Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. Nos. 167274-75 July 21, 2008

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, vs.FORTUNE TOBACCO CORPORATION, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

TINGA, J.:

Simple and uncomplicated is the central issue involved, yet whopping is the amount at stake in this case.

After much wrangling in the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) and the Court of Appeals, Fortune Tobacco Corporation (Fortune Tobacco) was granted a tax refund or tax credit representing specific taxes erroneously collected from its tobacco products. The tax refund is being re-claimed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (Commissioner) in this petition.

The following undisputed facts, summarized by the Court of Appeals, are quoted in the assailed Decision1 dated 28 September 2004:

CAG.R. SP No. 80675

x x x x

Petitioner2 is a domestic corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the Republic of the Philippines, with principal address at Fortune Avenue, Parang, Marikina City.

Petitioner is the manufacturer/producer of, among others, the following cigarette brands, with tax rate classification based on net retail price prescribed by Annex "D" to R.A. No. 4280, to wit:

BrandTax RateChampion M 100P1.00Salem M 100P1.00Salem M KingP1.00Camel F KingP1.00Camel Lights Box 20sP1.00Camel Filters Box 20sP1.00Winston F KingsP5.00Winston LightsP5.00Immediately prior to January 1, 1997, the above-mentioned cigarette brands were subject to ad valorem tax pursuant to then Section 142 of the Tax Code of 1977, as amended. However, on January 1, 1997, R.A. No. 8240 took effect whereby a shift from the ad valorem tax (AVT) system to the specific tax system was made and subjecting the aforesaid cigarette brands to specific tax under [S]ection 142 thereof, now renumbered as Sec. 145 of the Tax Code of 1997, pertinent provisions of which are quoted thus:

Section 145. Cigars and Cigarettes-

(A) Cigars. There shall be levied, assessed and collected on cigars a tax of One peso (P1.00) per cigar.

"(B) Cigarettes packed by hand. There shall be levied, assessesed and collected on cigarettes packed by hand a tax of Forty centavos (P0.40) per pack.

(C) Cigarettes packed by machine. There shall be levied, assessed and collected on cigarettes packed by machine a tax at the rates prescribed below:

(1) If the net retail price (excluding the excise tax and the value-added tax) is above Ten pesos (P10.00) per pack, the tax shall be Twelve (P12.00) per pack;

(2) If the net retail price (excluding the excise tax and the value added tax) exceeds Six pesos and Fifty centavos (P6.50) but does not exceed Ten pesos (P10.00) per pack, the tax shall be Eight Pesos (P8.00) per pack.

(3) If the net retail price (excluding the excise tax and the value-added tax) is Five pesos (P5.00) but does not exceed Six Pesos and fifty centavos (P6.50) per pack, the tax shall be Five pesos (P5.00) per pack;

(4) If the net retail price (excluding the excise tax and the value-added tax) is below Five pesos (P5.00) per pack, the tax shall be One peso (P1.00) per pack;

"Variants of existing brands of cigarettes which are introduced in the domestic market after the effectivity of R.A. No. 8240 shall be taxed under the highest classification of any variant of that brand.

The excise tax from any brand of cigarettes within the next three (3) years from the effectivity of R.A. No. 8240 shall not be lower than the tax, which is due from each brand on October 1, 1996. Provided, however, that in cases were (sic) the excise tax rate imposed in paragraphs (1), (2), (3) and (4) hereinabove will result in an increase in excise tax of more than seventy percent (70%), for a brand of cigarette, the increase shall take effect in two tranches: fifty percent (50%) of the increase shall be effective in 1997 and one hundred percent (100%) of the increase shall be effective in 1998.

Duly registered or existing brands of cigarettes or new brands thereof packed by machine shall only be packed in twenties.

The rates of excise tax on cigars and cigarettes under paragraphs (1), (2) (3) and (4) hereof, shall be increased by twelve percent (12%) on January 1, 2000. (Emphasis supplied)

New brands shall be classified according to their current net retail price.

For the above purpose, net retail price shall mean the price at which the cigarette is sold on retail in twenty (20) major supermarkets in Metro Manila (for brands of cigarettes marketed nationally), excluding the amount intended to cover the applicable excise tax and value-added tax. For brands which are marketed only outside Metro [M]anila, the net retail price shall mean the price at which the cigarette is sold in five (5) major supermarkets in the region excluding the amount intended to cover the applicable excise tax and the value-added tax.

The classification of each brand of cigarettes based on its average retail price as of October 1, 1996, as set forth in Annex "D," shall remain in force until revised by Congress.

Variant of a brand shall refer to a brand on which a modifier is prefixed and/or suffixed to the root name of the brand and/or a different brand which carries the same logo or design of the existing brand.

To implement the provisions for a twelve percent (12%) increase of excise tax on, among others, cigars and cigarettes packed by machines by January 1, 2000, the Secretary of Finance, upon recommendation of the respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue, issued Revenue Regulations No. 17-99, dated December 16, 1999, which provides the increase on the applicable tax rates on cigar and cigarettes as follows:

SECTIONARTICLESPRESENT SPECIFIC TAX RATE PRIOR TO JAN. 1, 2000NEW SPECIFIC TAX RATE EFFECTIVE JAN. 1, 2000145(A)P1.00/cigarP1.12/cigar (B)Cigarettes packed by machine

(1) Net retail price (excluding VAT and excise) exceeds P10.00 per packP12.00/packP13.44/ pack(2) Exceeds P10.00 per packP8.00/packP8.96/pack(3) Net retail price (excluding VAT and excise) is P5.00 to P6.50 per packP5.00/packP5.60/pack(4) Net Retail Price (excluding VAT and excise) is below P5.00 per packP1.00/packP1.12/packRevenue Regulations No. 17-99 likewise provides in the last paragraph of Section 1 thereof, "(t)hat the new specific tax rate for any existing brand of cigars, cigarettes packed by machine, distilled spirits, wines and fermented liquor shall not be lower than the excise tax that is actually being paid prior to January 1, 2000."

