an appeal, and not a petition for certiorari, the petition referred to is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. As stated in Martinez, the party aggrieved does not have the option to substitute the special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 for the remedy of appeal. The existence and availability of the right of appeal are antithetical to the availment of the special civil action for certiorari.

Republic Cement did not, however, file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, but an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45. Even law students know thatcertiorari under Rule 45 is a mode of appeal, an appeal from the Regional Trial Court being taken in either of two ways (a) by writ of error (involving questions of fact and law) and (b) by certiorari (limited only to issues of law), with an appeal by certiorari being brought to the Supreme Court, there being no provision of law for taking appeals by certiorari to the Court of Appeals.[2] It is thus clearly apparent that Republic Cement correctly contested the trial court's order of dismissal by filing an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45. In fact, petitioners, in their second assignment of error, admit that a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is available to a party aggrieved by an order granting a motion to dismiss. [3] They claim, however, that Republic Cement could not avail of the same allegedly because the latter raised issues of fact, which is prohibited, Rule 45 providing that "(t)he petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth."[4] In this respect, petitioners claim that Republic Cement's petition should have been dismissed by the appellate court, Circular 2-90 providing: 4. Erroneous Appeals. - An appeal taken to either the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals by the wrong or inappropriate mode shall be dismissed. xxx xxx xxx

d) No transfer of appeals erroneously taken. -- No transfers of appeals erroneously taken to the Supreme Court or to the Court of Appeals to whichever of these Tribunals has appropriate appellate jurisdiction will be allowed; continued ignorance or wilful disregard of the law on appeals will not be tolerated. Petitioners even fault the Court for referring Republic Cement's petition to the Court of Appeals, claiming that the same should have been dismissed pursuant to Circular 2-90. Petitioners conveniently overlook the other provisions of Circular 2-90, specifically 4b) thereof, which provides: b) Raising factual issues in appeal by certiorari. - Although submission of issues of fact in an appeal by certiorari taken to the Supreme Court from the regional trial court is ordinarily proscribed, the Supreme Court nonetheless retains the option, in the exercise of its sound discretion and considering the attendant circumstances, either itself to take cognizance of and decide such issues or to refer them to the Court of Appeals for determination. As can be clearly adduced from the foregoing, when an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 erroneously raises factual issues, the Court has the option to refer the petition to the Court of Appeals. The exercise by the Court of this option may not now be questioned by petitioners. As the trial court's order was properly appealed by Republic Cement, the trial court's May 13, 1994 order never became final and executory, rendering petitioner's third assignment of error moot and academic. Petitioners' fourth and fifth assignment of errors are likewise without merit. Petitioners assert that the Court of Appeals could only rule on the propriety of the trial court's dismissal of Republic Cement's petition for declaratory relief, allegedly because that was the sole relief sought by the latter in its petition for certiorari. Petitioners claim that the appellate court overstepped its jurisdiction when it declared null and void the assessment made by the Province of Bulacan against Republic Cement. Petitioners gloss over the fact that, during the proceedings before the Court of Appeals, they entered into an agreement and modus vivendi whereby they limited the issue for resolution to the question as to whether or not the provincial government could impose and/or assess taxes on stones, sand, gravel, earth and other quarry resources extracted by Republic Cement from private lands. This agreement and modus vivendi were approved by the appellate court on December 29, 1994. All throughout the proceedings, petitioners never questioned the authority of the Court of Appeals to decide this issue, an issue which it brought itself within the purview of the appellate court. Only when an adverse decision was rendered by the Court of Appeals did petitioners question the jurisdiction of the former. Petitioners are barred by the doctrine of estoppel from contesting the authority of the Court of Appeals to decide the instant case, as this Court has consistently held that "(a) party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to secure affirmative relief against his opponent and after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or question that same jurisdiction."[5] The Supreme Court frowns upon the undesirable practice of a party submitting his case for decision and then accepting the judgment, only if favorable, and attacking it for lack of jurisdiction when adverse.[6] In a desperate attempt to ward off defeat, petitioners now repudiate the above-mentioned agreement and modus vivendi, claiming that the same was not binding in the Province of Bulacan, not having been authorized by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Bulacan. While it is true that the Provincial Governor can enter into contract and obligate the province only upon authority of the sangguniang panlalawigan,[7] the same is inapplicable to the case at bar. The agreement and modus vivendi may have been signed by petitioner Roberto Pagdanganan, as Governor of the Province of Bulacan, without authorization from the sangguniang panlalawigan, but it was also signed by Manuel Siayngco, the Provincial Legal Officer, in his capacity as such, and as counsel of petitioners. It is a well-settled rule that all proceedings in court to enforce a remedy, to bring a claim, demand, cause of action or subject matter of a suit to hearing, trial, determination, judgment and execution are within the exclusive control of the attorney. [8] With respect to such matters of ordinary judicial procedure, the attorney needs no special authority to bind his client.[9] Such questions as what

action or pleading to file, where and when to file it, what are its formal requirements, what should be the theory of the case, what defenses to raise, how may the claim or defense be proved, when to rest the case, as well as those affecting the competency of a witness, the sufficiency, relevancy, materiality or immateriality of certain evidence and the burden of proof are within the authority of the attorney to decide.[10]Whatever decision an attorney makes on any of these procedural questions, even if it adversely affects a client's case, will generally bind a client. The agreement andmodus vivendi signed by petitioner's counsel is binding upon petitioners, even if the Sanggunian had not authorized the same, limitation of issues being a procedural question falling within the exclusive authority of the attorney to decide. In any case, the remaining issues raised by petitioner are likewise devoid of merit, a province having no authority to impose taxes on stones, sand, gravel, earth and other quarry resources extracted from private lands. The pertinent provisions of the Local Government Code are as follows: Sec. 134. Scope of Taxing Powers. - Except as otherwise provided in this Code, the province may levy only the taxes, fees, and charges as provided in this Article. Sec. 138. Tax on Sand, Gravel and Other Quarry Resources. - The province may levy and collect not more than ten percent (10%) of fair market value in the locality per cubic meter of ordinary stones, sand, gravel, earth, and other quarry resources, as defined under the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended, extracted from public lands or from the beds of seas, lakes, rivers, streams, creeks, and other public waters within its territorial jurisdiction. xxx xxx x x x (Italics supplied)

The appellate court, on the basis of Section 134, ruled that a province was empowered to impose taxes only on sand, gravel, and other quarry resources extracted from public lands, its authority to tax being limited by said provision only to those taxes, fees and charges provided in Article One, Chapter 2, Title One of Book II of the Local Government Code. [11] On the other hand, petitioners claim that Sections 129[12] and 186[13] of the Local Government Code authorizes the province to impose taxes other than those specifically enumerated under the Local Government Code. The Court of Appeals erred in ruling that a province can impose only the taxes specifically mentioned under the Local Government Code. As correctly pointed out by petitioners, Section 186 allows a province to levy taxes other than those specifically enumerated under the Code, subject to the conditions specified therein. This finding, nevertheless, affords cold comfort to petitioners as they are still prohibited from imposing taxes on stones, sand, gravel, earth and other quarry resources extracted from private lands. The tax imposed by the Province of Bulacan is an excise tax, being a tax upon the performance, carrying on, or exercise of an activity.[14] The Local Government Code provides: Section 133. - Common Limitations on the Taxing Powers of Local Government Units. - Unless otherwise provided herein, the exercise of the taxing powers of provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays shall not extend to the levy of the following: xxx xxx xxx

(h) Excise taxes on articles enumerated under the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and taxes, fees or charges on petroleum products; xxx xxx xxx

A province may not, therefore, levy excise taxes on articles already taxed by the National Internal Revenue Code. Unfortunately for petitioners, the National Internal Revenue Code provides: Section 151. - Mineral Products. (A) Rates of Tax. - There shall be levied, assessed and collected on minerals, mineral products and quarry resources, excise tax as follows: xxx xxx xxx

(2) On all nonmetallic minerals and quarry resources, a tax of two percent (2%) based on the actual market value of the gross output thereof at the time of removal, in case of those locally extracted or produced; or the values used by the Bureau of Customs in determining tariff and customs duties, net of excise tax and valueadded tax, in the case of importation. xxx xxx xxx

(B) [Definition of Terms]. - For purposes of this Section, the termxxx xxx xxx

(4) Quarry resources shall mean any common stone or other common mineral substances as the Director of the Bureau of Mines and Geo-Sciences may declare to be quarry resources such as, but not restricted to, marl, marble, granite, volcanic cinders, basalt, tuff and rock phosphate; Provided, That they contain no metal or metals or other valuable minerals in economically workable quantities. It is clearly apparent from the above provision that the National Internal Revenue Code levies a tax on all quarry resources, regardless of origin, whether extracted from public or private land. Thus, a province may not ordinarily impose taxes on stones, sand, gravel, earth and other quarry resources, as the same are already taxed under the National Internal Revenue Code. The province can, however, impose a tax on stones, sand, gravel, earth and other quarry resources extracted from public land because it is expressly empowered to do so under the Local Government Code. As to stones, sand, gravel, earth and other quarry resources extracted from private land, however, it may not do so, because of the limitation provided by Section 133 of the Code in relation to Section 151 of the National Internal Revenue Code. Given the above disquisition, petitioners cannot claim that the appellate court unjustly deprived them of the power to create their sources of revenue, their assessment of taxes against Republic Cement being ultra vires, traversing as it does the limitations set by the Local Government Code. Petitioners likewise aver that the appellate court's declaration of nullity of its assessment against Republic Cement is a collateral attack on Provincial Ordinance No. 3, which is prohibited by public policy. [15] Contrary to petitioners' claim, the legality of the ordinance was never questioned by the Court of Appeals. Rather, what the appellate court questioned was petitioners' assessment of taxes on Republic Cement on the basis of Provincial Ordinance No. 3, not the ordinance itself. Furthermore, Section 21 of Provincial Ordinance No. 3 is practically only a reproduction of Section 138 of the Local Government Code. A cursory reading of both would show that both refer to ordinary sand, stone, gravel, earth and other quarry resources extracted from public lands. Even if we disregard the limitation set by Section 133 of the Local Government Code, petitioners may not impose taxes on stones, sand, gravel, earth and other quarry resources extracted from private lands on the basis of Section 21 of Provincial Ordinance No. 3 as the latter clearly applies only to quarry resources extracted from public lands. Petitioners may not invoke the Regalian doctrine to extend the coverage of their ordinance to quarry resources extracted from private lands, for taxes, being burdens, are not to be presumed beyond what the applicable statute expressly and clearly declares, tax statutes being construed strictissimi juris against the government.[16] WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit and the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED. Narvasa, C.J. (Chairman), Kapunan, Purisima, and Pardo, JJ., concur.

THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. L-52019 August 19, 1988 ILOILO BOTTLERS, INC., plaintiff-appellee, vs. CITY OF ILOILO, defendant-appellant. Efrain B. Trenas for plaintiff-appellee. Diosdado Garingalao for defendant-appellant.

CORTES, J.: The fundamental issue in this appeal is whether the Iloilo Bottlers, Inc. which had its bottling plant in Pavia, Iloilo, but which sold softdrinks in Iloilo City, is liable under Iloilo City tax Ordinance No. 5, series of 1960, as amended, which imposes a municipal license tax on distributors of soft-drinks. On July 12,1972, Iloilo Bottlers, Inc. filed a complaint docketed as Civil Case No. 9046 with the Court of First Instance of Iloilo praying for the recovery of the sum of P3,329.20, which amount allegedly constituted payments of municipal license taxes under Ordinance No. 5 series of 1960, as amended, that the company paid under protest. On November 15,1972, the parties submitted a partial stipulation of facts, the material portions of which state xxx xxx xxx 2. That plaintiff is engaged in the business of bottling softdrinks under the trade name of Pepsi Cola And 7-up and selling the same to its customers, with a bottling plant situated at Barrio Ungca Municipality of Pavia, Iloilo, Philippines and which is outside the jurisdiction of defendant; 3. That defendant enacted an ordinance on January 11, 1960 known as Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1960 which ordinance was successively amended by Ordinance No. 28, Series of 1960; Ordinance No. 15, Series of 1964; and Ordinance No. 45, Series of 1964; which provides as follows: Section l. Any person, firm or corporation engaged in the distribution, manufacture or bottling of cocacola, pepsi cola, tru-orange, seven-up and other soft drinks within the jurisdiction of the City of Iloilo, shall pay a municipal license tax of ten (P0.10) centavos for every case of twenty-four bottles; PROVIDED,

HOWEVER, that softdrinks sold to the public at not more than five (P0.05) centavos per bottle shall pay a tax of one and one half (P0.015) (centavos) per case of twenty four bottles. Section 1-AFor purposes of this Ordinance, all deliveries and/or dispatches emanating or made at the plant and all goods or stocks taken out of the plant for distribution, sale or exchange irrespective (of) where it would take place shall be covered by the operation of this Ordinance. 4. That prior to September, 1966, Santiago Syjuco Inc., owned and operated a bottling plant at Muelle Loney Street, Iloilo City, which was doing business under the name of Seven-up Bottling Company of the Philippines and bottled the soft-drinks Pepsi-Cola and 7-up; however sometime on September 14,1966, Santiago Syjuco, Inc., informed all its employees that it (was) closing its Iloilo Plant due to financial losses and in fact closed the same and later sold the plant to the plaintiff Iloilo Bottlers, Inc. 5. That thereafter, plaintiff operated the said plant by bottling the soft drinks Pepsi-Cola and 7-up; however, sometime in July 1968, plaintiff closed said bottling plant at Muelle Loney, Iloilo City, and transferred its bottling operations to its new plant in Barrio Ungca, Municipality of Pavia, Province of Iloilo, and which is outside the jurisdiction of the City of Iloilo; 6. That from the time of (the) enactment (of the ordinance), the Seven Up Bottling Company of the Philippines under Santiago Syjuco Inc., had been religiously paying the defendant City of Iloilo the abovementioned municipal license tax due therefrom for bottler because its bottling plant was then still situated at Muelle Loney St., Iloilo City; but the plaintiff stopped paying the municipal license tax (after) October 21, 1968 (when) it transferred its plant to Barrio Ungca Municipality of Pavia, Iloilo which is outside the jurisdiction of the City of Iloilo; 7. That sometime on July 31, 1969, the defendant demanded from the plaintiff the payment of the municipal license tax under the above-mentioned ordinance, a xerox copy of the said letter is attached to the complaint as Annex "A" and made an integral part hereof by reference. 8. That plaintiff explained in a letter to the defendant that it could not anymore be liable to pay the municipal license fee because its bottling plant (was) not anymore inside the City of Iloilo, and that moreover, since it itself (sold) its own products to its (customers) directly, it could not be considered as a distributor in line with the doctrines enunciated by the Supreme Court in the cases of City of Manila vs. Bugsuk Lumber Co., L- 8255, July 11, 1957; Manila Trading & Supply Co., Inc. vs. City of Manila L-1 2156, April 29, 1959; Central Azucarera de Don Pedro vs. City of Manila et al., G.R. No. L7679, September 29,1955; Cebu Portland Cement vs. City of Manila and City Treasurer of Manila, L-1 4229,July 26,1960. A xerox copy of the said letter is attached as Annex "B" to the complaint and made an integral part hereof by reference. As a result of the said letter of the plaintiff, the defendant did not anymore press the plaintiff to pay the said municipal license tax; 9. That sometime on January 25, 1972, the defendant demanded from the plaintiff compliance with the said ordinance for 1972 in view of the fact that it was engaged in distribution of the softdrinks in the City of Iloilo, and it further demanded from the plaintiff payment of back taxes from the time it transferred its bottling plant to the Municipality of Pavia, Iloilo; 10. That the plaintiff demurred to the said demand of the defendant raising as its jurisdiction the reason that its bottling plant is situated outside the City of Iloilo and as bottler could not be considered as distributor under the said ordinance although it sells its product directly to the consumer, in line with the jurisprudence enunciated by the Supreme Court but due to insistence of the defendant, the plaintiff paid on April 20, 1972, the first quarter payment of the municipal licence tax in the sum of P3,329.20, under protest, and thereafter has been paying defendant every quarter under protest; 11. That on June l5, 1972,the defendant informed the plaintiff that it must pay all the taxes due since July, 1968 up to the last quarter of 1971, otherwise it shall be constrained to cancel the operation of the business of the plaintiff, and because of this threat, and so as not to occasion disruption of its business operation, the plaintiff under protest agreed to the payment of the back taxes, on staggered basis, which was acceded to by the defendant; 12. That as computed by the plaintiff the following are its softdrinks sold in Iloilo City since it transferred its bottling plant from the City of Iloilo to Barrio Ungca Pavia, Iloilo in July 1968, to wit:

No. of Cases sold SEV ENUP 1 9 6 8 1 9 6 9 1 9 7 0 1 9 7 1 Jul to De c Jan . to De c. Jan . to De c. Jan . to De c. TO TA L 39,3 40 81,2 40 79,3 89 80,6 70 280, 639 PEP SICOL A 49,0 60 87,6 60 89,2 11 88,4 80 314, 411 TOT AL 88,4 00 168, 900 168, 600 169, 150 595, 050 TA X DU E P8, 840 16, 890 16, 600 16, 915 P 59, 505