For the period covering January 1-31, 2000, petitioner allegedly paid specific taxes on all brands manufactured and removed in the total amounts of P585,705,250.00.

On February 7, 2000, petitioner filed with respondents Appellate Division a claim for refund or tax credit of its purportedly overpaid excise tax for the month of January 2000 in the amount of P35,651,410.00

On June 21, 2001, petitioner filed with respondents Legal Service a letter dated June 20, 2001 reiterating all the claims for refund/tax credit of its overpaid excise taxes filed on various dates, including the present claim for the month of January 2000 in the amount of P35,651,410.00.

As there was no action on the part of the respondent, petitioner filed the instant petition for review with this Court on December 11, 2001, in order to comply with the two-year period for filing a claim for refund.

In his answer filed on January 16, 2002, respondent raised the following Special and Affirmative Defenses;

4. Petitioners alleged claim for refund is subject to administrative routinary investigation/examination by the Bureau;

5. The amount of P35,651,410 being claimed by petitioner as alleged overpaid excise tax for the month of January 2000 was not properly documented.

6. In an action for tax refund, the burden of proof is on the taxpayer to establish its right to refund, and failure to sustain the burden is fatal to its claim for refund/credit.

7. Petitioner must show that it has complied with the provisions of Section 204(C) in relation [to] Section 229 of the Tax Code on the prescriptive period for claiming tax refund/credit;

8. Claims for refund are construed strictly against the claimant for the same partake of tax exemption from taxation; and

9. The last paragraph of Section 1 of Revenue Regulation[s] [No.]17-99 is a valid implementing regulation which has the force and effect of law."

CA G.R. SP No. 83165

The petition contains essentially similar facts, except that the said case questions the CTAs December 4, 2003 decision in CTA Case No. 6612 granting respondents3 claim for refund of the amount of P355,385,920.00 representing erroneously or illegally collected specific taxes covering the period January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2002, as well as its March 17, 2004 Resolution denying a reconsideration thereof.

x x x x

In both CTA Case Nos. 6365 & 6383 and CTA No. 6612, the Court of Tax Appeals reduced the issues to be resolved into two as stipulated by the parties, to wit: (1) Whether or not the last paragraph of Section 1 of Revenue Regulation[s] [No.] 17-99 is in accordance with the pertinent provisions of Republic Act [No.] 8240, now incorporated in Section 145 of the Tax Code of 1997; and (2) Whether or not petitioner is entitled to a refund of P35,651,410.00 as alleged overpaid excise tax for the month of January 2000.

x x x x

Hence, the respondent CTA in its assailed October 21, 2002 [twin] Decisions[s] disposed in CTA Case Nos. 6365 & 6383:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the court finds the instant petition meritorious and in accordance with law. Accordingly, respondent is hereby ORDERED to REFUND to petitioner the amount of P35,651.410.00 representing erroneously paid excise taxes for the period January 1 to January 31, 2000.

SO ORDERED.

Herein petitioner sought reconsideration of the above-quoted decision. In [twin] resolution[s] [both] dated July 15, 2003, the Tax Court, in an apparent change of heart, granted the petitioners consolidated motions for reconsideration, thereby denying the respondents claim for refund.

However, on consolidated motions for reconsideration filed by the respondent in CTA Case Nos. 6363 and 6383, the July 15, 2002 resolution was set aside, and the Tax Court ruled, this time with a semblance of finality, that the respondent is entitled to the refund claimed. Hence, in a resolution dated November 4, 2003, the tax court reinstated its December 21, 2002 Decision and disposed as follows:

WHEREFORE, our Decisions in CTA Case Nos. 6365 and 6383 are hereby REINSTATED. Accordingly, respondent is hereby ORDERED to REFUND petitioner the total amount of P680,387,025.00 representing erroneously paid excise taxes for the period January 1, 2000 to January 31, 2000 and February 1, 2000 to December 31, 2001.

SO ORDERED.

Meanwhile, on December 4, 2003, the Court of Tax Appeals rendered decision in CTA Case No. 6612 granting the prayer for the refund of the amount of P355,385,920.00 representing overpaid excise tax for the period covering January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2002. The tax court disposed of the case as follows:

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Petition for Review is GRANTED. Accordingly, respondent is hereby ORDERED to REFUND to petitioner the amount of P355,385,920.00 representing overpaid excise tax for the period covering January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2002.

SO ORDERED.

Petitioner sought reconsideration of the decision, but the same was denied in a Resolution dated March 17, 2004.4 (Emphasis supplied) (Citations omitted)

The Commissioner appealed the aforesaid decisions of the CTA. The petition questioning the grant of refund in the amount of P680,387,025.00 was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 80675, whereas that assailing the grant of refund in the amount of P355,385,920.00 was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 83165. The petitions were consolidated and eventually denied by the Court of Appeals. The appellate court also denied reconsideration in its Resolution5 dated 1 March 2005.

In its Memorandum6 22 dated November 2006, filed on behalf of the Commissioner, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) seeks to convince the Court that the literal interpretation given by the CTA and the Court of Appeals of Section 145 of the Tax Code of 1997 (Tax Code) would lead to a lower tax imposable on 1 January 2000 than that imposable during the transition period. Instead of an increase of 12% in the tax rate effective on 1 January 2000 as allegedly mandated by the Tax Code, the appellate courts ruling would result in a significant decrease in the tax rate by as much as 66%.

The OSG argues that Section 145 of the Tax Code admits of several interpretations, such as:

1. That by January 1, 2000, the excise tax on cigarettes should be the higher tax imposed under the specific tax system and the tax imposed under the ad valorem tax system plus the 12% increase imposed by par. 5, Sec. 145 of the Tax Code;

2. The increase of 12% starting on January 1, 2000 does not apply to the brands of cigarettes listed under Annex "D" referred to in par. 8, Sec. 145 of the Tax Code;

3. The 12% increment shall be computed based on the net retail price as indicated in par. C, sub-par. (1)-(4), Sec. 145 of the Tax Code even if the resulting figure will be lower than the amount already being paid at the end of the transition period. This is the interpretation followed by both the CTA and the Court of Appeals.7

This being so, the interpretation which will give life to the legislative intent to raise revenue should govern, the OSG stresses.

Finally, the OSG asserts that a tax refund is in the nature of a tax exemption and must, therefore, be construed strictly against the taxpayer, such as Fortune Tobacco.

In its Memorandum8 dated 10 November 2006, Fortune Tobacco argues that the CTA and the Court of Appeals merely followed the letter of the law when they ruled that the basis for the 12% increase in the tax rate should be the net retail price of the cigarettes in the market as outlined in paragraph C, sub paragraphs (1)-(4), Section 145 of the Tax Code. The Commissioner allegedly has gone beyond his delegated rule-making power when he promulgated, enforced and implemented Revenue Regulation No. 17-99, which effectively created a separate classification for cigarettes based on the excise tax "actually being paid prior to January 1, 2000."9

It should be mentioned at the outset that there is no dispute between the fact of payment of the taxes sought to be refunded and the receipt thereof by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). There is also no question about the mathematical accuracy of Fortune Tobaccos claim since the documentary evidence in support of the refund has not been controverted by the revenue agency. Likewise, the claims have been made and the actions have been filed within the two (2)-year prescriptive period provided under Section 229 of the Tax Code.

The power to tax is inherent in the State, such power being inherently legislative, based on the principle that taxes are a grant of the people who are taxed, and the grant must be made by the immediate representatives of the people; and where the people have laid the power, there it must remain and be exercised.10

This entire controversy revolves around the interplay between Section 145 of the Tax Code and Revenue Regulation 17-99. The main issue is an inquiry into whether the revenue regulation has exceeded the allowable limits of legislative delegation.

For ease of reference, Section 145 of the Tax Code is again reproduced in full as follows:

Section 145. Cigars and Cigarettes-

(A) Cigars.There shall be levied, assessed and collected on cigars a tax of One peso (P1.00) per cigar.

(B). Cigarettes packed by hand.There shall be levied, assessed and collected on cigarettes packed by hand a tax of Forty centavos (P0.40) per pack.

(C) Cigarettes packed by machine.There shall be levied, assessed and collected on cigarettes packed by machine a tax at the rates prescribed below:

(1) If the net retail price (excluding the excise tax and the value-added tax) is above Ten pesos (P10.00) per pack, the tax shall be Twelve pesos (P12.00) per pack;

(2) If the net retail price (excluding the excise tax and the value added tax) exceeds Six pesos and Fifty centavos (P6.50) but does not exceed Ten pesos (P10.00) per pack, the tax shall be Eight Pesos (P8.00) per pack.

(3) If the net retail price (excluding the excise tax and the value-added tax) is Five pesos (P5.00) but does not exceed Six Pesos and fifty centavos (P6.50) per pack, the tax shall be Five pesos (P5.00) per pack;

(4) If the net retail price (excluding the excise tax and the value-added tax) is below Five pesos (P5.00) per pack, the tax shall be One peso (P1.00) per pack;

Variants of existing brands of cigarettes which are introduced in the domestic market after the effectivity of R.A. No. 8240 shall be taxed under the highest classification of any variant of that brand.

The excise tax from any brand of cigarettes within the next three (3) years from the effectivity of R.A. No. 8240 shall not be lower than the tax, which is due from each brand on October 1, 1996. Provided, however, That in cases where the excise tax rates imposed in paragraphs (1), (2), (3) and (4) hereinabove will result in an increase in excise tax of more than seventy percent (70%), for a brand of cigarette, the increase shall take effect in two tranches: fifty percent (50%) of the increase shall be effective in 1997 and one hundred percent (100%) of the increase shall be effective in 1998.

Duly registered or existing brands of cigarettes or new brands thereof packed by machine shall only be packed in twenties.

The rates of excise tax on cigars and cigarettes under paragraphs (1), (2) (3) and (4) hereof, shall be increased by twelve percent (12%) on January 1, 2000.

New brands shall be classified according to their current net retail price.