13. That the plaintiff does not maintain any store or commercial establishment in the City of Iloilo from which it distributes its products, but by means of a fleet of delivery trucks, plaintiff distributes its products from its bottling plant at Barrio Ungca Municipality of Pavia, Iloilo, directly to its customers in the different towns of the Province of Iloilo as well as the City of Iloilo; 14. That the plaintiff is already paying the National Government a percentage Tax of 71/t, as manufacturer's sales tax on all the softdrinks it manufactures as follows: O.R. No. 4683995 - January, 1972 Sales P17,222.90 O.R. No. 5614767 - February " " 17,024.81 O.R. No. .5614870 - March " " 17,589.19 O.R. No. 5614891 - April " " 18,726.77 O.R. No. 5614897 - May " " 16,710.99 O.R. No. 5614935 - June " " 14,791.20 O.R. No. 5614967 - July " " 13,952.00 O.R. No. 5614973 - August " " 15,726.16 O.R. No. 56'L4999 - September " " 19,159.54 and is also paying the municipal license tax to the municipality of Pavia, Iloilo in the amount of P l0,000.00 every year, plus a municipal license tax for engaging in its business to the municipality of Pavia in its amount of P2,000.00 every year. xxx xxx xxx [Rollo, P. 10 (Record on Appeal, pp. 25-31)]

On the basis of the above stipulations, the court a quo rendered on January 26, 1973 a decision in favor of Iloilo Bottlers, Inc. declaring the Corporation not liable under the ordinance and directing the City of Iloilo to pay the sum of' P3,329.20. The decision was amended in an Order dated March 15, 1973, so as to include the amounts paid by the company after the filing of the complaint. The City of Iloilo appealed to the Court of Appeals which certified the case to this Court. The tax ordinance imposes a tax on persons, firms, and corporations engaged in the business of: 1. distribution of soft-drinks 2. manufacture of soft-drinks, and 3. bottling of softdrinks within the territorial jurisdiction of the City of Iloilo. There is no question that after it transferred its plant to Pavia, Iloilo province, Iloilo Bottlers, Inc. no longer manufactured/bottled its softdrinks within Iloilo City. Thus, it cannot be taxed as one falling under the second or the third type of business. The resolution of this case therefore hinges on whether the company may be considered engaged in the distribution of softdrinks in Iloilo City, even after it had transferred its bottling plant to Pavia, so as to be within the purview of the ordinance. Iloilo Bottlers, Inc. disclaims liability on two grounds: First, it contends that since it is not engaged in the independent business of distributing soft-drinks, but that its activity of selling is merely an incident to, or is a necessary consequence of its main or principal business of bottling, then it is NOT liable under the city tax ordinance. Second, it claims that only manufacturers or bottlers having their plants inside the territorial jurisdiction of the city are covered by the ordinance. The second ground is manifestly devoid of merit. It is clear from the ordinance that three types of activities are covered: (1) distribution, (2) manufacture and (3) bottling of softdrinks. A person engaged in any or all of these activities is subject to the tax. The first ground, however, merits serious consideration. This Court has always recognized that the right to manufacture implies the right to sell/distribute the manufactured products [See Central Azucarera de Don Pedro v. City of Manila and Sarmiento, 97 Phil. 627 (1955); Caltex (Philippines), Inc. v. City of Manila and Cudiamat, G.R. No. L-22764, July 28, 1969, 28 SCRA 840, 843.] Hence, for tax purposes, a manufacturer does not necessarily become engaged in the separate business of selling simply because it sells the products it manufactures. In certain cases, however, a manufacturer may also be considered as engaged in the separate business of selling its products. To determine whether an entity engaged in the principal business of manufacturing, is likewise engaged in the separate business of selling, its marketing system or sales operations must be looked into. In several cases [See Central Azucarera de Don Pedro v. City of Manila and Sarmiento, supra; Cebu Portland Cement Co. v. City of Manila and the City Treasurer, 108 Phil. 1063 (1960); Caltex (Philippines), Inc. v. City of Manila and Cudiamat, supra], this Court had occasion to distinguish two marketing systems: Under the first system, the manufacturer enters into sales transactions and invoices the sales at its main office where purchase orders are received and approved before delivery orders are sent to the company's warehouses, where in turn actual deliveries are made. No warehouse sales are made; nor are separate stores maintained where products may be sold independently from the main office. The warehouses only serve as storage sites and delivery points of the products earlier sold at the main office. Under the second system, sales transactions are entered into and perfected at stores or warehouses maintained by the company. Any one who desires to purchase the product may go to the store or warehouse and there purchase the merchandise. The stores and warehouses serve as selling centers. Entities operating under the first system are NOT considered engaged in the separate business of selling or dealing in their products, independent of their manufacturing business. Entities operating under the second system are considered engaged in the separate business of selling. In the case at bar, the company distributed its softdrinks by means of a fleet of delivery trucks which went directly to customers in the different places in lloilo province. Sales transactions with customers were entered into and sales were perfected and consummated by route salesmen. Truck sales were made independently of transactions in the main office.

The delivery trucks were not used solely for the purpose of delivering softdrinks previously sold at Pavia. They served as selling units. They were what were called, until recently, "rolling stores". The delivery trucks were therefore much the same as the stores and warehouses under the second marketing system. Iloilo Bottlers, Inc. thus falls under the second category above. That is, the corporation was engaged in the separate business of selling or distributing soft-drinks, independently of its business of bottling them. The tax imposed under Ordinance No. 5 is an excise tax. It is a tax on the privilege of distributing, manufacturing or bottling softdrinks. Being an excise tax, it can be levied by the taxing authority only when the acts, privileges or businesses are done or performed within the jurisdiction of said authority [Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. British Overseas Airways Corp. and Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 65773-74, April 30, 1987, 149 SCRA 395, 410.] Specifically, the situs of the act of distributing, bottling or manufacturing softdrinks must be within city limits, before an entity engaged in any of the activities may be taxed in Iloilo City. As stated above, sales were made by Iloilo Bottlers, Inc. in Iloilo City. Thus, We have no option but to declare the company liable under the tax ordinance. With the foregoing discussion, it becomes unnecessary to discuss the other issues raised by the parties. WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby REVERSED. The complaint in Civil Case No. 9046 is ordered DISMISSED. No Costs. SO ORDERED. Fernan, C.J., Feliciano and Bidin, JJ., concur. Gutierrez, Jr., J., took no part.

EN BANC G.R. No. 155650 July 20, 2006

MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, CITY OF PARAAQUE, CITY MAYOR OF PARAAQUE, SANGGUNIANG PANGLUNGSOD NG PARAAQUE, CITY ASSESSOR OF PARAAQUE, and CITY TREASURER OF PARAAQUE, respondents. DECISION CARPIO, J.: The Antecedents Petitioner Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) operates the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) Complex in Paraaque City under Executive Order No. 903, otherwise known as the Revised Charter of the Manila International Airport Authority ("MIAA Charter"). Executive Order No. 903 was issued on 21 July 1983 by then President Ferdinand E. Marcos. Subsequently, Executive Order Nos. 9091 and 2982 amended the MIAA Charter. As operator of the international airport, MIAA administers the land, improvements and equipment within the NAIA Complex. The MIAA Charter transferred to MIAA approximately 600 hectares of land,3 including the runways and buildings ("Airport Lands and Buildings") then under the Bureau of Air Transportation.4 The MIAA Charter further provides that no portion of the land transferred to MIAA shall be disposed of through sale or any other mode unless specifically approved by the President of the Philippines.5 On 21 March 1997, the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) issued Opinion No. 061. The OGCC opined that the Local Government Code of 1991 withdrew the exemption from real estate tax granted to MIAA under Section 21 of the MIAA Charter. Thus, MIAA negotiated with respondent City of Paraaque to pay the real estate tax imposed by the City. MIAA then paid some of the real estate tax already due. On 28 June 2001, MIAA received Final Notices of Real Estate Tax Delinquency from the City of Paraaque for the taxable years 1992 to 2001. MIAA's real estate tax delinquency is broken down as follows: TAX DECLARATION E-016-01370 E-016-01374 E-016-01375 E-016-01376 E-016-01377 E-016-01378 E-016-01379 TAXABLE YEAR 1992-2001 1992-2001 1992-2001 1992-2001 1992-2001 1992-2001 1992-2001 TAX DUE 19,558,160.00 111,689,424.90 20,276,058.00 58,144,028.00 18,134,614.65 111,107,950.40 4,322,340.00 PENALTY 11,201,083.20 68,149,479.59 12,371,832.00 35,477,712.00 11,065,188.59 67,794,681.59 2,637,360.00 TOTAL 30,789,243.20 179,838,904.49 32,647,890.00 93,621,740.00 29,199,803.24 178,902,631.99 6,959,700.00

E-016-01380 *E-016-013-85 *E-016-01387 *E-016-01396 GRAND TOTAL

1992-2001 1998-2001 1998-2001 1998-2001

7,776,436.00 6,444,810.00 34,876,800.00 75,240.00 P392,435,861.95

4,744,944.00 2,900,164.50 5,694,560.00 33,858.00 P232,070,863.47

12,521,380.00 9,344,974.50 50,571,360.00 109,098.00 P 624,506,725.42

1992-1997 RPT was paid on Dec. 24, 1997 as per O.R.#9476102 for P4,207,028.75 #9476101 for P28,676,480.00 #9476103 for P49,115.006 On 17 July 2001, the City of Paraaque, through its City Treasurer, issued notices of levy and warrants of levy on the Airport Lands and Buildings. The Mayor of the City of Paraaque threatened to sell at public auction the Airport Lands and Buildings should MIAA fail to pay the real estate tax delinquency. MIAA thus sought a clarification of OGCC Opinion No. 061. On 9 August 2001, the OGCC issued Opinion No. 147 clarifying OGCC Opinion No. 061. The OGCC pointed out that Section 206 of the Local Government Code requires persons exempt from real estate tax to show proof of exemption. The OGCC opined that Section 21 of the MIAA Charter is the proof that MIAA is exempt from real estate tax. On 1 October 2001, MIAA filed with the Court of Appeals an original petition for prohibition and injunction, with prayer for preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order. The petition sought to restrain the City of Paraaque from imposing real estate tax on, levying against, and auctioning for public sale the Airport Lands and Buildings. The petition was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 66878. On 5 October 2001, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition because MIAA filed it beyond the 60-day reglementary period. The Court of Appeals also denied on 27 September 2002 MIAA's motion for reconsideration and supplemental motion for reconsideration. Hence, MIAA filed on 5 December 2002 the present petition for review.7 Meanwhile, in January 2003, the City of Paraaque posted notices of auction sale at the Barangay Halls of Barangays Vitalez, Sto. Nio, and Tambo, Paraaque City; in the public market of Barangay La Huerta; and in the main lobby of the Paraaque City Hall. The City of Paraaque published the notices in the 3 and 10 January 2003 issues of the Philippine Daily Inquirer, a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines. The notices announced the public auction sale of the Airport Lands and Buildings to the highest bidder on 7 February 2003, 10:00 a.m., at the Legislative Session Hall Building of Paraaque City. A day before the public auction, or on 6 February 2003, at 5:10 p.m., MIAA filed before this Court an Urgent Ex-Parte and Reiteratory Motion for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order. The motion sought to restrain respondents the City of Paraaque, City Mayor of Paraaque, Sangguniang Panglungsod ng Paraaque, City Treasurer of Paraaque, and the City Assessor of Paraaque ("respondents") from auctioning the Airport Lands and Buildings. On 7 February 2003, this Court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) effective immediately. The Court ordered respondents to cease and desist from selling at public auction the Airport Lands and Buildings. Respondents received the TRO on the same day that the Court issued it. However, respondents received the TRO only at 1:25 p.m. or three hours after the conclusion of the public auction. On 10 February 2003, this Court issued a Resolution confirming nunc pro tunc the TRO. On 29 March 2005, the Court heard the parties in oral arguments. In compliance with the directive issued during the hearing, MIAA, respondent City of Paraaque, and the Solicitor General subsequently submitted their respective Memoranda. MIAA admits that the MIAA Charter has placed the title to the Airport Lands and Buildings in the name of MIAA. However, MIAA points out that it cannot claim ownership over these properties since the real owner of the Airport Lands and Buildings is the Republic of the Philippines. The MIAA Charter mandates MIAA to devote the Airport Lands and Buildings for the benefit of the general public. Since the Airport Lands and Buildings are devoted to public use and public service,

the ownership of these properties remains with the State. The Airport Lands and Buildings are thus inalienable and are not subject to real estate tax by local governments. MIAA also points out that Section 21 of the MIAA Charter specifically exempts MIAA from the payment of real estate tax. MIAA insists that it is also exempt from real estate tax under Section 234 of the Local Government Code because the Airport Lands and Buildings are owned by the Republic. To justify the exemption, MIAA invokes the principle that the government cannot tax itself. MIAA points out that the reason for tax exemption of public property is that its taxation would not inure to any public advantage, since in such a case the tax debtor is also the tax creditor. Respondents invoke Section 193 of the Local Government Code, which expressly withdrew the tax exemption privileges of "government-owned and-controlled corporations" upon the effectivity of the Local Government Code. Respondents also argue that a basic rule of statutory construction is that the express mention of one person, thing, or act excludes all others. An international airport is not among the exceptions mentioned in Section 193 of the Local Government Code. Thus, respondents assert that MIAA cannot claim that the Airport Lands and Buildings are exempt from real estate tax. Respondents also cite the ruling of this Court in Mactan International Airport v. Marcos8 where we held that the Local Government Code has withdrawn the exemption from real estate tax granted to international airports. Respondents further argue that since MIAA has already paid some of the real estate tax assessments, it is now estopped from claiming that the Airport Lands and Buildings are exempt from real estate tax. The Issue This petition raises the threshold issue of whether the Airport Lands and Buildings of MIAA are exempt from real estate tax under existing laws. If so exempt, then the real estate tax assessments issued by the City of Paraaque, and all proceedings taken pursuant to such assessments, are void. In such event, the other issues raised in this petition become moot. The Court's Ruling We rule that MIAA's Airport Lands and Buildings are exempt from real estate tax imposed by local governments. First, MIAA is not a government-owned or controlled corporation but an instrumentality of the National Government and thus exempt from local taxation. Second, the real properties of MIAA are owned by the Republic of the Philippines and thus exempt from real estate tax. 1. MIAA is Not a Government-Owned or Controlled Corporation Respondents argue that MIAA, being a government-owned or controlled corporation, is not exempt from real estate tax. Respondents claim that the deletion of the phrase "any government-owned or controlled so exempt by its charter" in Section 234(e) of the Local Government Code withdrew the real estate tax exemption of government-owned or controlled corporations. The deleted phrase appeared in Section 40(a) of the 1974 Real Property Tax Code enumerating the entities exempt from real estate tax. There is no dispute that a government-owned or controlled corporation is not exempt from real estate tax. However, MIAA is not a government-owned or controlled corporation. Section 2(13) of the Introductory Provisions of the Administrative Code of 1987 defines a government-owned or controlled corporation as follows: SEC. 2. General Terms Defined. x x x x (13) Government-owned or controlled corporation refers to any agency organized as a stock or non-stock corporation, vested with functions relating to public needs whether governmental or proprietary in nature, and owned by the Government directly or through its instrumentalities either wholly, or, where applicable as in the case of stock corporations, to the extent of at least fifty-one (51) percent of its capital stock: x x x. (Emphasis supplied) A government-owned or controlled corporation must be "organized as a stock or non-stock corporation." MIAA is not organized as a stock or non-stock corporation. MIAA is not a stock corporation because it has no capital stock divided into shares. MIAA has no stockholders or voting shares. Section 10 of the MIAA Charter9provides:

SECTION 10. Capital. The capital of the Authority to be contributed by the National Government shall be increased from Two and One-half Billion (P2,500,000,000.00) Pesos to Ten Billion (P10,000,000,000.00) Pesos to consist of: (a) The value of fixed assets including airport facilities, runways and equipment and such other properties, movable and immovable[,] which may be contributed by the National Government or transferred by it from any of its agencies, the valuation of which shall be determined jointly with the Department of Budget and Management and the Commission on Audit on the date of such contribution or transfer after making due allowances for depreciation and other deductions taking into account the loans and other liabilities of the Authority at the time of the takeover of the assets and other properties; (b) That the amount of P605 million as of December 31, 1986 representing about seventy percentum (70%) of the unremitted share of the National Government from 1983 to 1986 to be remitted to the National Treasury as provided for in Section 11 of E. O. No. 903 as amended, shall be converted into the equity of the National Government in the Authority. Thereafter, the Government contribution to the capital of the Authority shall be provided in the General Appropriations Act. Clearly, under its Charter, MIAA does not have capital stock that is divided into shares. Section 3 of the Corporation Code10 defines a stock corporation as one whose "capital stock is divided into shares and x x x authorized to distribute to the holders of such shares dividends x x x." MIAA has capital but it is not divided into shares of stock. MIAA has no stockholders or voting shares. Hence, MIAA is not a stock corporation. MIAA is also not a non-stock corporation because it has no members. Section 87 of the Corporation Code defines a nonstock corporation as "one where no part of its income is distributable as dividends to its members, trustees or officers." A non-stock corporation must have members. Even if we assume that the Government is considered as the sole member of MIAA, this will not make MIAA a non-stock corporation. Non-stock corporations cannot distribute any part of their income to their members. Section 11 of the MIAA Charter mandates MIAA to remit 20% of its annual gross operating income to the National Treasury.11 This prevents MIAA from qualifying as a non-stock corporation. Section 88 of the Corporation Code provides that non-stock corporations are "organized for charitable, religious, educational, professional, cultural, recreational, fraternal, literary, scientific, social, civil service, or similar purposes, like trade, industry, agriculture and like chambers." MIAA is not organized for any of these purposes. MIAA, a public utility, is organized to operate an international and domestic airport for public use. Since MIAA is neither a stock nor a non-stock corporation, MIAA does not qualify as a government-owned or controlled corporation. What then is the legal status of MIAA within the National Government? MIAA is a government instrumentality vested with corporate powers to perform efficiently its governmental functions. MIAA is like any other government instrumentality, the only difference is that MIAA is vested with corporate powers. Section 2(10) of the Introductory Provisions of the Administrative Code defines a government "instrumentality" as follows: SEC. 2. General Terms Defined. x x x x (10) Instrumentality refers to any agency of the National Government, not integrated within the department framework, vested with special functions or jurisdiction by law, endowed with some if not all corporate powers, administering special funds, and enjoying operational autonomy, usually through a charter. x x x (Emphasis supplied) When the law vests in a government instrumentality corporate powers, the instrumentality does not become a corporation. Unless the government instrumentality is organized as a stock or non-stock corporation, it remains a government instrumentality exercising not only governmental but also corporate powers. Thus, MIAA exercises the governmental powers of eminent domain,12 police authority13 and the levying of fees and charges.14 At the same time, MIAA exercises "all the powers of a corporation under the Corporation Law, insofar as these powers are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Executive Order."15 Likewise, when the law makes a government instrumentality operationally autonomous, the instrumentality remains part of the National Government machinery although not integrated with the department framework. The MIAA Charter

expressly states that transforming MIAA into a "separate and autonomous body"16 will make its operation more "financially viable."17 Many government instrumentalities are vested with corporate powers but they do not become stock or non-stock corporations, which is a necessary condition before an agency or instrumentality is deemed a government-owned or controlled corporation. Examples are the Mactan International Airport Authority, the Philippine Ports Authority, the University of the Philippines and Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas. All these government instrumentalities exercise corporate powers but they are not organized as stock or non-stock corporations as required by Section 2(13) of the Introductory Provisions of the Administrative Code. These government instrumentalities are sometimes loosely called government corporate entities. However, they are not government-owned or controlled corporations in the strict sense as understood under the Administrative Code, which is the governing law defining the legal relationship and status of government entities. A government instrumentality like MIAA falls under Section 133(o) of the Local Government Code, which states: SEC. 133. Common Limitations on the Taxing Powers of Local Government Units. Unless otherwise provided herein, the exercise of the taxing powers of provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays shall not extend to the levy of the following: xxxx (o) Taxes, fees or charges of any kind on the National Government, its agencies and instrumentalities and local government units.(Emphasis and underscoring supplied) Section 133(o) recognizes the basic principle that local governments cannot tax the national government, which historically merely delegated to local governments the power to tax. While the 1987 Constitution now includes taxation as one of the powers of local governments, local governments may only exercise such power "subject to such guidelines and limitations as the Congress may provide."18 When local governments invoke the power to tax on national government instrumentalities, such power is construed strictly against local governments. The rule is that a tax is never presumed and there must be clear language in the law imposing the tax. Any doubt whether a person, article or activity is taxable is resolved against taxation. This rule applies with greater force when local governments seek to tax national government instrumentalities. Another rule is that a tax exemption is strictly construed against the taxpayer claiming the exemption. However, when Congress grants an exemption to a national government instrumentality from local taxation, such exemption is construed liberally in favor of the national government instrumentality. As this Court declared in Maceda v. Macaraig, Jr.: The reason for the rule does not apply in the case of exemptions running to the benefit of the government itself or its agencies. In such case the practical effect of an exemption is merely to reduce the amount of money that has to be handled by government in the course of its operations. For these reasons, provisions granting exemptions to government agencies may be construed liberally, in favor of non tax-liability of such agencies.19 There is, moreover, no point in national and local governments taxing each other, unless a sound and compelling policy requires such transfer of public funds from one government pocket to another. There is also no reason for local governments to tax national government instrumentalities for rendering essential public services to inhabitants of local governments. The only exception is when the legislature clearly intended to tax government instrumentalities for the delivery of essential public services for sound and compelling policy considerations. There must be express language in the law empowering local governments to tax national government instrumentalities. Any doubt whether such power exists is resolved against local governments. Thus, Section 133 of the Local Government Code states that "unless otherwise provided" in the Code, local governments cannot tax national government instrumentalities. As this Court held in Basco v. Philippine Amusements and Gaming Corporation: The states have no power by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, burden or in any manner control the operation of constitutional laws enacted by Congress to carry into execution the powers vested in the federal government. (MC Culloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316, 4 L Ed. 579)

This doctrine emanates from the "supremacy" of the National Government over local governments. "Justice Holmes, speaking for the Supreme Court, made reference to the entire absence of power on the part of the States to touch, in that way (taxation) at least, the instrumentalities of the United States (Johnson v. Maryland, 254 US 51) and it can be agreed that no state or political subdivision can regulate a federal instrumentality in such a way as to prevent it from consummating its federal responsibilities, or even to seriously burden it in the accomplishment of them." (Antieau, Modern Constitutional Law, Vol. 2, p. 140, emphasis supplied) Otherwise, mere creatures of the State can defeat National policies thru extermination of what local authorities may perceive to be undesirable activities or enterprise using the power to tax as "a tool for regulation" (U.S. v. Sanchez, 340 US 42). The power to tax which was called by Justice Marshall as the "power to destroy" (Mc Culloch v. Maryland, supra) cannot be allowed to defeat an instrumentality or creation of the very entity which has the inherent power to wield it. 20 2. Airport Lands and Buildings of MIAA are Owned by the Republic a. Airport Lands and Buildings are of Public Dominion The Airport Lands and Buildings of MIAA are property of public dominion and therefore owned by the State or the Republic of the Philippines. The Civil Code provides: ARTICLE 419. Property is either of public dominion or of private ownership. ARTICLE 420. The following things are property of public dominion: (1) Those intended for public use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and bridges constructed by the State, banks, shores, roadsteads, and others of similar character; (2) Those which belong to the State, without being for public use, and are intended for some public service or for the development of the national wealth. (Emphasis supplied) ARTICLE 421. All other property of the State, which is not of the character stated in the preceding article, is patrimonial property. ARTICLE 422. Property of public dominion, when no longer intended for public use or for public service, shall form part of the patrimonial property of the State. No one can dispute that properties of public dominion mentioned in Article 420 of the Civil Code, like "roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and bridges constructed by the State," are owned by the State. The term "ports" includes seaports and airports. The MIAA Airport Lands and Buildings constitute a "port" constructed by the State. Under Article 420 of the Civil Code, the MIAA Airport Lands and Buildings are properties of public dominion and thus owned by the State or the Republic of the Philippines. The Airport Lands and Buildings are devoted to public use because they are used by the public for international and domestic travel and transportation. The fact that the MIAA collects terminal fees and other charges from the public does not remove the character of the Airport Lands and Buildings as properties for public use. The operation by the government of a tollway does not change the character of the road as one for public use. Someone must pay for the maintenance of the road, either the public indirectly through the taxes they pay the government, or only those among the public who actually use the road through the toll fees they pay upon using the road. The tollway system is even a more efficient and equitable manner of taxing the public for the maintenance of public roads. The charging of fees to the public does not determine the character of the property whether it is of public dominion or not. Article 420 of the Civil Code defines property of public dominion as one "intended for public use." Even if the government collects toll fees, the road is still "intended for public use" if anyone can use the road under the same terms and conditions as the rest of the public. The charging of fees, the limitation on the kind of vehicles that can use the road, the speed restrictions and other conditions for the use of the road do not affect the public character of the road.

The terminal fees MIAA charges to passengers, as well as the landing fees MIAA charges to airlines, constitute the bulk of the income that maintains the operations of MIAA. The collection of such fees does not change the character of MIAA as an airport for public use. Such fees are often termed user's tax. This means taxing those among the public who actually use a public facility instead of taxing all the public including those who never use the particular public facility. A user's tax is more equitable a principle of taxation mandated in the 1987 Constitution.21 The Airport Lands and Buildings of MIAA, which its Charter calls the "principal airport of the Philippines for both international and domestic air traffic,"22 are properties of public dominion because they are intended for public use. As properties of public dominion, they indisputably belong to the State or the Republic of the Philippines. b. Airport Lands and Buildings are Outside the Commerce of Man The Airport Lands and Buildings of MIAA are devoted to public use and thus are properties of public dominion. As properties of public dominion, the Airport Lands and Buildings are outside the commerce of man. The Court has ruled repeatedly that properties of public dominion are outside the commerce of man. As early as 1915, this Court already ruled in Municipality of Cavite v. Rojas that properties devoted to public use are outside the commerce of man, thus: According to article 344 of the Civil Code: "Property for public use in provinces and in towns comprises the provincial and town roads, the squares, streets, fountains, and public waters, the promenades, and public works of general service supported by said towns or provinces." The said Plaza Soledad being a promenade for public use, the municipal council of Cavite could not in 1907 withdraw or exclude from public use a portion thereof in order to lease it for the sole benefit of the defendant Hilaria Rojas. In leasing a portion of said plaza or public place to the defendant for private use the plaintiff municipality exceeded its authority in the exercise of its powers by executing a contract over a thing of which it could not dispose, nor is it empowered so to do. The Civil Code, article 1271, prescribes that everything which is not outside the commerce of man may be the object of a contract, and plazas and streets are outside of this commerce, as was decided by the supreme court of Spain in its decision of February 12, 1895, which says: "Communal things that cannot be sold because they are by their very nature outside of commerce are those for public use, such as the plazas, streets, common lands, rivers, fountains, etc." (Emphasis supplied) 23 Again in Espiritu v. Municipal Council, the Court declared that properties of public dominion are outside the commerce of man: xxx Town plazas are properties of public dominion, to be devoted to public use and to be made available to the public in general. They are outside the commerce of man and cannot be disposed of or even leased by the municipality to private parties. While in case of war or during an emergency, town plazas may be occupied temporarily by private individuals, as was done and as was tolerated by the Municipality of Pozorrubio, when the emergency has ceased, said temporary occupation or use must also cease, and the town officials should see to it that the town plazas should ever be kept open to the public and free from encumbrances or illegal private constructions.24 (Emphasis supplied) The Court has also ruled that property of public dominion, being outside the commerce of man, cannot be the subject of an auction sale.25 Properties of public dominion, being for public use, are not subject to levy, encumbrance or disposition through public or private sale. Any encumbrance, levy on execution or auction sale of any property of public dominion is void for being contrary to public policy. Essential public services will stop if properties of public dominion are subject to encumbrances, foreclosures and auction sale. This will happen if the City of Paraaque can foreclose and compel the auction sale of the 600-hectare runway of the MIAA for non-payment of real estate tax. Before MIAA can encumber26 the Airport Lands and Buildings, the President must first withdraw from public use the Airport Lands and Buildings. Sections 83 and 88 of the Public Land Law or Commonwealth Act No. 141, which "remains to this day the existing general law governing the classification and disposition of lands of the public domain other than timber and mineral lands,"27 provide: SECTION 83. Upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, the President may designate by proclamation any tract or tracts of land of the public domain as reservations for the use of the

Republic of the Philippines or of any of its branches, or of the inhabitants thereof, in accordance with regulations prescribed for this purposes, or for quasi-public uses or purposes when the public interest requires it, including reservations for highways, rights of way for railroads, hydraulic power sites, irrigation systems, communal pastures or lequas communales, public parks, public quarries, public fishponds, working men's village and other improvements for the public benefit. SECTION 88. The tract or tracts of land reserved under the provisions of Section eighty-three shall be non-alienable and shall not be subject to occupation, entry, sale, lease, or other disposition until again declared alienable under the provisions of this Act or by proclamation of the President. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) Thus, unless the President issues a proclamation withdrawing the Airport Lands and Buildings from public use, these properties remain properties of public dominion and are inalienable. Since the Airport Lands and Buildings are inalienable in their present status as properties of public dominion, they are not subject to levy on execution or foreclosure sale. As long as the Airport Lands and Buildings are reserved for public use, their ownership remains with the State or the Republic of the Philippines. The authority of the President to reserve lands of the public domain for public use, and to withdraw such public use, is reiterated in Section 14, Chapter 4, Title I, Book III of the Administrative Code of 1987, which states: SEC. 14. Power to Reserve Lands of the Public and Private Domain of the Government. (1) The President shall have the power to reserve for settlement or public use, and for specific public purposes, any of the lands of the public domain, the use of which is not otherwise directed by law. The reserved land shall thereafter remain subject to the specific public purpose indicated until otherwise provided by law or proclamation; x x x x. (Emphasis supplied) There is no question, therefore, that unless the Airport Lands and Buildings are withdrawn by law or presidential proclamation from public use, they are properties of public dominion, owned by the Republic and outside the commerce of man. c. MIAA is a Mere Trustee of the Republic MIAA is merely holding title to the Airport Lands and Buildings in trust for the Republic. Section 48, Chapter 12, Book I of the Administrative Code allows instrumentalities like MIAA to hold title to real properties owned by the Republic, thus: SEC. 48. Official Authorized to Convey Real Property. Whenever real property of the Government is authorized by law to be conveyed, the deed of conveyance shall be executed in behalf of the government by the following: (1) For property belonging to and titled in the name of the Republic of the Philippines, by the President, unless the authority therefor is expressly vested by law in another officer. (2) For property belonging to the Republic of the Philippines but titled in the name of any political subdivision or of any corporate agency or instrumentality, by the executive head of the agency or instrumentality. (Emphasis supplied) In MIAA's case, its status as a mere trustee of the Airport Lands and Buildings is clearer because even its executive head cannot sign the deed of conveyance on behalf of the Republic. Only the President of the Republic can sign such deed of conveyance.28 d. Transfer to MIAA was Meant to Implement a Reorganization The MIAA Charter, which is a law, transferred to MIAA the title to the Airport Lands and Buildings from the Bureau of Air Transportation of the Department of Transportation and Communications. The MIAA Charter provides: SECTION 3. Creation of the Manila International Airport Authority. x x x x

The land where the Airport is presently located as well as the surrounding land area of approximately six hundred hectares, are hereby transferred, conveyed and assigned to the ownership and administration of the Authority, subject to existing rights, if any. The Bureau of Lands and other appropriate government agencies shall undertake an actual survey of the area transferred within one year from the promulgation of this Executive Order and the corresponding title to be issued in the name of the Authority. Any portion thereof shall not be disposed through sale or through any other mode unless specifically approved by the President of the Philippines. (Emphasis supplied) SECTION 22. Transfer of Existing Facilities and Intangible Assets. All existing public airport facilities, runways, lands, buildings and other property, movable or immovable, belonging to the Airport, and all assets, powers, rights, interests and privileges belonging to the Bureau of Air Transportation relating to airport works or air operations, including all equipment which are necessary for the operation of crash fire and rescue facilities, are hereby transferred to the Authority. (Emphasis supplied) SECTION 25. Abolition of the Manila International Airport as a Division in the Bureau of Air Transportation and Transitory Provisions. The Manila International Airport including the Manila Domestic Airport as a division under the Bureau of Air Transportation is hereby abolished. x x x x. The MIAA Charter transferred the Airport Lands and Buildings to MIAA without the Republic receiving cash, promissory notes or even stock since MIAA is not a stock corporation. The whereas clauses of the MIAA Charter explain the rationale for the transfer of the Airport Lands and Buildings to MIAA, thus: WHEREAS, the Manila International Airport as the principal airport of the Philippines for both international and domestic air traffic, is required to provide standards of airport accommodation and service comparable with the best airports in the world; WHEREAS, domestic and other terminals, general aviation and other facilities, have to be upgraded to meet the current and future air traffic and other demands of aviation in Metro Manila; WHEREAS, a management and organization study has indicated that the objectives of providing high standards of accommodation and service within the context of a financially viable operation, will best be achieved by a separate and autonomous body; and WHEREAS, under Presidential Decree No. 1416, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1772, the President of the Philippines is given continuing authority to reorganize the National Government, which authority includes the creation of new entities, agencies and instrumentalities of the Government[.] (Emphasis supplied) The transfer of the Airport Lands and Buildings from the Bureau of Air Transportation to MIAA was not meant to transfer beneficial ownership of these assets from the Republic to MIAA. The purpose was merely to reorganize a division in the Bureau of Air Transportation into a separate and autonomous body. The Republic remains the beneficial owner of the Airport Lands and Buildings. MIAA itself is owned solely by the Republic. No party claims any ownership rights over MIAA's assets adverse to the Republic. The MIAA Charter expressly provides that the Airport Lands and Buildings "shall not be disposed through sale or through any other mode unless specifically approved by the President of the Philippines." This only means that the Republic retained the beneficial ownership of the Airport Lands and Buildings because under Article 428 of the Civil Code, only the "owner has the right to x x x dispose of a thing." Since MIAA cannot dispose of the Airport Lands and Buildings, MIAA does not own the Airport Lands and Buildings. At any time, the President can transfer back to the Republic title to the Airport Lands and Buildings without the Republic paying MIAA any consideration. Under Section 3 of the MIAA Charter, the President is the only one who can authorize the sale or disposition of the Airport Lands and Buildings. This only confirms that the Airport Lands and Buildings belong to the Republic. e. Real Property Owned by the Republic is Not Taxable