For the above purpose, net retail price shall mean the price at which the cigarette is sold on retail in twenty (20) major supermarkets in Metro Manila (for brands of cigarettes marketed nationally), excluding the amount intended to cover the applicable excise tax and value-added tax. For brands which are marketed only outside Metro Manila, the net retail price shall mean the price at which the cigarette is sold in five (5) major intended to cover the applicable excise tax and the value-added tax.

The classification of each brand of cigarettes based on its average retail price as of October 1, 1996, as set forth in Annex "D," shall remain in force until revised by Congress.

Variant of a brand shall refer to a brand on which a modifier is prefixed and/or suffixed to the root name of the brand and/or a different brand which carries the same logo or design of the existing brand.11 (Emphasis supplied)

Revenue Regulation 17-99, which was issued pursuant to the unquestioned authority of the Secretary of Finance to promulgate rules and regulations for the effective implementation of the Tax Code,12 interprets the above-quoted provision and reflects the 12% increase in excise taxes in the following manner:

SECTIONDESCRIPTION OF ARTICLESPRESENT SPECIFIC TAX RATES PRIOR TO JAN. 1, 2000NEW SPECIFIC TAX RATE Effective Jan.. 1, 2000145(A)P1.00/cigarP1.12/cigar

(B)Cigarettes packed by Machine

(1) Net Retail Price (excluding VAT and Excise) exceeds P10.00 per packP12.00/packP13.44/pack(2) Net Retail Price (excluding VAT and Excise) is P6.51 up to P10.00 per packP8.00/packP8.96/pack(3) Net Retail Price (excluding VAT and excise) is P5.00 to P6.50 per packP5.00/packP5.60/pack(4) Net Retail Price (excluding VAT and excise) is below P5.00 per pack)P1.00/packP1.12/packThis table reflects Section 145 of the Tax Code insofar as it mandates a 12% increase effective on 1 January 2000 based on the taxes indicated under paragraph C, sub-paragraph (1)-(4). However, Revenue Regulation No. 17-99 went further and added that "[T]he new specific tax rate for any existing brand of cigars, cigarettes packed by machine, distilled spirits, wines and fermented liquor shall not be lower than the excise tax that is actually being paid prior to January 1, 2000."13

Parenthetically, Section 145 states that during the transition period, i.e., within the next three (3) years from the effectivity of the Tax Code, the excise tax from any brand of cigarettes shall not be lower than the tax due from each brand on 1 October 1996. This qualification, however, is conspicuously absent as regards the 12% increase which is to be applied on cigars and cigarettes packed by machine, among others, effective on 1 January 2000. Clearly and unmistakably, Section 145 mandates a new rate of excise tax for cigarettes packed by machine due to the 12% increase effective on 1 January 2000 without regard to whether the revenue collection starting from this period may turn out to be lower than that collected prior to this date.

By adding the qualification that the tax due after the 12% increase becomes effective shall not be lower than the tax actually paid prior to 1 January 2000, Revenue Regulation No. 17-99 effectively imposes a tax which is the higher amount between the ad valorem tax being paid at the end of the three (3)-year transition period and the specific tax under paragraph C, sub-paragraph (1)-(4), as increased by 12%a situation not supported by the plain wording of Section 145 of the Tax Code.

This is not the first time that national revenue officials had ventured in the area of unauthorized administrative legislation.

In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Reyes,14 respondent was not informed in writing of the law and the facts on which the assessment of estate taxes was made pursuant to Section 228 of the 1997 Tax Code, as amended by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8424. She was merely notified of the findings by the Commissioner, who had simply relied upon the old provisions of the law and Revenue Regulation No. 12-85 which was based on the old provision of the law. The Court held that in case of discrepancy between the law as amended and the implementing regulation based on the old law, the former necessarily prevails. The law must still be followed, even though the existing tax regulation at that time provided for a different procedure.15

In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Central Luzon Drug Corporation,16 the tax authorities gave the term "tax credit" in Sections 2(i) and 4 of Revenue Regulation 2-94 a meaning utterly disparate from what R.A. No. 7432 provides. Their interpretation muddled up the intent of Congress to grant a mere discount privilege and not a sales discount. The Court, striking down the revenue regulation, held that an administrative agency issuing regulations may not enlarge, alter or restrict the provisions of the law it administers, and it cannot engraft additional requirements not contemplated by the legislature. The Court emphasized that tax administrators are not allowed to expand or contract the legislative mandate and that the "plain meaning rule" or verba legis in statutory construction should be applied such that where the words of a statute are clear, plain and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation.

As we have previously declared, rule-making power must be confined to details for regulating the mode or proceedings in order to carry into effect the law as it has been enacted, and it cannot be extended to amend or expand the statutory requirements or to embrace matters not covered by the statute. Administrative regulations must always be in harmony with the provisions of the law because any resulting discrepancy between the two will always be resolved in favor of the basic law.17

In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Michel J. Lhuillier Pawnshop, Inc.,18 Commissioner Jose Ong issued Revenue Memorandum Order (RMO) No. 15-91, as well as the clarificatory Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) 43-91, imposing a 5% lending investors tax under the 1977 Tax Code, as amended by Executive Order (E.O.) No. 273, on pawnshops. The Commissioner anchored the imposition on the definition of lending investors provided in the 1977 Tax Code which, according to him, was broad enough to include pawnshop operators. However, the Court noted that pawnshops and lending investors were subjected to different tax treatments under the Tax Code prior to its amendment by the executive order; that Congress never intended to treat pawnshops in the same way as lending investors; and that the particularly involved section of the Tax Code explicitly subjected lending investors and dealers in securities only to percentage tax. And so the Court affirmed the invalidity of the challenged circulars, stressing that "administrative issuances must not override, supplant or modify the law, but must remain consistent with the law they intend to carry out."19

In Philippine Bank of Communications v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,20 the then acting Commissioner issued RMC 7-85, changing the prescriptive period of two years to ten years for claims of excess quarterly income tax payments, thereby creating a clear inconsistency with the provision of Section 230 of the 1977 Tax Code. The Court nullified the circular, ruling that the BIR did not simply interpret the law; rather it legislated guidelines contrary to the statute passed by Congress. The Court held:

It bears repeating that Revenue memorandum-circulars are considered administrative rulings (in the sense of more specific and less general interpretations of tax laws) which are issued from time to time by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. It is widely accepted that the interpretation placed upon a statute by the executive officers, whose duty is to enforce it, is entitled to great respect by the courts. Nevertheless, such interpretation is not conclusive and will be ignored if judicially found to be erroneous. Thus, courts will not countenance administrative issuances that override, instead of remaining consistent and in harmony with, the law they seek to apply and implement.21

In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. CA, et al.,22 the central issue was the validity of RMO 4-87 which had construed the amnesty coverage under E.O. No. 41 (1986) to include only assessments issued by the BIR after the promulgation of the executive order on 22 August 1986 and not assessments made to that date. Resolving the issue in the negative, the Court held:

x x x all such issuances must not override, but must remain consistent and in harmony with, the law they seek to apply and implement. Administrative rules and regulations are intended to carry out, neither to supplant nor to modify, the law.23

x x x

If, as the Commissioner argues, Executive Order No. 41 had not been intended to include 1981-1985 tax liabilities already assessed (administratively) prior to 22 August 1986, the law could have simply so provided in its exclusionary clauses. It did not. The conclusion is unavoidable, and it is that the executive order has been designed to be in the nature of a general grant of tax amnesty subject only to the cases specifically excepted by it.24

In the case at bar, the OSGs argument that by 1 January 2000, the excise tax on cigarettes should be the higher tax imposed under the specific tax system and the tax imposed under the ad valorem tax system plus the 12% increase imposed by paragraph 5, Section 145 of the Tax Code, is an unsuccessful attempt to justify what is clearly an impermissible incursion into the limits of administrative legislation. Such an interpretation is not supported by the clear language of the law and is obviously only meant to validate the OSGs thesis that Section 145 of the Tax Code is ambiguous and admits of several interpretations.

The contention that the increase of 12% starting on 1 January 2000 does not apply to the brands of cigarettes listed under Annex "D" is likewise unmeritorious, absurd even. Paragraph 8, Section 145 of the Tax Code simply states that, "[T]he classification of each brand of cigarettes based on its average net retail price as of October 1, 1996, as set forth in Annex D, shall remain in force until revised by Congress." This declaration certainly does not lend itself to the interpretation given to it by the OSG. As plainly worded, the average net retail prices of the listed brands under Annex "D," which classify cigarettes according to their net retail price into low, medium or high, obviously remain the bases for the application of the increase in excise tax rates effective on 1 January 2000.

The foregoing leads us to conclude that Revenue Regulation No. 17-99 is indeed indefensibly flawed. The Commissioner cannot seek refuge in his claim that the purpose behind the passage of the Tax Code is to generate additional revenues for the government. Revenue generation has undoubtedly been a major consideration in the passage of the Tax Code. However, as borne by the legislative record,25 the shift from the ad valorem system to the specific tax system is likewise meant to promote fair competition among the players in the industries concerned, to ensure an equitable distribution of the tax burden and to simplify tax administration by classifying cigarettes, among others, into high, medium and low-priced based on their net retail price and accordingly graduating tax rates.

At any rate, this advertence to the legislative record is merely gratuitous because, as we have held, the meaning of the law is clear on its face and free from the ambiguities that the Commissioner imputes. We simply cannot disregard the letter of the law on the pretext of pursuing its spirit.26

Finally, the Commissioners contention that a tax refund partakes the nature of a tax exemption does not apply to the tax refund to which Fortune Tobacco is entitled. There is parity between tax refund and tax exemption only when the former is based either on a tax exemption statute or a tax refund statute. Obviously, that is not the situation here. Quite the contrary, Fortune Tobaccos claim for refund is premised on its erroneous payment of the tax, or better still the governments exaction in the absence of a law.