Section 234(a) of the Local Government Code exempts from real estate tax any "[r]eal property owned by the Republic of the Philippines." Section 234(a) provides: SEC. 234. Exemptions from Real Property Tax. The following are exempted from payment of the real property tax: (a) Real property owned by the Republic of the Philippines or any of its political subdivisions except when the beneficial use thereof has been granted, for consideration or otherwise, to a taxable person; x x x. (Emphasis supplied) This exemption should be read in relation with Section 133(o) of the same Code, which prohibits local governments from imposing "[t]axes, fees or charges of any kind on the National Government, its agencies andinstrumentalities x x x." The real properties owned by the Republic are titled either in the name of the Republic itself or in the name of agencies or instrumentalities of the National Government. The Administrative Code allows real property owned by the Republic to be titled in the name of agencies or instrumentalities of the national government. Such real properties remain owned by the Republic and continue to be exempt from real estate tax. The Republic may grant the beneficial use of its real property to an agency or instrumentality of the national government. This happens when title of the real property is transferred to an agency or instrumentality even as the Republic remains the owner of the real property. Such arrangement does not result in the loss of the tax exemption. Section 234(a) of the Local Government Code states that real property owned by the Republic loses its tax exemption only if the "beneficial use thereof has been granted, for consideration or otherwise, to a taxable person." MIAA, as a government instrumentality, is not a taxable person under Section 133(o) of the Local Government Code. Thus, even if we assume that the Republic has granted to MIAA the beneficial use of the Airport Lands and Buildings, such fact does not make these real properties subject to real estate tax. However, portions of the Airport Lands and Buildings that MIAA leases to private entities are not exempt from real estate tax. For example, the land area occupied by hangars that MIAA leases to private corporations is subject to real estate tax. In such a case, MIAA has granted the beneficial use of such land area for a consideration to ataxable person and therefore such land area is subject to real estate tax. In Lung Center of the Philippines v. Quezon City, the Court ruled: Accordingly, we hold that the portions of the land leased to private entities as well as those parts of the hospital leased to private individuals are not exempt from such taxes. On the other hand, the portions of the land occupied by the hospital and portions of the hospital used for its patients, whether paying or non-paying, are exempt from real property taxes.29 3. Refutation of Arguments of Minority The minority asserts that the MIAA is not exempt from real estate tax because Section 193 of the Local Government Code of 1991 withdrew the tax exemption of "all persons, whether natural or juridical" upon the effectivity of the Code. Section 193 provides: SEC. 193. Withdrawal of Tax Exemption Privileges Unless otherwise provided in this Code, tax exemptions or incentives granted to, or presently enjoyed by all persons, whether natural or juridical, including government-owned or controlled corporations, except local water districts, cooperatives duly registered under R.A. No. 6938, non-stock and non-profit hospitals and educational institutions are hereby withdrawn upon effectivity of this Code. (Emphasis supplied) The minority states that MIAA is indisputably a juridical person. The minority argues that since the Local Government Code withdrew the tax exemption of all juridical persons, then MIAA is not exempt from real estate tax. Thus, the minority declares: It is evident from the quoted provisions of the Local Government Code that the withdrawn exemptions from realty tax cover not just GOCCs, but all persons. To repeat, the provisions lay down the explicit proposition that the withdrawal of realty tax exemption applies to all persons. The reference to or the inclusion of GOCCs is only clarificatory or illustrative of the explicit provision.

The term "All persons" encompasses the two classes of persons recognized under our laws, natural and juridical persons. Obviously, MIAA is not a natural person. Thus, the determinative test is not just whether MIAA is a GOCC, but whether MIAA is a juridical person at all. (Emphasis and underscoring in the original) The minority posits that the "determinative test" whether MIAA is exempt from local taxation is its status whether MIAA is a juridical person or not. The minority also insists that "Sections 193 and 234 may be examined in isolation from Section 133(o) to ascertain MIAA's claim of exemption." The argument of the minority is fatally flawed. Section 193 of the Local Government Code expressly withdrew the tax exemption of all juridical persons "[u]nless otherwise provided in this Code." Now, Section 133(o) of the Local Government Code expressly provides otherwise, specifically prohibiting local governments from imposing any kind of tax on national government instrumentalities. Section 133(o) states: SEC. 133. Common Limitations on the Taxing Powers of Local Government Units. Unless otherwise provided herein, the exercise of the taxing powers of provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays shall not extend to the levy of the following: xxxx (o) Taxes, fees or charges of any kinds on the National Government, its agencies and instrumentalities, and local government units. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) By express mandate of the Local Government Code, local governments cannot impose any kind of tax on national government instrumentalities like the MIAA. Local governments are devoid of power to tax the national government, its agencies and instrumentalities. The taxing powers of local governments do not extend to the national government, its agencies and instrumentalities, "[u]nless otherwise provided in this Code" as stated in the saving clause of Section 133. The saving clause refers to Section 234(a) on the exception to the exemption from real estate tax of real property owned by the Republic. The minority, however, theorizes that unless exempted in Section 193 itself, all juridical persons are subject to tax by local governments. The minority insists that the juridical persons exempt from local taxation are limited to the three classes of entities specifically enumerated as exempt in Section 193. Thus, the minority states: x x x Under Section 193, the exemption is limited to (a) local water districts; (b) cooperatives duly registered under Republic Act No. 6938; and (c) non-stock and non-profit hospitals and educational institutions. It would be belaboring the obvious why the MIAA does not fall within any of the exempt entities under Section 193. (Emphasis supplied) The minority's theory directly contradicts and completely negates Section 133(o) of the Local Government Code. This theory will result in gross absurdities. It will make the national government, which itself is a juridical person, subject to tax by local governments since the national government is not included in the enumeration of exempt entities in Section 193. Under this theory, local governments can impose any kind of local tax, and not only real estate tax, on the national government. Under the minority's theory, many national government instrumentalities with juridical personalities will also be subject to any kind of local tax, and not only real estate tax. Some of the national government instrumentalities vested by law with juridical personalities are: Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas,30 Philippine Rice Research Institute,31Laguna Lake Development Authority,32 Fisheries Development Authority,33 Bases Conversion Development Authority,34Philippine Ports Authority,35 Cagayan de Oro Port Authority,36 San Fernando Port Authority,37 Cebu Port Authority,38 and Philippine National Railways.39 The minority's theory violates Section 133(o) of the Local Government Code which expressly prohibits local governments from imposing any kind of tax on national government instrumentalities. Section 133(o) does not distinguish between national government instrumentalities with or without juridical personalities. Where the law does not distinguish, courts should not distinguish. Thus, Section 133(o) applies to all national government instrumentalities, with or without juridical personalities. The determinative test whether MIAA is exempt from local taxation is not whether MIAA is a juridical person, but whether it is a national government instrumentality under Section 133(o) of the Local Government Code. Section

133(o) is the specific provision of law prohibiting local governments from imposing any kind of tax on the national government, its agencies and instrumentalities. Section 133 of the Local Government Code starts with the saving clause "[u]nless otherwise provided in this Code." This means that unless the Local Government Code grants an express authorization, local governments have no power to tax the national government, its agencies and instrumentalities. Clearly, the rule is local governments have no power to tax the national government, its agencies and instrumentalities. As an exception to this rule, local governments may tax the national government, its agencies and instrumentalities only if the Local Government Code expressly so provides. The saving clause in Section 133 refers to the exception to the exemption in Section 234(a) of the Code, which makes the national government subject to real estate tax when it gives the beneficial use of its real properties to a taxable entity. Section 234(a) of the Local Government Code provides: SEC. 234. Exemptions from Real Property Tax The following are exempted from payment of the real property tax: (a) Real property owned by the Republic of the Philippines or any of its political subdivisions except when the beneficial use thereof has been granted, for consideration or otherwise, to a taxable person. x x x. (Emphasis supplied) Under Section 234(a), real property owned by the Republic is exempt from real estate tax. The exception to this exemption is when the government gives the beneficial use of the real property to a taxable entity. The exception to the exemption in Section 234(a) is the only instance when the national government, its agencies and instrumentalities are subject to any kind of tax by local governments. The exception to the exemption applies only to real estate tax and not to any other tax. The justification for the exception to the exemption is that the real property, although owned by the Republic, is not devoted to public use or public service but devoted to the private gain of a taxable person. The minority also argues that since Section 133 precedes Section 193 and 234 of the Local Government Code, the later provisions prevail over Section 133. Thus, the minority asserts: x x x Moreover, sequentially Section 133 antecedes Section 193 and 234. Following an accepted rule of construction, in case of conflict the subsequent provisions should prevail. Therefore, MIAA, as a juridical person, is subject to real property taxes, the general exemptions attaching to instrumentalities under Section 133(o) of the Local Government Code being qualified by Sections 193 and 234 of the same law. (Emphasis supplied) The minority assumes that there is an irreconcilable conflict between Section 133 on one hand, and Sections 193 and 234 on the other. No one has urged that there is such a conflict, much less has any one presenteda persuasive argument that there is such a conflict. The minority's assumption of an irreconcilable conflict in the statutory provisions is an egregious error for two reasons. First, there is no conflict whatsoever between Sections 133 and 193 because Section 193 expressly admits its subordination to other provisions of the Code when Section 193 states "[u]nless otherwise provided in this Code." By its own words, Section 193 admits the superiority of other provisions of the Local Government Code that limit the exercise of the taxing power in Section 193. When a provision of law grants a power but withholds such power on certain matters, there is no conflict between the grant of power and the withholding of power. The grantee of the power simply cannot exercise the power on matters withheld from its power. Second, Section 133 is entitled "Common Limitations on the Taxing Powers of Local Government Units." Section 133 limits the grant to local governments of the power to tax, and not merely the exercise of a delegated power to tax. Section 133 states that the taxing powers of local governments "shall not extend to the levy" of any kind of tax on the national government, its agencies and instrumentalities. There is no clearer limitation on the taxing power than this. Since Section 133 prescribes the "common limitations" on the taxing powers of local governments, Section 133 logically prevails over Section 193 which grants local governments such taxing powers. By their very meaning and purpose, the "common limitations" on the taxing power prevail over the grant or exercise of the taxing power. If the taxing power of local governments in Section 193 prevails over the limitations on such taxing power in Section 133, then local governments can impose any kind of tax on the national government, its agencies and instrumentalities a gross absurdity.

Local governments have no power to tax the national government, its agencies and instrumentalities, except as otherwise provided in the Local Government Code pursuant to the saving clause in Section 133 stating "[u]nless otherwise provided in this Code." This exception which is an exception to the exemption of the Republic from real estate tax imposed by local governments refers to Section 234(a) of the Code. The exception to the exemption in Section 234(a) subjects real property owned by the Republic, whether titled in the name of the national government, its agencies or instrumentalities, to real estate tax if the beneficial use of such property is given to a taxable entity. The minority also claims that the definition in the Administrative Code of the phrase "government-owned or controlled corporation" is not controlling. The minority points out that Section 2 of the Introductory Provisions of the Administrative Code admits that its definitions are not controlling when it provides: SEC. 2. General Terms Defined. Unless the specific words of the text, or the context as a whole, or a particular statute, shall require a different meaning: xxxx The minority then concludes that reliance on the Administrative Code definition is "flawed." The minority's argument is a non sequitur. True, Section 2 of the Administrative Code recognizes that a statute may require a different meaning than that defined in the Administrative Code. However, this does not automatically mean that the definition in the Administrative Code does not apply to the Local Government Code. Section 2 of the Administrative Code clearly states that "unless the specific words x x x of a particular statute shall require a different meaning," the definition in Section 2 of the Administrative Code shall apply. Thus, unless there is specific language in the Local Government Code defining the phrase "government-owned or controlled corporation" differently from the definition in the Administrative Code, the definition in the Administrative Code prevails. The minority does not point to any provision in the Local Government Code defining the phrase "government-owned or controlled corporation" differently from the definition in the Administrative Code. Indeed, there is none. The Local Government Code is silent on the definition of the phrase "government-owned or controlled corporation." The Administrative Code, however, expressly defines the phrase "government-owned or controlled corporation." The inescapable conclusion is that the Administrative Code definition of the phrase "government-owned or controlled corporation" applies to the Local Government Code. The third whereas clause of the Administrative Code states that the Code "incorporates in a unified document the major structural, functional and procedural principles and rules of governance." Thus, the Administrative Code is the governing law defining the status and relationship of government departments, bureaus, offices, agencies and instrumentalities. Unless a statute expressly provides for a different status and relationship for a specific government unit or entity, the provisions of the Administrative Code prevail. The minority also contends that the phrase "government-owned or controlled corporation" should apply only to corporations organized under the Corporation Code, the general incorporation law, and not to corporations created by special charters. The minority sees no reason why government corporations with special charters should have a capital stock. Thus, the minority declares: I submit that the definition of "government-owned or controlled corporations" under the Administrative Code refer to those corporations owned by the government or its instrumentalities which are created not by legislative enactment, but formed and organized under the Corporation Code through registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission. In short, these are GOCCs without original charters. xxxx It might as well be worth pointing out that there is no point in requiring a capital structure for GOCCs whose full ownership is limited by its charter to the State or Republic. Such GOCCs are not empowered to declare dividends or alienate their capital shares. The contention of the minority is seriously flawed. It is not in accord with the Constitution and existing legislations. It will also result in gross absurdities.

First, the Administrative Code definition of the phrase "government-owned or controlled corporation" does not distinguish between one incorporated under the Corporation Code or under a special charter. Where the law does not distinguish, courts should not distinguish. Second, Congress has created through special charters several government-owned corporations organized as stock corporations. Prime examples are the Land Bank of the Philippines and the Development Bank of the Philippines. The special charter40 of the Land Bank of the Philippines provides: SECTION 81. Capital. The authorized capital stock of the Bank shall be nine billion pesos, divided into seven hundred and eighty million common shares with a par value of ten pesos each, which shall be fully subscribed by the Government, and one hundred and twenty million preferred shares with a par value of ten pesos each, which shall be issued in accordance with the provisions of Sections seventy-seven and eighty-three of this Code. (Emphasis supplied) Likewise, the special charter41 of the Development Bank of the Philippines provides: SECTION 7. Authorized Capital Stock Par value. The capital stock of the Bank shall be Five Billion Pesos to be divided into Fifty Million common shares with par value of P100 per share. These shares are available for subscription by the National Government. Upon the effectivity of this Charter, the National Government shall subscribe to Twenty-Five Million common shares of stock worth Two Billion Five Hundred Million which shall be deemed paid for by the Government with the net asset values of the Bank remaining after the transfer of assets and liabilities as provided in Section 30 hereof. (Emphasis supplied) Other government-owned corporations organized as stock corporations under their special charters are the Philippine Crop Insurance Corporation,42 Philippine International Trading Corporation,43 and the Philippine National Bank44 before it was reorganized as a stock corporation under the Corporation Code. All these government-owned corporations organized under special charters as stock corporations are subject to real estate tax on real properties owned by them. To rule that they are not government-owned or controlled corporations because they are not registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission would remove them from the reach of Section 234 of the Local Government Code, thus exempting them from real estate tax. Third, the government-owned or controlled corporations created through special charters are those that meet the two conditions prescribed in Section 16, Article XII of the Constitution. The first condition is that the government-owned or controlled corporation must be established for the common good. The second condition is that the government-owned or controlled corporation must meet the test of economic viability. Section 16, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution provides: SEC. 16. The Congress shall not, except by general law, provide for the formation, organization, or regulation of private corporations. Government-owned or controlled corporations may be created or established by special charters in the interest of the common good and subject to the test of economic viability. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) The Constitution expressly authorizes the legislature to create "government-owned or controlled corporations" through special charters only if these entities are required to meet the twin conditions of common good and economic viability. In other words, Congress has no power to create government-owned or controlled corporations with special charters unless they are made to comply with the two conditions of common good and economic viability. The test of economic viability applies only to government-owned or controlled corporations that perform economic or commercial activities and need to compete in the market place. Being essentially economic vehicles of the State for the common good meaning for economic development purposes these government-owned or controlled corporations with special charters are usually organized as stock corporations just like ordinary private corporations. In contrast, government instrumentalities vested with corporate powers and performing governmental or public functions need not meet the test of economic viability. These instrumentalities perform essential public services for the common good, services that every modern State must provide its citizens. These instrumentalities need not be economically viable since the government may even subsidize their entire operations. These instrumentalities are not the "government-owned or controlled corporations" referred to in Section 16, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution. Thus, the Constitution imposes no limitation when the legislature creates government instrumentalities vested with corporate powers but performing essential governmental or public functions. Congress has plenary authority to create government instrumentalities vested with corporate powers provided these instrumentalities perform essential government functions or public services. However, when the legislature creates through special charters corporations that perform