Tax exemption is a result of legislative grace. And he who claims an exemption from the burden of taxation must justify his claim by showing that the legislature intended to exempt him by words too plain to be mistaken.27 The rule is that tax exemptions must be strictly construed such that the exemption will not be held to be conferred unless the terms under which it is granted clearly and distinctly show that such was the intention.28

A claim for tax refund may be based on statutes granting tax exemption or tax refund. In such case, the rule of strict interpretation against the taxpayer is applicable as the claim for refund partakes of the nature of an exemption, a legislative grace, which cannot be allowed unless granted in the most explicit and categorical language. The taxpayer must show that the legislature intended to exempt him from the tax by words too plain to be mistaken.29

Tax refunds (or tax credits), on the other hand, are not founded principally on legislative grace but on the legal principle which underlies all quasi-contracts abhorring a persons unjust enrichment at the expense of another.30 The dynamic of erroneous payment of tax fits to a tee the prototypic quasi-contract, solutio indebiti, which covers not only mistake in fact but also mistake in law.31

The Government is not exempt from the application of solutio indebiti.32 Indeed, the taxpayer expects fair dealing from the Government, and the latter has the duty to refund without any unreasonable delay what it has erroneously collected.33 If the State expects its taxpayers to observe fairness and honesty in paying their taxes, it must hold itself against the same standard in refunding excess (or erroneous) payments of such taxes. It should not unjustly enrich itself at the expense of taxpayers.34 And so, given its essence, a claim for tax refund necessitates only preponderance of evidence for its approbation like in any other ordinary civil case.

Under the Tax Code itself, apparently in recognition of the pervasive quasi-contract principle, a claim for tax refund may be based on the following: (a) erroneously or illegally assessed or collected internal revenue taxes; (b) penalties imposed without authority; and (c) any sum alleged to have been excessive or in any manner wrongfully collected.35

What is controlling in this case is the well-settled doctrine of strict interpretation in the imposition of taxes, not the similar doctrine as applied to tax exemptions. The rule in the interpretation of tax laws is that a statute will not be construed as imposing a tax unless it does so clearly, expressly, and unambiguously. A tax cannot be imposed without clear and express words for that purpose. Accordingly, the general rule of requiring adherence to the letter in construing statutes applies with peculiar strictness to tax laws and the provisions of a taxing act are not to be extended by implication. In answering the question of who is subject to tax statutes, it is basic that in case of doubt, such statutes are to be construed most strongly against the government and in favor of the subjects or citizens because burdens are not to be imposed nor presumed to be imposed beyond what statutes expressly and clearly import.36 As burdens, taxes should not be unduly exacted nor assumed beyond the plain meaning of the tax laws.37

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. SP No. 80675, dated 28 September 2004, and its Resolution, dated 1 March 2005, are AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 148512 June 26, 2006

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, vs.CENTRAL LUZON DRUG CORPORATION, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

AZCUNA, J.:

This is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking the nullification of the Decision, dated May 31, 2001, of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 60057, entitled "Central Luzon Drug Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue," granting herein respondent Central Luzon Drug Corporations claim for tax credit equal to the amount of the 20% discount that it extended to senior citizens on the latters purchase of medicines pursuant to Section 4(a) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7432, entitled "An Act to Maximize the Contribution of Senior Citizens to Nation Building, Grant Benefits and Special Privileges and for other Purposes" otherwise known as the Senior Citizens Act.

The antecedents are as follows:

Central Luzon Drug Corporation has been a retailer of medicines and other pharmaceutical products since December 19, 1994. In 1995, it opened three (3) drugstores as a franchisee under the business name and style of "Mercury Drug."

For the period January 1995 to December 1995, in conformity to the mandate of Sec. 4(a) of R.A. No. 7432, petitioner granted a 20% discount on the sale of medicines to qualified senior citizens amounting to P219,778.

Pursuant to Revenue Regulations No. 2-941 implementing R.A. No. 7432, which states that the discount given to senior citizens shall be deducted by the establishment from its gross sales for value-added tax and other percentage tax purposes, respondent deducted the total amount of P219,778 from its gross income for the taxable year 1995. For said taxable period, respondent reported a net loss of P20,963 in its corporate income tax return. As a consequence, respondent did not pay income tax for 1995.

Subsequently, on December 27, 1996, claiming that according to Sec. 4(a) of R.A. No. 7432, the amount of P219,778 should be applied as a tax credit, respondent filed a claim for refund in the amount of P150,193, thus:

Net SalesP 37,014,807.00Add:Cost of 20% Discount to Senior Citizens219,778.00Gross SalesP 37,234,585.00Less:Cost of SalesMerchandise Inventory, begP 1,232,740.00Purchases41,145,138.00Merchandise Inventory, end8,521,557.0033,856,621.00Gross ProfitP 3,377,964.00Miscellaneous Income39,014.00Total Income3,416,978.00Operating Expenses3,199,230.00Net Income Before TaxP 217,748.00Income Tax (35%)69,585.00Less:Tax Credit(Cost of 20% Discount to Senior Citizens)219,778.00Income Tax Payable(P 150,193.00)Income Tax Actually Paid-0-Tax Refundable/Overpaid Income Tax(P 150,193.00)As shown above, the amount of P150,193 claimed as a refund represents the tax credit allegedly due to respondent under R.A. No. 7432. Since the Commissioner of Internal Revenue "was not able to decide the claim for refund on time,"2 respondent filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) on March 18, 1998.

On April 24, 2000, the CTA dismissed the petition, declaring that even if the law treats the 20% sales discounts granted to senior citizens as a tax credit, the same cannot apply when there is no tax liability or the amount of the tax credit is greater than the tax due. In the latter case, the tax credit will only be to the extent of the tax liability.3 Also, no refund can be granted as no tax was erroneously, illegally and actually collected based on the provisions of Section 230, now Section 229, of the Tax Code. Furthermore, the law does not state that a refund can be claimed by the private establishment concerned as an alternative to the tax credit.

Thus, respondent filed with the CA a Petition for Review on August 3, 2000.