economic or commercial activities, such entities known as "government-owned or controlled corporations" must meet the test of economic viability because they compete in the market place. This is the situation of the Land Bank of the Philippines and the Development Bank of the Philippines and similar government-owned or controlled corporations, which derive their income to meet operating expenses solely from commercial transactions in competition with the private sector. The intent of the Constitution is to prevent the creation of government-owned or controlled corporations that cannot survive on their own in the market place and thus merely drain the public coffers. Commissioner Blas F. Ople, proponent of the test of economic viability, explained to the Constitutional Commission the purpose of this test, as follows: MR. OPLE: Madam President, the reason for this concern is really that when the government creates a corporation, there is a sense in which this corporation becomes exempt from the test of economic performance. We know what happened in the past. If a government corporation loses, then it makes its claim upon the taxpayers' money through new equity infusions from the government and what is always invoked is the common good. That is the reason why this year, out of a budget of P115 billion for the entire government, about P28 billion of this will go into equity infusions to support a few government financial institutions. And this is all taxpayers' money which could have been relocated to agrarian reform, to social services like health and education, to augment the salaries of grossly underpaid public employees. And yet this is all going down the drain. Therefore, when we insert the phrase "ECONOMIC VIABILITY" together with the "common good," this becomes a restraint on future enthusiasts for state capitalism to excuse themselves from the responsibility of meeting the market test so that they become viable. And so, Madam President, I reiterate, for the committee's consideration and I am glad that I am joined in this proposal by Commissioner Foz, the insertion of the standard of "ECONOMIC VIABILITY OR THE ECONOMIC TEST," together with the common good.45 Father Joaquin G. Bernas, a leading member of the Constitutional Commission, explains in his textbook The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary: The second sentence was added by the 1986 Constitutional Commission. The significant addition, however, is the phrase "in the interest of the common good and subject to the test of economic viability." The addition includes the ideas that they must show capacity to function efficiently in business and that they should not go into activities which the private sector can do better. Moreover, economic viability is more than financial viability but also includes capability to make profit and generate benefits not quantifiable in financial terms.46 (Emphasis supplied) Clearly, the test of economic viability does not apply to government entities vested with corporate powers and performing essential public services. The State is obligated to render essential public services regardless of the economic viability of providing such service. The non-economic viability of rendering such essential public service does not excuse the State from withholding such essential services from the public. However, government-owned or controlled corporations with special charters, organized essentially for economic or commercial objectives, must meet the test of economic viability. These are the government-owned or controlled corporations that are usually organized under their special charters as stock corporations, like the Land Bank of the Philippines and the Development Bank of the Philippines. These are the government-owned or controlled corporations, along with government-owned or controlled corporations organized under the Corporation Code, that fall under the definition of "government-owned or controlled corporations" in Section 2(10) of the Administrative Code. The MIAA need not meet the test of economic viability because the legislature did not create MIAA to compete in the market place. MIAA does not compete in the market place because there is no competing international airport operated by the private sector. MIAA performs an essential public service as the primary domestic and international airport of the Philippines. The operation of an international airport requires the presence of personnel from the following government agencies: 1. The Bureau of Immigration and Deportation, to document the arrival and departure of passengers, screening out those without visas or travel documents, or those with hold departure orders; 2. The Bureau of Customs, to collect import duties or enforce the ban on prohibited importations;

3. The quarantine office of the Department of Health, to enforce health measures against the spread of infectious diseases into the country; 4. The Department of Agriculture, to enforce measures against the spread of plant and animal diseases into the country; 5. The Aviation Security Command of the Philippine National Police, to prevent the entry of terrorists and the escape of criminals, as well as to secure the airport premises from terrorist attack or seizure; 6. The Air Traffic Office of the Department of Transportation and Communications, to authorize aircraft to enter or leave Philippine airspace, as well as to land on, or take off from, the airport; and 7. The MIAA, to provide the proper premises such as runway and buildings for the government personnel, passengers, and airlines, and to manage the airport operations. All these agencies of government perform government functions essential to the operation of an international airport. MIAA performs an essential public service that every modern State must provide its citizens. MIAA derives its revenues principally from the mandatory fees and charges MIAA imposes on passengers and airlines. The terminal fees that MIAA charges every passenger are regulatory or administrative fees47 and not income from commercial transactions. MIAA falls under the definition of a government instrumentality under Section 2(10) of the Introductory Provisions of the Administrative Code, which provides: SEC. 2. General Terms Defined. x x x x (10) Instrumentality refers to any agency of the National Government, not integrated within the department framework, vested with special functions or jurisdiction by law, endowed with some if not all corporate powers, administering special funds, and enjoying operational autonomy, usually through a charter. x x x (Emphasis supplied) The fact alone that MIAA is endowed with corporate powers does not make MIAA a government-owned or controlled corporation. Without a change in its capital structure, MIAA remains a government instrumentality under Section 2(10) of the Introductory Provisions of the Administrative Code. More importantly, as long as MIAA renders essential public services, it need not comply with the test of economic viability. Thus, MIAA is outside the scope of the phrase "government-owned or controlled corporations" under Section 16, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution. The minority belittles the use in the Local Government Code of the phrase "government-owned or controlled corporation" as merely "clarificatory or illustrative." This is fatal. The 1987 Constitution prescribes explicit conditions for the creation of "government-owned or controlled corporations." The Administrative Code defines what constitutes a "government-owned or controlled corporation." To belittle this phrase as "clarificatory or illustrative" is grave error. To summarize, MIAA is not a government-owned or controlled corporation under Section 2(13) of the Introductory Provisions of the Administrative Code because it is not organized as a stock or non-stock corporation. Neither is MIAA a government-owned or controlled corporation under Section 16, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution because MIAA is not required to meet the test of economic viability. MIAA is a government instrumentality vested with corporate powers and performing essential public services pursuant to Section 2(10) of the Introductory Provisions of the Administrative Code. As a government instrumentality, MIAA is not subject to any kind of tax by local governments under Section 133(o) of the Local Government Code. The exception to the exemption in Section 234(a) does not apply to MIAA because MIAA is not a taxable entity under the Local Government Code. Such exception applies only if the beneficial use of real property owned by the Republic is given to a taxable entity. Finally, the Airport Lands and Buildings of MIAA are properties devoted to public use and thus are properties of public dominion. Properties of public dominion are owned by the State or the Republic. Article 420 of the Civil Code provides: Art. 420. The following things are property of public dominion: (1) Those intended for public use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and bridges constructed by the State, banks, shores, roadsteads, and others of similar character;

(2) Those which belong to the State, without being for public use, and are intended for some public service or for the development of the national wealth. (Emphasis supplied) The term "ports x x x constructed by the State" includes airports and seaports. The Airport Lands and Buildings of MIAA are intended for public use, and at the very least intended for public service. Whether intended for public use or public service, the Airport Lands and Buildings are properties of public dominion. As properties of public dominion, the Airport Lands and Buildings are owned by the Republic and thus exempt from real estate tax under Section 234(a) of the Local Government Code. 4. Conclusion Under Section 2(10) and (13) of the Introductory Provisions of the Administrative Code, which governs the legal relation and status of government units, agencies and offices within the entire government machinery, MIAA is a government instrumentality and not a government-owned or controlled corporation. Under Section 133(o) of the Local Government Code, MIAA as a government instrumentality is not a taxable person because it is not subject to "[t]axes, fees or charges of any kind" by local governments. The only exception is when MIAA leases its real property to a "taxable person" as provided in Section 234(a) of the Local Government Code, in which case the specific real property leased becomes subject to real estate tax. Thus, only portions of the Airport Lands and Buildings leased to taxable persons like private parties are subject to real estate tax by the City of Paraaque. Under Article 420 of the Civil Code, the Airport Lands and Buildings of MIAA, being devoted to public use, are properties of public dominion and thus owned by the State or the Republic of the Philippines. Article 420 specifically mentions "ports x x x constructed by the State," which includes public airports and seaports, as properties of public dominion and owned by the Republic. As properties of public dominion owned by the Republic, there is no doubt whatsoever that the Airport Lands and Buildings are expressly exempt from real estate tax under Section 234(a) of the Local Government Code. This Court has also repeatedly ruled that properties of public dominion are not subject to execution or foreclosure sale. WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. We SET ASIDE the assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals of 5 October 2001 and 27 September 2002 in CA-G.R. SP No. 66878. We DECLARE the Airport Lands and Buildings of the Manila International Airport Authority EXEMPT from the real estate tax imposed by the City of Paraaque. We declare VOID all the real estate tax assessments, including the final notices of real estate tax delinquencies, issued by the City of Paraaque on the Airport Lands and Buildings of the Manila International Airport Authority, except for the portions that the Manila International Airport Authority has leased to private parties. We also declareVOID the assailed auction sale, and all its effects, of the Airport Lands and Buildings of the Manila International Airport Authority. No costs. SO ORDERED. Panganiban, C.J., Puno, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-Nazario, Garcia, Velasco, Jr., J.J., concur.

EN BANC

G.R. No. 91649 May 14, 1991 ATTORNEYS HUMBERTO BASCO, EDILBERTO BALCE, SOCRATES MARANAN AND LORENZO SANCHEZ,petitioners, vs. PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENTS AND GAMING CORPORATION (PAGCOR), respondent. H.B. Basco & Associates for petitioners. Valmonte Law Offices collaborating counsel for petitioners. Aguirre, Laborte and Capule for respondent PAGCOR.

PARAS, J.:p A TV ad proudly announces: "The new PAGCOR responding through responsible gaming." But the petitioners think otherwise, that is why, they filed the instant petition seeking to annul the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) Charter PD 1869, because it is allegedly contrary to morals, public policy and order, and because A. It constitutes a waiver of a right prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law. It waived the Manila City government's right to impose taxes and license fees, which is recognized by law; B. For the same reason stated in the immediately preceding paragraph, the law has intruded into the local government's right to impose local taxes and license fees. This, in contravention of the constitutionally enshrined principle of local autonomy;

C. It violates the equal protection clause of the constitution in that it legalizes PAGCOR conducted gambling, while most other forms of gambling are outlawed, together with prostitution, drug trafficking and other vices; D. It violates the avowed trend of the Cory government away from monopolistic and crony economy, and toward free enterprise and privatization. (p. 2, Amended Petition; p. 7, Rollo) In their Second Amended Petition, petitioners also claim that PD 1869 is contrary to the declared national policy of the "new restored democracy" and the people's will as expressed in the 1987 Constitution. The decree is said to have a "gambling objective" and therefore is contrary to Sections 11, 12 and 13 of Article II, Sec. 1 of Article VIII and Section 3 (2) of Article XIV, of the present Constitution (p. 3, Second Amended Petition; p. 21, Rollo). The procedural issue is whether petitioners, as taxpayers and practicing lawyers (petitioner Basco being also the Chairman of the Committee on Laws of the City Council of Manila), can question and seek the annulment of PD 1869 on the alleged grounds mentioned above. The Philippine Amusements and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) was created by virtue of P.D. 1067-A dated January 1, 1977 and was granted a franchise under P.D. 1067-B also dated January 1, 1977 "to establish, operate and maintain gambling casinos on land or water within the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines." Its operation was originally conducted in the well known floating casino "Philippine Tourist." The operation was considered a success for it proved to be a potential source of revenue to fund infrastructure and socio-economic projects, thus, P.D. 1399 was passed on June 2, 1978 for PAGCOR to fully attain this objective. Subsequently, on July 11, 1983, PAGCOR was created under P.D. 1869 to enable the Government to regulate and centralize all games of chance authorized by existing franchise or permitted by law, under the following declared policy Sec. 1. Declaration of Policy. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the State to centralize and integrate all games of chance not heretofore authorized by existing franchises or permitted by law in order to attain the following objectives: (a) To centralize and integrate the right and authority to operate and conduct games of chance into one corporate entity to be controlled, administered and supervised by the Government. (b) To establish and operate clubs and casinos, for amusement and recreation, including sports gaming pools, (basketball, football, lotteries, etc.) and such other forms of amusement and recreation including games of chance, which may be allowed by law within the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines and which will: (1) generate sources of additional revenue to fund infrastructure and socio-civic projects, such as flood control programs, beautification, sewerage and sewage projects, Tulungan ng Bayan Centers, Nutritional Programs, Population Control and such other essential public services; (2) create recreation and integrated facilities which will expand and improve the country's existing tourist attractions; and (3) minimize, if not totally eradicate, all the evils, malpractices and corruptions that are normally prevalent on the conduct and operation of gambling clubs and casinos without direct government involvement. (Section 1, P.D. 1869) To attain these objectives PAGCOR is given territorial jurisdiction all over the Philippines. Under its Charter's repealing clause, all laws, decrees, executive orders, rules and regulations, inconsistent therewith, are accordingly repealed, amended or modified. It is reported that PAGCOR is the third largest source of government revenue, next to the Bureau of Internal Revenue and the Bureau of Customs. In 1989 alone, PAGCOR earned P3.43 Billion, and directly remitted to the National Government a total of P2.5 Billion in form of franchise tax, government's income share, the President's Social Fund and Host Cities' share. In addition, PAGCOR sponsored other socio-cultural and charitable projects on its own or in cooperation with various governmental agencies, and other private associations and organizations. In its 3 1/2 years of operation under the present administration, PAGCOR remitted to the government a total of P6.2 Billion. As of December 31, 1989, PAGCOR was employing 4,494 employees in its nine (9) casinos nationwide, directly supporting the livelihood of Four Thousand Four Hundred Ninety-Four (4,494) families. But the petitioners, are questioning the validity of P.D. No. 1869. They allege that the same is "null and void" for being "contrary to morals, public policy and public order," monopolistic and tends toward "crony economy", and is violative of the equal protection clause and local autonomy as well as for running counter to the state policies enunciated in Sections 11

(Personal Dignity and Human Rights), 12 (Family) and 13 (Role of Youth) of Article II, Section 1 (Social Justice) of Article XIII and Section 2 (Educational Values) of Article XIV of the 1987 Constitution. This challenge to P.D. No. 1869 deserves a searching and thorough scrutiny and the most deliberate consideration by the Court, involving as it does the exercise of what has been described as "the highest and most delicate function which belongs to the judicial department of the government." (State v. Manuel, 20 N.C. 144; Lozano v. Martinez, 146 SCRA 323). As We enter upon the task of passing on the validity of an act of a co-equal and coordinate branch of the government We need not be reminded of the time-honored principle, deeply ingrained in our jurisprudence, that a statute is presumed to be valid. Every presumption must be indulged in favor of its constitutionality. This is not to say that We approach Our task with diffidence or timidity. Where it is clear that the legislature or the executive for that matter, has over-stepped the limits of its authority under the constitution, We should not hesitate to wield the axe and let it fall heavily, as fall it must, on the offending statute (Lozano v. Martinez, supra). In Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers' Union, et al, 59 SCRA 54, the Court thru Mr. Justice Zaldivar underscored the . . . thoroughly established principle which must be followed in all cases where questions of constitutionality as obtain in the instant cases are involved. All presumptions are indulged in favor of constitutionality; one who attacks a statute alleging unconstitutionality must prove its invalidity beyond a reasonable doubt; that a law may work hardship does not render it unconstitutional; that if any reasonable basis may be conceived which supports the statute, it will be upheld and the challenger must negate all possible basis; that the courts are not concerned with the wisdom, justice, policy or expediency of a statute and that a liberal interpretation of the constitution in favor of the constitutionality of legislation should be adopted. (Danner v. Hass, 194 N.W. 2nd 534, 539; Spurbeck v. Statton, 106 N.W. 2nd 660, 663; 59 SCRA 66; see also e.g. Salas v. Jarencio, 46 SCRA 734, 739 [1970]; Peralta v. Commission on Elections, 82 SCRA 30, 55 [1978]; and Heirs of Ordona v. Reyes, 125 SCRA 220, 241-242 [1983] cited in Citizens Alliance for Consumer Protection v. Energy Regulatory Board, 162 SCRA 521, 540) Of course, there is first, the procedural issue. The respondents are questioning the legal personality of petitioners to file the instant petition. Considering however the importance to the public of the case at bar, and in keeping with the Court's duty, under the 1987 Constitution, to determine whether or not the other branches of government have kept themselves within the limits of the Constitution and the laws and that they have not abused the discretion given to them, the Court has brushed aside technicalities of procedure and has taken cognizance of this petition. (Kapatiran ng mga Naglilingkod sa Pamahalaan ng Pilipinas Inc. v. Tan, 163 SCRA 371) With particular regard to the requirement of proper party as applied in the cases before us, We hold that the same is satisfied by the petitioners and intervenors because each of them has sustained or is in danger of sustaining an immediate injury as a result of the acts or measures complained of. And even if, strictly speaking they are not covered by the definition, it is still within the wide discretion of the Court to waive the requirement and so remove the impediment to its addressing and resolving the serious constitutional questions raised. In the first Emergency Powers Cases, ordinary citizens and taxpayers were allowed to question the constitutionality of several executive orders issued by President Quirino although they were involving only an indirect and general interest shared in common with the public. The Court dismissed the objection that they were not proper parties and ruled that "the transcendental importance to the public of these cases demands that they be settled promptly and definitely, brushing aside, if we must technicalities of procedure." We have since then applied the exception in many other cases. (Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v. Sec. of Agrarian Reform, 175 SCRA 343). Having disposed of the procedural issue, We will now discuss the substantive issues raised. Gambling in all its forms, unless allowed by law, is generally prohibited. But the prohibition of gambling does not mean that the Government cannot regulate it in the exercise of its police power. The concept of police power is well-established in this jurisdiction. It has been defined as the "state authority to enact legislation that may interfere with personal liberty or property in order to promote the general welfare." (Edu v. Ericta, 35

SCRA 481, 487) As defined, it consists of (1) an imposition or restraint upon liberty or property, (2) in order to foster the common good. It is not capable of an exact definition but has been, purposely, veiled in general terms to underscore its all-comprehensive embrace. (Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. v. Drilon, 163 SCRA 386). Its scope, ever-expanding to meet the exigencies of the times, even to anticipate the future where it could be done, provides enough room for an efficient and flexible response to conditions and circumstances thus assuming the greatest benefits. (Edu v. Ericta, supra) It finds no specific Constitutional grant for the plain reason that it does not owe its origin to the charter. Along with the taxing power and eminent domain, it is inborn in the very fact of statehood and sovereignty. It is a fundamental attribute of government that has enabled it to perform the most vital functions of governance. Marshall, to whom the expression has been credited, refers to it succinctly as the plenary power of the state "to govern its citizens". (Tribe, American Constitutional Law, 323, 1978). The police power of the State is a power co-extensive with self-protection and is most aptly termed the "law of overwhelming necessity." (Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro, 39 Phil. 660, 708) It is "the most essential, insistent, and illimitable of powers." (Smith Bell & Co. v. National, 40 Phil. 136) It is a dynamic force that enables the state to meet the agencies of the winds of change. What was the reason behind the enactment of P.D. 1869? P.D. 1869 was enacted pursuant to the policy of the government to "regulate and centralize thru an appropriate institution all games of chance authorized by existing franchise or permitted by law" (1st whereas clause, PD 1869). As was subsequently proved, regulating and centralizing gambling operations in one corporate entity the PAGCOR, was beneficial not just to the Government but to society in general. It is a reliable source of much needed revenue for the cash strapped Government. It provided funds for social impact projects and subjected gambling to "close scrutiny, regulation, supervision and control of the Government" (4th Whereas Clause, PD 1869). With the creation of PAGCOR and the direct intervention of the Government, the evil practices and corruptions that go with gambling will be minimized if not totally eradicated. Public welfare, then, lies at the bottom of the enactment of PD 1896. Petitioners contend that P.D. 1869 constitutes a waiver of the right of the City of Manila to impose taxes and legal fees; that the exemption clause in P.D. 1869 is violative of the principle of local autonomy. They must be referring to Section 13 par. (2) of P.D. 1869 which exempts PAGCOR, as the franchise holder from paying any "tax of any kind or form, income or otherwise, as well as fees, charges or levies of whatever nature, whether National or Local." (2) Income and other taxes. a) Franchise Holder: No tax of any kind or form, income or otherwise as well as fees, charges or levies of whatever nature, whether National or Local, shall be assessed and collected under this franchise from the Corporation; nor shall any form or tax or charge attach in any way to the earnings of the Corporation, except a franchise tax of five (5%) percent of the gross revenues or earnings derived by the Corporation from its operations under this franchise. Such tax shall be due and payable quarterly to the National Government and shall be in lieu of all kinds of taxes, levies, fees or assessments of any kind, nature or description, levied, established or collected by any municipal, provincial or national government authority (Section 13 [2]). Their contention stated hereinabove is without merit for the following reasons: (a) The City of Manila, being a mere Municipal corporation has no inherent right to impose taxes (Icard v. City of Baguio, 83 Phil. 870; City of Iloilo v. Villanueva, 105 Phil. 337; Santos v. Municipality of Caloocan, 7 SCRA 643). Thus, "the Charter or statute must plainly show an intent to confer that power or the municipality cannot assume it" (Medina v. City of Baguio, 12 SCRA 62). Its "power to tax" therefore must always yield to a legislative act which is superior having been passed upon by the state itself which has the "inherent power to tax" (Bernas, the Revised [1973] Philippine Constitution, Vol. 1, 1983 ed. p. 445). (b) The Charter of the City of Manila is subject to control by Congress. It should be stressed that "municipal corporations are mere creatures of Congress" (Unson v. Lacson, G.R. No. 7909, January 18, 1957) which has the power to "create and abolish municipal corporations" due to its "general legislative powers" (Asuncion v. Yriantes, 28 Phil. 67; Merdanillo v. Orandia, 5 SCRA 541). Congress, therefore, has the power of control over Local governments (Hebron v. Reyes, G.R. No. 9124, July 2, 1950). And if Congress can grant the City of Manila the power to tax certain matters, it can also provide for exemptions or even take back the power.

(c) The City of Manila's power to impose license fees on gambling, has long been revoked. As early as 1975, the power of local governments to regulate gambling thru the grant of "franchise, licenses or permits" was withdrawn by P.D. No. 771 and was vested exclusively on the National Government, thus: Sec. 1. Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, the authority of chartered cities and other local governments to issue license, permit or other form of franchise to operate, maintain and establish horse and dog race tracks, jai-alai and other forms of gambling is hereby revoked. Sec. 2. Hereafter, all permits or franchises to operate, maintain and establish, horse and dog race tracks, jai-alai and other forms of gambling shall be issued by the national government upon proper application and verification of the qualification of the applicant . . . Therefore, only the National Government has the power to issue "licenses or permits" for the operation of gambling. Necessarily, the power to demand or collect license fees which is a consequence of the issuance of "licenses or permits" is no longer vested in the City of Manila. (d) Local governments have no power to tax instrumentalities of the National Government. PAGCOR is a government owned or controlled corporation with an original charter, PD 1869. All of its shares of stocks are owned by the National Government. In addition to its corporate powers (Sec. 3, Title II, PD 1869) it also exercises regulatory powers thus: Sec. 9. Regulatory Power. The Corporation shall maintain a Registry of the affiliated entities, and shall exercise all the powers, authority and the responsibilities vested in the Securities and Exchange Commission over such affiliating entities mentioned under the preceding section, including, but not limited to amendments of Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws, changes in corporate term, structure, capitalization and other matters concerning the operation of the affiliated entities, the provisions of the Corporation Code of the Philippines to the contrary notwithstanding, except only with respect to original incorporation. PAGCOR has a dual role, to operate and to regulate gambling casinos. The latter role is governmental, which places it in the category of an agency or instrumentality of the Government. Being an instrumentality of the Government, PAGCOR should be and actually is exempt from local taxes. Otherwise, its operation might be burdened, impeded or subjected to control by a mere Local government. The states have no power by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, burden or in any manner control the operation of constitutional laws enacted by Congress to carry into execution the powers vested in the federal government. (MC Culloch v. Marland, 4 Wheat 316, 4 L Ed. 579) This doctrine emanates from the "supremacy" of the National Government over local governments. Justice Holmes, speaking for the Supreme Court, made reference to the entire absence of power on the part of the States to touch, in that way (taxation) at least, the instrumentalities of the United States (Johnson v. Maryland, 254 US 51) and it can be agreed that no state or political subdivision can regulate a federal instrumentality in such a way as to prevent it from consummating its federal responsibilities, or even to seriously burden it in the accomplishment of them. (Antieau, Modern Constitutional Law, Vol. 2, p. 140, emphasis supplied) Otherwise, mere creatures of the State can defeat National policies thru extermination of what local authorities may perceive to be undesirable activities or enterprise using the power to tax as "a tool for regulation" (U.S. v. Sanchez, 340 US 42). The power to tax which was called by Justice Marshall as the "power to destroy" (Mc Culloch v. Maryland, supra) cannot be allowed to defeat an instrumentality or creation of the very entity which has the inherent power to wield it. (e) Petitioners also argue that the Local Autonomy Clause of the Constitution will be violated by P.D. 1869. This is a pointless argument. Article X of the 1987 Constitution (on Local Autonomy) provides: Sec. 5. Each local government unit shall have the power to create its own source of revenue and to levy taxes, fees, and other charges subject to such guidelines and limitation as the congress may provide,

consistent with the basic policy on local autonomy. Such taxes, fees and charges shall accrue exclusively to the local government. (emphasis supplied) The power of local government to "impose taxes and fees" is always subject to "limitations" which Congress may provide by law. Since PD 1869 remains an "operative" law until "amended, repealed or revoked" (Sec. 3, Art. XVIII, 1987 Constitution), its "exemption clause" remains as an exception to the exercise of the power of local governments to impose taxes and fees. It cannot therefore be violative but rather is consistent with the principle of local autonomy. Besides, the principle of local autonomy under the 1987 Constitution simply means "decentralization" (III Records of the 1987 Constitutional Commission, pp. 435-436, as cited in Bernas, The Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, Vol. II, First Ed., 1988, p. 374). It does not make local governments sovereign within the state or an "imperium in imperio." Local Government has been described as a political subdivision of a nation or state which is constituted by law and has substantial control of local affairs. In a unitary system of government, such as the government under the Philippine Constitution, local governments can only be an intra sovereign subdivision of one sovereign nation, it cannot be an imperium in imperio. Local government in such a system can only mean a measure of decentralization of the function of government. (emphasis supplied) As to what state powers should be "decentralized" and what may be delegated to local government units remains a matter of policy, which concerns wisdom. It is therefore a political question. (Citizens Alliance for Consumer Protection v. Energy Regulatory Board, 162 SCRA 539). What is settled is that the matter of regulating, taxing or otherwise dealing with gambling is a State concern and hence, it is the sole prerogative of the State to retain it or delegate it to local governments. As gambling is usually an offense against the State, legislative grant or express charter power is generally necessary to empower the local corporation to deal with the subject. . . . In the absence of express grant of power to enact, ordinance provisions on this subject which are inconsistent with the state laws are void. (Ligan v. Gadsden, Ala App. 107 So. 733 Ex-Parte Solomon, 9, Cals. 440, 27 PAC 757 following in re Ah You, 88 Cal. 99, 25 PAC 974, 22 Am St. Rep. 280, 11 LRA 480, as cited in Mc Quinllan Vol. 3 Ibid, p. 548, emphasis supplied) Petitioners next contend that P.D. 1869 violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution, because "it legalized PAGCOR conducted gambling, while most gambling are outlawed together with prostitution, drug trafficking and other vices" (p. 82, Rollo). We, likewise, find no valid ground to sustain this contention. The petitioners' posture ignores the well-accepted meaning of the clause "equal protection of the laws." The clause does not preclude classification of individuals who may be accorded different treatment under the law as long as the classification is not unreasonable or arbitrary (Itchong v. Hernandez, 101 Phil. 1155). A law does not have to operate in equal force on all persons or things to be conformable to Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution (DECS v. San Diego, G.R. No. 89572, December 21, 1989). The "equal protection clause" does not prohibit the Legislature from establishing classes of individuals or objects upon which different rules shall operate (Laurel v. Misa, 43 O.G. 2847). The Constitution does not require situations which are different in fact or opinion to be treated in law as though they were the same (Gomez v. Palomar, 25 SCRA 827). Just how P.D. 1869 in legalizing gambling conducted by PAGCOR is violative of the equal protection is not clearly explained in the petition. The mere fact that some gambling activities like cockfighting (P.D 449) horse racing (R.A. 306 as amended by RA 983), sweepstakes, lotteries and races (RA 1169 as amended by B.P. 42) are legalized under certain conditions, while others are prohibited, does not render the applicable laws, P.D. 1869 for one, unconstitutional. If the law presumably hits the evil where it is most felt, it is not to be overthrown because there are other instances to which it might have been applied. (Gomez v. Palomar, 25 SCRA 827) The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment does not mean that all occupations called by the same name must be treated the same way; the state may do what it can to prevent which is deemed as evil and stop short of those cases in which harm to the few concerned is not less than the harm to the public that would insure if the rule laid down were made mathematically exact. (Dominican Hotel v. Arizona, 249 US 2651).

Anent petitioners' claim that PD 1869 is contrary to the "avowed trend of the Cory Government away from monopolies and crony economy and toward free enterprise and privatization" suffice it to state that this is not a ground for this Court to nullify P.D. 1869. If, indeed, PD 1869 runs counter to the government's policies then it is for the Executive Department to recommend to Congress its repeal or amendment. The judiciary does not settle policy issues. The Court can only declare what the law is and not what the law should be. Under our system of government, policy issues are within the domain of the political branches of government and of the people themselves as the repository of all state power. (Valmonte v. Belmonte, Jr., 170 SCRA 256). On the issue of "monopoly," however, the Constitution provides that: Sec. 19. The State shall regulate or prohibit monopolies when public interest so requires. No combinations in restraint of trade or unfair competition shall be allowed. (Art. XII, National Economy and Patrimony) It should be noted that, as the provision is worded, monopolies are not necessarily prohibited by the Constitution. The state must still decide whether public interest demands that monopolies be regulated or prohibited. Again, this is a matter of policy for the Legislature to decide. On petitioners' allegation that P.D. 1869 violates Sections 11 (Personality Dignity) 12 (Family) and 13 (Role of Youth) of Article II; Section 13 (Social Justice) of Article XIII and Section 2 (Educational Values) of Article XIV of the 1987 Constitution, suffice it to state also that these are merely statements of principles and, policies. As such, they are basically not self-executing, meaning a law should be passed by Congress to clearly define and effectuate such principles. In general, therefore, the 1935 provisions were not intended to be self-executing principles ready for enforcement through the courts. They were rather directives addressed to the executive and the legislature. If the executive and the legislature failed to heed the directives of the articles the available remedy was not judicial or political. The electorate could express their displeasure with the failure of the executive and the legislature through the language of the ballot. (Bernas, Vol. II, p. 2) Every law has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality (Yu Cong Eng v. Trinidad, 47 Phil. 387; Salas v. Jarencio, 48 SCRA 734; Peralta v. Comelec, 82 SCRA 30; Abbas v. Comelec, 179 SCRA 287). Therefore, for PD 1869 to be nullified, it must be shown that there is a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, not merely a doubtful and equivocal one. In other words, the grounds for nullity must be clear and beyond reasonable doubt. (Peralta v. Comelec, supra) Those who petition this Court to declare a law, or parts thereof, unconstitutional must clearly establish the basis for such a declaration. Otherwise, their petition must fail. Based on the grounds raised by petitioners to challenge the constitutionality of P.D. 1869, the Court finds that petitioners have failed to overcome the presumption. The dismissal of this petition is therefore, inevitable. But as to whether P.D. 1869 remains a wise legislation considering the issues of "morality, monopoly, trend to free enterprise, privatization as well as the state principles on social justice, role of youth and educational values" being raised, is up for Congress to determine. As this Court held in Citizens' Alliance for Consumer Protection v. Energy Regulatory Board, 162 SCRA 521 Presidential Decree No. 1956, as amended by Executive Order No. 137 has, in any case, in its favor the presumption of validity and constitutionality which petitioners Valmonte and the KMU have not overturned. Petitioners have not undertaken to identify the provisions in the Constitution which they claim to have been violated by that statute. This Court, however, is not compelled to speculate and to imagine how the assailed legislation may possibly offend some provision of the Constitution. The Court notes, further, in this respect that petitioners have in the main put in question the wisdom, justice and expediency of the establishment of the OPSF, issues which are not properly addressed to this Court and which this Court may not constitutionally pass upon. Those issues should be addressed rather to the political departments of government: the President and the Congress. Parenthetically, We wish to state that gambling is generally immoral, and this is precisely so when the gambling resorted to is excessive. This excessiveness necessarily depends not only on the financial resources of the gambler and his family but also on his mental, social, and spiritual outlook on life. However, the mere fact that some persons may have lost their material fortunes, mental control, physical health, or even their lives does not necessarily mean that the same are directly attributable to gambling. Gambling may have been the antecedent,but certainly not necessarily the cause. For the same consequences could have been preceded by an overdose of food, drink, exercise, work, and even sex.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. Fernan, C.J., Narvasa, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Feliciano, Gancayco, Bidin, Sarmiento, Grio-Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado and Davide, Jr., 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. DECISION DAVIDE, JR., J.: For review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court on a pure question of law are the decision of 22 March 1995[1] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 20, dismissing the petition for declaratory relief in Civil Case No. CEB16900, entitled Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority vs. City of Cebu, and its order of 4 May 1995[2]denying the motion to reconsider the decision. We resolved to give due course to this petition for it raises issues dwelling on the scope of the taxing power of local government units and the limits of tax exemption privileges of 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, x x x and such other airports as may be established in the Province of Cebu x x x (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 x x x.