On May 31, 2001, the CA rendered a Decision stating that Section 229 of the Tax Code does not apply in this case. It concluded that the 20% discount given to senior citizens which is treated as a tax credit pursuant to Sec. 4(a) of R.A. No. 7432 is considered just compensation and, as such, may be carried over to the next taxable period if there is no current tax liability. In view of this, the CA held:

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED and the decision of the CTA dated 24 April 2000 and its resolution dated 06 July 2000 are SET ASIDE. A new one is entered granting petitioners claim for tax credit in the amount of Php: 150,193.00. No costs.

SO ORDERED.4

Hence, this petition raising the sole issue of whether the 20% sales discount granted by respondent to qualified senior citizens pursuant to Sec. 4(a) of R.A. No. 7432 may be claimed as a tax credit or as a deduction from gross sales in accordance with Sec. 2(1) of Revenue Regulations No. 2-94.

Sec. 4(a) of R.A. No. 7432 provides:

Sec. 4. Privileges for the Senior citizens. The senior citizens shall be entitled to the following:

(a) the grant of twenty percent (20%) discount from all establishments relative to utilization of transportations services, hotels and similar lodging establishments, restaurants and recreation centers and purchase of medicines anywhere in the country: Provided, That private establishments may claim the cost as tax credit.

The CA and the CTA correctly ruled that based on the plain wording of the law discounts given under R.A. No. 7432 should be treated as tax credits, not deductions from income.

It is a fundamental rule in statutory construction that the legislative intent must be determined from the language of the statute itself especially when the words and phrases therein are clear and unequivocal. The statute in such a case must be taken to mean exactly what it says.5 Its literal meaning should be followed;6 to depart from the meaning expressed by the words is to alter the statute.7

The above provision explicitly employed the word "tax credit." Nothing in the provision suggests for it to mean a "deduction" from gross sales. To construe it otherwise would be a departure from the clear mandate of the law.

Thus, the 20% discount required by the Act to be given to senior citizens is a tax credit, not a deduction from the gross sales of the establishment concerned. As a corollary to this, the definition of tax credit found in Section 2(1) of Revenue Regulations No. 2-94 is erroneous as it refers to tax credit as the amount representing the 20% discount that "shall be deducted by the said establishment from their gross sales for value added tax and other percentage tax purposes." This definition is contrary to what our lawmakers had envisioned with regard to the treatment of the discount granted to senior citizens.

Accordingly, when the law says that the cost of the discount may be claimed as a tax credit, it means that the amount -- when claimed shall be treated as a reduction from any tax liability.8 The law cannot be amended by a mere regulation. The administrative agencies issuing these regulations may not enlarge, alter or restrict the provisions of the law they administer.9 In fact, a regulation that "operates to create a rule out of harmony with the statute is a mere nullity."10

Finally, for purposes of clarity, Sec. 22911 of the Tax Code does not apply to cases that fall under Sec. 4 of R.A. No. 7432 because the former provision governs exclusively all kinds of refund or credit of internal revenue taxes that were erroneously or illegally imposed and collected pursuant to the Tax Code while the latter extends the tax credit benefit to the private establishments concerned even before tax payments have been made. The tax credit that is contemplated under the Act is a form of just compensation, not a remedy for taxes that were erroneously or illegally assessed and collected. In the same vein, prior payment of any tax liability is not a precondition before a taxable entity can benefit from the tax credit. The credit may be availed of upon payment of the tax due, if any. Where there is no tax liability or where a private establishment reports a net loss for the period, the tax credit can be availed of and carried over to the next taxable year.

It must also be stressed that unlike in Sec. 229 of the Tax Code wherein the remedy of refund is available to the taxpayer, Sec. 4 of the law speaks only of a tax credit, not a refund.

As earlier mentioned, the tax credit benefit granted to the establishments can be deemed as their just compensation for private property taken by the State for public use. The privilege enjoyed by the senior citizens does not come directly from the State, but rather from the private establishments concerned.12

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 60057, dated May 31, 2001, is AFFIRMED.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

EN BANC

G.R. Nos. L-49839-46 April 26, 1991

JOSE B. L. REYES and EDMUNDO A. REYES, petitioners, vs.PEDRO ALMANZOR, VICENTE ABAD SANTOS, JOSE ROO, in their capacities as appointed and Acting Members of the CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS; TERESITA H. NOBLEJAS, ROMULO M. DEL ROSARIO, RAUL C. FLORES, in their capacities as appointed and Acting Members of the BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS of Manila; and NICOLAS CATIIL in his capacity as City Assessor of Manila, respondents.

Barcelona, Perlas, Joven & Academia Law Offices for petitioners.

PARAS, J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari to reverse the June 10, 1977 decision of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals1 in CBAA Cases Nos. 72-79 entitled "J.B.L. Reyes, Edmundo Reyes, et al. v. Board of Assessment Appeals of Manila and City Assessor of Manila" which affirmed the March 29, 1976 decision of the Board of Tax Assessment Appeals2 in BTAA Cases Nos. 614, 614-A-J, 615, 615-A, B, E, "Jose Reyes, et al. v. City Assessor of Manila" and "Edmundo Reyes and Milagros Reyes v. City Assessor of Manila" upholding the classification and assessments made by the City Assessor of Manila.