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 exempts 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: Section 133. Common Limitations on the Taxing Powers of Local Government Units. -- Unless otherwise provided herein, the exercise of the taxing powers of provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays shall not extend to the levy of the following: a) xxx xxx o) Taxes, fees or charges of any kind on the National Government, its agencies and instrumentalities, and local government units. (underscoring supplied) Respondent City refused to cancel and set aside petitioners 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 Government Code that took effect on January 1, 1992: Section 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. (underscoring supplied) xxx Section 234. (a) xxx xxx (e) xxx Exemptions from Real Property Taxes. x x x

Except as provided herein, any exemption from payment of real property tax previously granted to, or presently enjoyed by all persons, whether natural or juridical, including 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 governmentowned 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 MCIAA is not an instrumentality of the government but merely a government-owned corporation performing proprietary functions. As such, all exemptions previously granted to it were deemed withdrawn by operation of law, as provided under Sections 193 and 234 of the Local Government Code when it took effect on January 1, 1992.[3] The petition for declaratory relief was docketed as Civil Case No. CEB-16900. In its decision of 22 March 1995,[4] the trial court dismissed the petition in light of its findings, to wit:

A close reading of the New Local Government Code of 1991 or RA 7160 provides the express cancellation and withdrawal of exemption of taxes by government-owned and controlled corporation per Sections after the effectivity of said Code on January 1, 1992, to wit: [proceeds to quote Sections 193 and 234] Petitioners claimed that its real properties assessed by respondent City Government of Cebu are exempted from paying realty taxes in view of the exemption granted under RA 6958 to pay the same (citing Section 14 of RA 6958). However, RA 7160 expressly provides that All general and special laws, acts, city charters, decrees [sic], executive orders, proclamations and administrative regulations, or part of 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 Courts ruling finds expression to give impetus and meaning to the overall objectives of the New Local Government Code of 1991, RA 7160. It is hereby declared the policy of the State that the territorial and political subdivisions of the State shall enjoy genuine and meaningful local autonomy to enable them to attain their fullest development as self-reliant communities and make them more effective partners in the attainment of national goals. Toward this end, the State shall provide for a more responsive and accountable local government structure instituted through a system of decentralization whereby local government units shall be given more powers, authority, responsibilities, and resources. The process of decentralization shall proceed from the national government to the local government units. x x x[5] Its motion for reconsideration having been denied by the trial court in its 4 May 1995 order, the petitioner filed the instant petition based on the following assignment of errors: I. RESPONDENT JUDGE ERRED IN FAILING TO RULE THAT THE PETITIONER IS VESTED WITH GOVERNMENT POWERS AND FUNCTIONS WHICH PLACE IT IN THE SAME CATEGORY AS AN INSTRUMENTALITY OR AGENCY OF THE GOVERNMENT. II. RESPONDENT JUDGE ERRED IN RULING THAT PETITIONER IS LIABLE TO PAY REAL PROPERTY TAXES TO THE CITY OF CEBU. Anent the first assigned error, the petitioner asserts that although it is a government-owned or controlled corporation, it is mandated to perform functions in the same category as an instrumentality of Government. An instrumentality of Government is one created to perform governmental functions primarily to promote certain aspects of the economic life of the people.[6] Considering its task not merely to efficiently operate and manage the Mactan-Cebu International Airport, but more importantly, to carry out the Government policies of promoting and developing the Central Visayas and Mindanao regions as centers of international trade and tourism, and accelerating the development of the means of transportation and communication in the country,[7] and that it is an attached agency of the Department of Transportation and Communication (DOTC),[8] the petitioner may stand in [sic] the same footing as an agency or instrumentality of the national government. Hence, its tax exemption privilege under Section 14 of its Charter cannot be considered withdrawn with the passage of the Local Government Code of 1991 (hereinafter LGC) because Section 133 thereof specifically states that the `taxing powers of local government units shall not extend to the levy of taxes or fees or charges of any kind on the national government, its agencies and instrumentalities. As to the second assigned error, the petitioner contends that being an instrumentality of the National Government, respondent City of Cebu has no power nor authority to impose realty taxes upon it in accordance with the aforesaid Section 133 of the LGC, as explained in Basco vs. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation:[9] Local governments have no power to tax instrumentalities of the National Government. PAGCOR is a government owned or controlled corporation with an original charter, PD 1869. All of its shares of stock are owned by the National Government. . . . PAGCOR has a dual role, to operate and regulate gambling casinos. The latter role is governmental, which places it in the category of an agency or instrumentality of the Government. Being an instrumentality of the Government, PAGCOR should be and actually is exempt from local taxes. Otherwise, its operation might be burdened, impeded or subjected to control by a mere Local government. The states have no power by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, burden or in any manner control the operation of constitutional laws enacted by Congress to carry into execution the powers vested in the federal government. (McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316, 4 L Ed. 579)

This doctrine emanates from the supremacy of the National Government over local governments. Justice Holmes, speaking for the Supreme Court, made reference to the entire absence of power on the part of the States to touch, in that way (taxation) at least, the instrumentalities of the United States (Johnson v. Maryland, 254 US 51) and it can be agreed that no state or political subdivision can regulate a federal instrumentality in such a way as to prevent it from consummating its federal responsibilities, or even to seriously burden it in the accomplishment of them. (Antieau, Modern Constitutional Law, Vol. 2, p. 140) Otherwise, mere creatures of the State can defeat National policies thru extermination of what local authorities may perceive to be undesirable activities or enterprise using the power to tax as a tool for regulation (U.S. v. Sanchez, 340 US 42). The power to tax which was called by Justice Marshall as the power to destroy (Mc Culloch v. Maryland, supra) cannot be allowed to defeat an instrumentality or creation of the very entity which has the inherent power to wield it. (underscoring 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 government corporation performing governmental functions 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 powers of the local government units. In its comment, respondent City of Cebu alleges that as a local government unit and a political subdivision, it has the power to impose, levy, assess, and collect taxes within its jurisdiction. Such power is guaranteed by the Constitution[10] and enhanced further by the LGC. While it may be true that under its Charter the petitioner was exempt from the payment of realty taxes,[11] this exemption was withdrawn by Section 234 of the LGC. In response to the petitioners claim that such exemption was not repealed because being an instrumentality of the National Government, Section 133 of the LGC prohibits local government units from imposing taxes, fees, or charges of any kind on it, respondent City of Cebu points out that the petitioner is likewise a government-owned corporation, and Section 234 thereof does not distinguish between government-owned or controlled corporations performing governmental and purely proprietary functions. Respondent City of Cebu urges this Court to apply by analogy its ruling that the Manila International Airport Authority is a government-owned corporation,[12] and to reject the application of Basco because it was promulgated . . . before the enactment and the signing into law of R.A. No. 7160, and was not, therefore, decided in the light of the spirit and intention of the framers of the said law. As a general rule, the power to tax is an incident of sovereignty and is unlimited in its range, acknowledging in its very nature no limits, so that security against its abuse is to be found only in the responsibility of the legislature which imposes the tax on the constituency who are to pay it. Nevertheless, effective limitations thereon may be imposed by the people through their Constitutions.[13] Our Constitution, for instance, provides that the rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable and Congress shall evolve a progressive system of taxation.[14] So potent indeed is the power that it was once opined that the power to tax involves the power to destroy. [15] Verily, taxation is a destructive power which interferes with the personal and property rights of the people and takes from them a portion of their property for the support of the government. Accordingly, tax statutes must be construed strictly against the government and liberally in favor of the taxpayer.[16] But since taxes are what we pay for civilized society, [17] or are the lifeblood of the nation, the law frowns against exemptions from taxation and statutes granting tax exemptions are thus construed strictissimi juris against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing authority. [18] A claim of exemption from tax payments must be clearly shown and based on language in the law too plain to be mistaken.[19] Elsewise stated, taxation is the rule, exemption therefrom is the exception.[20] However, if the grantee of the exemption is a political subdivision or instrumentality, the rigid rule of construction does not apply because the practical effect of the exemption is merely to reduce the amount of money that has to be handled by the government in the course of its operations.[21] The power to tax is primarily vested in the Congress; however, in our jurisdiction, it may be exercised by local legislative bodies, no longer merely by virtue of a valid delegation as before, but pursuant to direct authority conferred by Section 5, Article X of the Constitution.[22] Under the latter, the exercise of the power may be subject to such guidelines and limitations as the Congress may provide which, however, must be consistent with the basic policy of local autonomy. There can be no question that under Section 14 of R.A. No. 6958 the petitioner is exempt from the payment of realty taxes imposed by the National Government or any of its political subdivisions, agencies, and instrumentalities. Nevertheless, since taxation is the rule and exemption therefrom the exception, the exemption may thus be withdrawn at the pleasure of the taxing authority. The only exception to this rule is where the exemption was granted to private parties based on material consideration of a mutual nature, which then becomes contractual and is thus covered by the non-impairment clause of the Constitution.[23] The LGC, enacted pursuant to Section 3, Article X of the Constitution, provides for the exercise by local government units of their power to tax, the scope thereof or its limitations, and the exemptions 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) (b) (c) (d) Income tax, except when levied on banks and other financial institutions; Documentary stamp tax; Taxes on estates, inheritance, gifts, legacies and other acquisitions mortis causa, except as otherwise provided herein; Customs duties, registration fees of vessel 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; Taxes, fees and charges and other impositions upon goods carried into or out of, or passing through, the territorial jurisdictions of local government units in the guise of charges for wharfage, tolls for bridges or otherwise, or other taxes, fees or charges in any form whatsoever upon such goods or merchandise;

(e)

(f) Taxes, fees or charges on agricultural and aquatic products when sold by marginal farmers or fishermen; (g) (h) Taxes on business enterprises certified to by the Board of Investments as pioneer or non-pioneer for a period of six (6) and four (4) years, respectively from the date of registration; 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 contractors and persons engaged in the transportation of passengers or freight by hire and common carriers by air, land or water, except as provided in this Code; (k) Taxes on premiums paid by way of 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 thereof, except, tricycles; (m) Taxes, fees, or other charges on Philippine products actually exported, except as otherwise provided herein; (n) Taxes, fees, or charges, on Countryside and Barangay Business Enterprises 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 Cooperatives Code of the Philippines respectively; and TAXES, FEES OR CHARGES OF ANY KIND ON THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT, ITS AGENCIES AND INSTRUMENTALITIES, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS. (emphasis supplied)

(o)

Needless to say, the last item (item o) is pertinent to 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 light of the above enumeration. The term fees means charges fixed by law or ordinance for the regulation or inspection of business or activity, [24]while charges are pecuniary liabilities such as rents or fees against persons or property.[25] Among the taxes enumerated in the LGC is real property tax, which is governed by Section 232. It reads as follows: SEC. 232. Power to Levy Real Property Tax. A province or city or a municipality within the Metropolitan Manila Area may levy an annual ad valorem tax on real property such as land, building, machinery, and other improvements not hereafter specifically exempted. Section 234 of the 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) (b)

Real property owned by the Republic of the Philippines or any of its political subdivisions except when the beneficial use thereof had been granted, for consideration or otherwise, to a taxable person; Charitable institutions, churches, parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, nonprofit or religious cemeteries and all lands, buildings and improvements actually, directly, and exclusively used for religious, charitable or educational purposes; 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; All real property owned by duly registered cooperatives as provided for under R.A. No. 6938; and Machinery and equipment used for pollution control and environmental protection.

(c)

(d) (e)

Except as provided herein, any exemption from payment of real property tax previously granted to, or presently enjoyed by, all persons, whether natural or juridical, including all government-owned or controlled corporations are hereby withdrawn upon the effectivity of this Code. 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. 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. 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 directly and exclusively used for religious, charitable or educational purposes; (ii) all machineries and equipment actually, directly and exclusively used 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.

(b)

(c)

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 governmentowned or controlled corporations are withdrawn upon the effectivity of the Code.[26] Section 193 of the LGC is the general provision on withdrawal of tax exemption privileges. It provides: SEC. 193. Withdrawal of Tax Exemption Privileges. Unless otherwise provided in this Code, tax exemptions or incentives granted to, or presently enjoyed by all persons, whether natural or juridical, including government-owned or controlled corporations, except local water districts, cooperatives duly registered under R.A. 6938, non-stock and non-profit hospitals and educational institutions, 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 speak 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 or provisos in these sections, as shown by the following clauses: (1) (2) (3) unless otherwise provided herein in the opening paragraph of Section 133; Unless otherwise provided in this Code in Section 193; 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 are explicitly indicated in the next. For instance, in item (a) which excepts income taxes when levied on banks and other financial institutions; item (d) which excepts wharfage on wharves constructed and maintained by the local government unit concerned; and item (1) which excepts taxes, fees and charges for the registration and issuance of licenses 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 provided in this Code in item (j). These clauses would be obviously unnecessary or mere surplusages 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 Sections 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 on the National Government, its agencies and instrumentalities, and local government units; however, pursuant to Section 232, provinces, cities, and 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 use 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 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 insofar as real property taxes are concerned by limiting the retention only to those enumerated therein; all others not included in the enumeration lost the privilege upon the effectivity of the LGC. Moreover, even as to real property 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 a taxable person for consideration or otherwise. Since the last paragraph of Section 234 unequivocally withdrew, upon the effectivity of the LGC, exemptions from payment of real property taxes granted to natural or juridical persons, including government-owned or controlled corporations, except as provided in the said section, and the petitioner is, undoubtedly, a 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 Sections 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.

It 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 none exists. In light of the petitioners theory that it is an instrumentality of the Government, it could only be within the first item of the first paragraph of the section by expanding the scope of the term Republic of the Philippines to embrace its instrumentalities and agencies. For expediency, we quote: (a) real property owned by the Republic of the Philippines, or any of its political subdivisions except when the beneficial use thereof has been granted, for consideration or otherwise, to a taxable person. This view does not persuade us. In the first place, the petitioners 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 subdivisions in Section 234(a).

The terms Republic of the Philippines and National Government are not interchangeable. The former is broader and synonymous with Government of the Republic of the Philippines which the Administrative Code of 1987 defines as the corporate governmental entity through which the functions of government are exercised throughout the Philippines, including, save as the contrary appears from the context, the various arms through which political authority is made affective in the Philippines, whether pertaining to the autonomous regions, the provincial, city, municipal or barangay subdivisions or other forms of local government.[27] These autonomous regions, provincial, city, municipal or barangay subdivisions are the political subdivisions.[28] On the other hand, National Government refers to the entire machinery of the central government, as distinguished from the different forms of local governments.[29] The National Government then is composed of the three great departments: the executive, the legislative and the judicial.[30] An agency of the Government refers to any of the various units of the Government, including a department, bureau, office, instrumentality, or government-owned or controlled corporation, or a local government or a distinct unit therein;[31] while an instrumentality refers to any agency of the National Government, not integrated within the department framework, vested with special functions or jurisdiction by law, endowed with some if not all corporate powers, administering special funds, and enjoying operational autonomy, usually through a charter. This term includes regulatory agencies, chartered institutions and government-owned and controlled corporations.[32] If Section 234(a) intended to extend the exception therein to the withdrawal of the exemption from payment of real property taxes under the last sentence of the said section to the agencies and instrumentalities of the National Government mentioned in Section 133(o), then it should have restated the wording of the latter. Yet, it did not. Moreover, that Congress did not wish to expand the scope of the exemption in Section 234(a) to include real property owned by other instrumentalities or agencies of the government including government-owned and controlled corporations is further borne out by the fact that the source of this exemption is Section 40(a) of P.D. No. 464, otherwise known as The Real Property Tax Code, which reads: SEC. 40. Exemptions 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 corporation so exempt by its charter: Provided, however, That this exemption shall not apply to real property of the abovementioned entities the beneficial use of which has been granted, for consideration or otherwise, to a taxable person. Note that as 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, especially in light of the general provision on withdrawal of tax exemption privileges in Section 193 and the special provision on withdrawal of exemption from payment of real property taxes in the last paragraph of Section 234. These policy considerations are consistent with the State policy to ensure autonomy to local governments[33] and the objective of the LGC that they enjoy genuine and meaningful local autonomy to enable them to attain their fullest development as self-reliant communities and make them effective partners in the attainment of national goals.[34] The power to tax is the most effective instrument to raise needed revenues to finance and support myriad activities of local government units for the delivery of basic services essential to the promotion of the general welfare and the enhancement of peace, progress, and prosperity of the people. It may also be relevant to recall that the original reasons for the withdrawal of tax exemption privileges granted to government-owned and controlled corporations and all other units of government were that such privilege resulted in serious tax base erosion and distortions in the tax treatment of similarly situated enterprises, and there was a need for these entities to share in the requirements of development, fiscal or otherwise, by paying the taxes and other charges due from them.[35] The crucial issues then to be addressed are: (a) whether the parcels of land in question belong to the Republic of the Philippines whose beneficial use has been granted to the petitioner, and (b) whether the petitioner is a taxable person. Section 15 of the petitioners 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, aerodrome control towers, crash, fire, and rescue facilities are hereby transferred to the Authority: Provided, however, that the operations control of all equipment necessary for the operation of radio aids to air navigation, airways communication, the approach control office, and the area control center shall be retained by the Air Transportation Office. No equipment, however, shall be removed by the Air Transportation Office from Mactan without the concurrence of the Authority. The Authority may assist in the maintenance of the Air Transportation Office equipment.

The airports referred to are the Lahug Air Port in Cebu City and the Mactan International Airport in the Province of Cebu,[36] which belonged to the Republic of the Philippines, then under the Air Transportation Office (ATO).[37] It may be reasonable to assume that the term lands refer to lands in Cebu City then administered by the Lahug Air Port and includes the parcels of land the respondent City of Cebu seeks to levy on for real property taxes. This section involves a transfer of the lands, among other things, to the petitioner and not just the transfer of the beneficial use thereof, with the ownership being retained by the Republic of the Philippines. This transfer is actually an absolute conveyance of the ownership thereof because the petitioners authorized capital stock consists of, inter alia, the value of such real estate owned and/or administered by the airports.[38] Hence, the petitioner is now the owner of the land in question and the exception in Section 234(c) of the LGC is inapplicable. Moreover, the petitioner cannot claim that it was never a taxable person under its Charter. It was only exempted from the payment of real property taxes. The grant of the privilege only in respect of this tax is conclusive proof of the legislative intent to make it a taxable person subject to all taxes, except real property tax. Finally, even if the petitioner was originally not a taxable person for purposes of real property tax, in light of the foregoing disquisitions, it had already become, even if it be conceded to be an agency or instrumentality of the Government, a taxable person for such purpose in view of the withdrawal in the last paragraph of Section 234 of exemptions from the payment of real property taxes, which, as earlier adverted to, applies to the petitioner. Accordingly, the position taken by the petitioner is untenable. Reliance on Basco vs. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation[39]is unavailing since it was decided before the effectivity of the LGC. Besides, nothing can prevent Congress from decreeing that even instrumentalities or agencies of the Government performing governmental functions may be subject to tax. Where it is done precisely to fulfill a constitutional mandate and national policy, no one can doubt its wisdom. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The challenged decision and order of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu, Branch 20, in Civil Case No. CEB-16900 are AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Melo, Francisco, and Panganiban, JJ., concur.

[G.R. No. 143867. March 25, 2003]

PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC., petitioner, vs. CITY OF DAVAO and ADELAIDA B. BARCELONA, in her capacity as the City Treasurer of Davao, respondents. RESOLUTION Mendoza, J.: Petitioner seeks a reconsideration of the decision of the Second Division in this case. Because the decision bears directly on issues involved in other cases brought by petitioner before other Divisions of the Court, the motion for reconsideration was referred to the Court en banc for resolution.[1] The parties were heard in oral arguments by the Court en banc on January 21, 2003 and were later granted time to submit their memoranda. Upon the filing of the last memorandum by the City of Davao on February 10, 2003, the motion was deemed submitted for resolution. To provide perspective, it will be helpful to restate the basic facts. Petitioner PLDT paid a franchise tax equal to three percent (3%) of its gross receipts. The franchise tax was paid in lieu of all taxes on this franchise or earnings thereof pursuant to R.A. No. 7082 amending its charter, Act. No. 3436. The exemption from all taxes on this franchise or earnings thereof was subsequently withdrawn by R.A. No. 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991), which at the same time gave local government units the power to tax businesses enjoying a franchise on the basis of income received or earned by them within their territorial jurisdiction. The Local Government Code (LGC) took effect on January 1, 1992. The pertinent provisions of the LGC state: Sec. 137. Franchise Tax. Notwithstanding any exemption granted by any law or other special law, the province may impose a tax on businesses enjoying a franchise, at a rate not exceeding fifty percent (50%) of one percent (1%) of the gross annual receipts for the preceding calendar year based on the incoming receipt, or realized, within its territorial jurisdiction. . . . Sec. 193. Withdrawal of Tax Exemption Privileges. Unless otherwise provided in this Code, tax exemptions or incentives granted to, or presently enjoyed by all persons, whether natural or juridical, including government-owned or -controlled corporations, except local water districts, cooperatives duly registered under R.A. No. 6938, non-stock and non-profit hospitals and educational institutions, are hereby withdrawn upon the effectivity of this Code.

Pursuant to these provisions, the City of Davao enacted Ordinance No. 519, Series of 1992, which in pertinent part provides: Notwithstanding any exemption granted by any law or other special law, there is hereby imposed a tax on businesses enjoying a franchise, at a rate of Seventy-five percent (75%) of one percent (1%) of the gross annual receipts for the preceding calendar year based on the income or receipts realized within the territorial jurisdiction of Davao City. Subsequently, Congress granted in favor of Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Corp. (Globe) [2] and Smart Information Technologies, Inc. (Smart)[3] franchises which contained in lieu of all taxes provisos. In 1995, it enacted R.A. No. 7925 (Public Telecommunications Policy of the Philippines), 23 of which provides that Any advantage, favor, privilege, exemption, or immunity granted under existing franchises, or may hereafter be granted, shall ipso facto become part of previously granted telecommunications franchises and shall be accorded immediately and unconditionally to the grantees of such franchises. The law took effect on March 16, 1995. In January 1999, when PLDT applied for a mayors permit to operate its Davao Metro Exchange, it was required to pay the local franchise tax for the first to the fourth quarter of 1999 which then had amounted to P3,681,985.72. PLDT challenged the power of the city government to collect the local franchise tax and demanded a refund of what it had paid as local franchise tax for the year 1997 and for the first to the third quarters of 1998. For this reason, it filed a petition in the Regional Trial Court of Davao. However, its petition was dismissed and its claim for exemption under R.A. No. 7925 was denied. The trial court ruled that the LGC had withdrawn tax exemptions previously enjoyed by persons and entities and authorized local government units to impose a tax on businesses enjoying franchises within their territorial jurisdictions, notwithstanding the grant of tax exemption to them. Petitioner, therefore, brought this appeal. In its decision of August 22, 2001, this Court, through its Second Division, held that R.A. No. 7925, 23 cannot be so interpreted as granting petitioner exemption from local taxes because the word exemption, taking into consideration the context of the law, does not mean tax exemption. Hence this motion for reconsideration. The question is whether, by virtue of R.A. No. 7925, 23, PLDT is again entitled to exemption from the payment of local franchise tax in view of the grant of tax exemption to Globe and Smart. Petitioner contends that because their existing franchises contain in lieu of all taxes clauses, the same grant of tax exemption must be deemed to have become ipso facto part of its previously granted telecommunications franchise. But the rule is that tax exemptions should be granted only by clear and unequivocal provision of law expressed in a language too plain to be mistaken.[4] If, as PLDT contends, the word exemption in R.A. No. 7925 means tax exemption and assuming for the nonce that the charters of Globe and of Smart grant tax exemptions, then this runabout way of granting tax exemption to PLDT is not a direct, clear and unequivocal way of communicating the legislative intent. But the best refutation of PLDTs claim that R.A. No. 7925, 23 grants tax exemption is the fact that after its enactment on March 16, 1995, Congress granted several franchises containing both an equality clause similar to 23 and an in lieu of all taxes clause. If the equality clause automatically extends the tax exemption of franchises with in lieu of all taxes clauses, there would be no need in the same statute for the in lieu of all taxes clause in order to extend its tax exemption to other franchises not containing such clause. For example, the franchise of Island Country Telecommunications, Inc., granted under R.A. No. 7939 and which took effect on March 22, 1995, contains the following provisions: Sec. 8. Equality Clause. If any subsequent franchise for telecommunications service is awarded or granted by the Congress of the Philippines with terms, privileges and conditions more favorable and beneficial than those contained in this Act, then the same privileges or advantages shall ipso facto accrue to the herein grantee and be deemed part of this Act. Sec. 10. Tax Provisions. The grantee shall be liable to pay the same taxes on their real estate, buildings and personal property exclusive of this franchise, as other persons or telecommunications entities are now or hereafter may be required by law to pay. In addition hereto, the grantee, its successors or assigns, shall pay a franchise tax equivalent to three percent (3%) of all gross receipts transacted under this franchise, and the said percentage shall be in lieu of all taxes on this franchise or earnings thereof; Provided, That the grantee shall continue to be liable for income taxes payable under Title II of the National Internal Revenue Code. The grantee shall file the return with and pay the taxes due thereon to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue or his duly authorized representatives in accordance with the National Revenue Code and the return shall be subject to audit by the Bureau of Internal Revenue. (Emphasis added) Similar provisions (in lieu of all taxes and equality clauses) are also found in the franchises of Cruz Telephone Company, Inc.,[5] Isla Cellular Communications, Inc.,[6] and Islatel Corporation.[7] We shall now turn to the other points raised in the motion for reconsideration of PLDT.

First. Petitioner contends that the legislative intent to promote the development of the telecommunications industry is evident in the use of words as development, growth, and financial viability, and that the way to achieve this purpose is to grant tax exemption or exclusion to franchises belonging in this industry. Furthermore, by using the words advantage, favor, privilege, exemption, and immunity and the terms ipso facto, immediately, and unconditionally, Congress intended to automatically extend whatever tax exemption or tax exclusion has been granted to the holder of a franchise enacted after the LGC to the holder of a franchise enacted prior thereto, such as PLDT. The contention is untenable. The thrust of the law is to promote the gradual deregulation of entry, pricing, and operations of all public telecommunications entities and thus to level the playing field in the telecommunications industry. An intent to grant tax exemption cannot even be discerned from the law. The records of Congress are bereft of any discussion or even mention of tax exemption. To the contrary, what the Chairman of the Committee on Transportation, Rep. Jerome V. Paras, mentioned in his sponsorship of H.B. No. 14028, which became R.A. No. 7925, were equal access clauses in interconnection agreements, not tax exemptions. He said: There is also a need to promote a level playing field in the telecommunications industry. New entities must be granted protection against dominant carriers through the encouragement of equitable access charges and equal access clauses in interconnection agreements and the strict policing of predatory pricing by dominant carriers. Equal access should be granted to all operators connecting into the interexchange network. There should be no discrimination against any carrier in terms of priorities and/or quality of service.[8] Nor does the term exemption in 23 of R.A. No. 7925 mean tax exemption. The term refers to exemption from certain regulations and requirements imposed by the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC). For instance, R.A. No. 7925, 17 provides: The Commission shall exempt any specific telecommunications service from its rate or tariff regulations if the service has sufficient competition to ensure fair and reasonable rates or tariffs. Another exemption granted by the law in line with its policy of deregulation is the exemption from the requirement of securing permits from the NTC every time a telecommunications company imports equipment.[9] Second. PLDT says that the policy of the law is to promote healthy competition in the telecommunications industry. According to PLDT, the LGC did not repeal the in lieu of all taxes provision in its franchise but only excluded from it local taxes, such as the local franchise tax. However, some franchises, like those of Globe and Smart, which contain in lieu of all taxes provisions were subsequently granted by Congress, with the result that the holders of franchises granted prior to January 1, 1992, when the LGC took effect, had to pay local franchise tax in view of the withdrawal of their local tax exemption. It is argued that it is this disparate situation which R.A. No. 7925, 23 seeks to rectify.
[10]

One can speak of healthy competition only between equals. For this reason, the law seeks to break up monopoly in the telecommunications industry by gradually dismantling the barriers to entry and granting to new telecommunications entities protection against dominant carriers through equitable access charges and equal access clauses in interconnection agreements and through the strict policing of predatory pricing by dominant carriers.[11] Interconnection among carriers is made mandatory to prevent a dominant carrier from delaying the establishment of connection with a new entrant and to deter the former from imposing excessive access charges.[12] That is also the reason there are franchises[13] granted by Congress after the effectivity of R.A. No. 7925 which do not contain the in lieu of all taxes clause, just as there are franchises, also granted after March 16, 1995, which contain such exemption from other taxes.[14] If, by virtue of 23, the tax exemption granted under existing franchises or thereafter granted is deemed applicable to previously granted franchises (i.e., franchises granted before the effectivity of R.A. No. 7925 on March 16, 1995), then those franchises granted after March 16, 1995, which do not contain the in lieu of all taxes clause, are not entitled to tax exemption. The in lieu of all taxes provision in the franchises of Globe and Smart, which are relatively new entrants in the telecommunications industry, cannot thus be deemed applicable to PLDT, which had virtual monopoly in the telephone service in the country for a long time,[15] without defeating the very policy of leveling the playing field of which PLDT speaks. Third. Petitioner argues that the rule of strict construction of tax exemptions does not apply to this case because the in lieu of all taxes provision in its franchise is more a tax exclusion than a tax exemption. Rather, the applicable rule should be that tax laws are to be construed most strongly against the government and in favor of the taxpayer. This is contrary to the uniform course of decisions[16] of this Court which consider in lieu of all taxes provisions as granting tax exemptions. As such, it is a privilege to which the rule that tax exemptions must be interpreted strictly against the taxpayer and in favor of the taxing authority applies. Along with the police power and eminent domain, taxation is one of the three necessary attributes of sovereignty. Consequently, statutes in derogation of sovereignty, such as those containing exemption from taxation, should be strictly construed in favor of the state. A state cannot be stripped of this most essential power by doubtful words and of this highest attribute of sovereignty by ambiguous language.[17] Indeed, both in their nature and in their effect there is no difference between tax exemption and tax exclusion. Exemption is an immunity or privilege; it is freedom from a charge or burden to which others are subjected.

[18]

Exclusion, on the other hand, is the removal of otherwise taxable items from the reach of taxation, e.g., exclusions from gross income and allowable deductions.[19] Exclusion is thus also an immunity or privilege which frees a taxpayer from a charge to which others are subjected. Consequently, the rule that tax exemption should be applied in strictissimi juris against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the government applies equally to tax exclusions. To construe otherwise the in lieu of all taxes provision invoked is to be inconsistent with the theory that R.A. No. 7925, 23 grants tax exemption because of a similar grant to Globe and Smart. Petitioner cites Cagayan Electric Power & Light Co., Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue[20] in support of its argument that a tax exemption is restored by a subsequent law re-enacting the tax exemption. It contends that by virtue of R.A. No. 7925, its tax exemption or exclusion was restored by the grant of tax exemptions to Globe and Smart. Cagayan Electric Power & Light Co., Inc., however, is not in point. For there, the re-enactment of the exemption was made in an amendment to the charter of Cagayan Electric Power and Light Co. Indeed, petitioners justification for its claim of tax exemption rests on a strained interpretation of R.A. No. 7925, 23. For petitioners claim for exemption is not based on an amendment to its charter but on a circuitous reasoning involving inquiry into the grant of tax exemption to other telecommunications companies and the lack of such grant to others,[21] when Congress could more clearly and directly have granted tax exemption to all franchise holders or amend the charter of PLDT to again exempt it from tax if this had been its purpose. The fact is that after petitioners tax exemption by R.A. No. 7082 had been withdrawn by the LGC, [22] no amendment to re-enact its previous tax exemption has been made by Congress. Considering that the taxing power of local government units under R.A. No. 7160 is clear and is ordained by the Constitution, petitioner has the heavy burden of justifying its claim by a clear grant of exemption.[23] Tax exemptions should be granted only by clear and unequivocal provision of law on the basis of language too plain to be mistaken.[24] They cannot be extended by mere implication or inference. Thus, it was held in Home Insurance & Trust Co. v. Tennessee[25] that a law giving a corporation all the powers, rights reservations, restrictions, and liabilities of another company does not give an exemption from taxation which the latter may possess. In Rochester R. Co. v. Rochester,[26] the U.S. Supreme Court, after reviewing cases involving the effect of the transfer to one company of the powers and privileges of another in conferring a tax exemption possessed by the latter, held that a statute authorizing or directing the grant or transfer of the privileges of a corporation which enjoys immunity from taxation or regulation should not be interpreted as including that immunity. Thus: We think it is now the rule, notwithstanding earlier decisions and dicta to the contrary, that a statute authorizing or directing the grant or transfer of the privileges of a corporation which enjoys immunity from taxation or regulation should not be interpreted as including that immunity. We, therefore, conclude that the words the estate, property, rights, privileges, and franchises did not embrace within their meaning the immunity from the burden of paving enjoyed by the Brighton Railroad Company. Nor is there anything in this, or any other statute, which tends to show that the legislature used the words with any larger meaning than they would have standing alone. The meaning is not enlarged, as faintly suggested, by the expression in the statute that they are to be held by the successor fully and entirely, and without change and diminution, words of unnecessary emphasis, without which all included in estate, property, rights, privileges, and franchises would pass, and with which nothing more could pass. On the contrary, it appears, as clearly as it did in the Phoenix Fire Insurance Company Case, that the legislature intended to use the words rights, franchises, and privileges in the restricted sense. . . .[27] Fourth. It is next contended that, in any event, a special law prevails over a general law and that the franchise of petitioner giving it tax exemption, being a special law, should prevail over the LGC, giving local governments taxing power, as the latter is a general law. Petitioner further argues that as between two laws on the same subject matter which are irreconcilably inconsistent, that which is passed later prevails as it is the latest expression of legislative will. This proposition flies in the face of settled jurisprudence. In City Government of San Pablo, Laguna v. Reyes,[28] this Court held that the phrase in lieu of all taxes found in special franchises should give way to the peremptory language of 193 of the LGC specifically providing for the withdrawal of such exemption privileges. Thus, the rule that a special law must prevail over the provisions of a later general law does not apply as the legislative purpose to withdraw tax privileges enjoyed under existing laws or charters is apparent from the express provisions of 137 and 193 of the LGC. As to the alleged inconsistency between the LGC and R.A. No. 7925, this Court has already explained in the decision under reconsideration that no inconsistency exists and that the rule that the later law is the latest expression of the legislature does not apply. The matter need not be further discussed. In any case, it is contended, the ruling of the Bureau of Local Government Finance (BLGF) that petitioners exemption from local taxes has been restored is a contemporaneous construction of 23 and, as such, it is entitled to great weight.

The ruling of the BLGF has been considered in this case. But unlike the Court of Tax Appeals, which is a special court created for the purpose of reviewing tax cases, the BLGF was created merely to provide consultative services and technical assistance to local governments and the general public on local taxation and other related matters.[29] Thus, the rule that the Court will not set aside conclusions rendered by the CTA, which is, by the very nature of its function, dedicated exclusively to the study and consideration of tax problems and has necessarily developed an expertise on the subject, unless there has been an abuse or improvident exercise of authority[30] cannot apply in the case of BLGF. WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED and this denial is final. SO ORDERED. Davide, Jr., C.J., Quisumbing, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., and Azcuna, JJ., concur. Bellosillo, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Austria-Martinez, JJ., join the dissent of J. Puno. Puno, J., please see dissent. Vitug, J., I concur; a statute effectively limiting the constitutionally-delegated tax powers of LGUs can only be done in a clear and express manner. Panganiban, J., no part. Same reason given in original decision. Carpio, J., see separate opinion.