The facts of the case are as follows:

Petitioners J.B.L. Reyes, Edmundo and Milagros Reyes are owners of parcels of land situated in Tondo and Sta. Cruz Districts, City of Manila, which are leased and entirely occupied as dwelling sites by tenants. Said tenants were paying monthly rentals not exceeding three hundred pesos (P300.00) in July, 1971. On July 14, 1971, the National Legislature enacted Republic Act No. 6359 prohibiting for one year from its effectivity, an increase in monthly rentals of dwelling units or of lands on which another's dwelling is located, where such rentals do not exceed three hundred pesos (P300.00) a month but allowing an increase in rent by not more than 10% thereafter. The said Act also suspended paragraph (1) of Article 1673 of the Civil Code for two years from its effectivity thereby disallowing the ejectment of lessees upon the expiration of the usual legal period of lease. On October 12, 1972, Presidential Decree No. 20 amended R.A. No. 6359 by making absolute the prohibition to increase monthly rentals below P300.00 and by indefinitely suspending the aforementioned provision of the Civil Code, excepting leases with a definite period. Consequently, the Reyeses, petitioners herein, were precluded from raising the rentals and from ejecting the tenants. In 1973, respondent City Assessor of Manila re-classified and reassessed the value of the subject properties based on the schedule of market values duly reviewed by the Secretary of Finance. The revision, as expected, entailed an increase in the corresponding tax rates prompting petitioners to file a Memorandum of Disagreement with the Board of Tax Assessment Appeals. They averred that the reassessments made were "excessive, unwarranted, inequitable, confiscatory and unconstitutional" considering that the taxes imposed upon them greatly exceeded the annual income derived from their properties. They argued that the income approach should have been used in determining the land values instead of the comparable sales approach which the City Assessor adopted (Rollo, pp. 9-10-A). The Board of Tax Assessment Appeals, however, considered the assessments valid, holding thus:

WHEREFORE, and considering that the appellants have failed to submit concrete evidence which could overcome the presumptive regularity of the classification and assessments appear to be in accordance with the base schedule of market values and of the base schedule of building unit values, as approved by the Secretary of Finance, the cases should be, as they are hereby, upheld.

SO ORDERED. (Decision of the Board of Tax Assessment Appeals, Rollo, p. 22).

The Reyeses appealed to the Central Board of Assessment Appeals.1wphi1 They submitted, among others, the summary of the yearly rentals to show the income derived from the properties. Respondent City Assessor, on the other hand, submitted three (3) deeds of sale showing the different market values of the real property situated in the same vicinity where the subject properties of petitioners are located. To better appreciate the locational and physical features of the land, the Board of Hearing Commissioners conducted an ocular inspection with the presence of two representatives of the City Assessor prior to the healing of the case. Neither the owners nor their authorized representatives were present during the said ocular inspection despite proper notices served them. It was found that certain parcels of land were below street level and were affected by the tides (Rollo, pp. 24-25).

On June 10, 1977, the Central Board of Assessment Appeals rendered its decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision insofar as the valuation and assessment of the lots covered by Tax Declaration Nos. (5835) PD-5847, (5839), (5831) PD-5844 and PD-3824 is affirmed.

For the lots covered by Tax Declaration Nos. (1430) PD-1432, PD-1509, 146 and (1) PD-266, the appealed Decision is modified by allowing a 20% reduction in their respective market values and applying therein the assessment level of 30% to arrive at the corresponding assessed value.

SO ORDERED. (Decision of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals, Rollo, p. 27)

Petitioner's subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied, hence, this petition.

The Reyeses assigned the following error:

THE HONORABLE BOARD ERRED IN ADOPTING THE "COMPARABLE SALES APPROACH" METHOD IN FIXING THE ASSESSED VALUE OF APPELLANTS' PROPERTIES.

The petition is impressed with merit.

The crux of the controversy is in the method used in tax assessment of the properties in question. Petitioners maintain that the "Income Approach" method would have been more realistic for in disregarding the effect of the restrictions imposed by P.D. 20 on the market value of the properties affected, respondent Assessor of the City of Manila unlawfully and unjustifiably set increased new assessed values at levels so high and successive that the resulting annual real estate taxes would admittedly exceed the sum total of the yearly rentals paid or payable by the dweller tenants under P.D. 20. Hence, petitioners protested against the levels of the values assigned to their properties as revised and increased on the ground that they were arbitrarily excessive, unwarranted, inequitable, confiscatory and unconstitutional (Rollo, p. 10-A).

On the other hand, while respondent Board of Tax Assessment Appeals admits in its decision that the income approach is used in determining land values in some vicinities, it maintains that when income is affected by some sort of price control, the same is rejected in the consideration and study of land values as in the case of properties affected by the Rent Control Law for they do not project the true market value in the open market (Rollo, p. 21). Thus, respondents opted instead for the "Comparable Sales Approach" on the ground that the value estimate of the properties predicated upon prices paid in actual, market transactions would be a uniform and a more credible standards to use especially in case of mass appraisal of properties (Ibid.). Otherwise stated, public respondents would have this Court completely ignore the effects of the restrictions of P.D. No. 20 on the market value of properties within its coverage. In any event, it is unquestionable that both the "Comparable Sales Approach" and the "Income Approach" are generally acceptable methods of appraisal for taxation purposes (The Law on Transfer and Business Taxation by Hector S. De Leon, 1988 Edition). However, it is conceded that the propriety of one as against the other would of course depend on several factors. Hence, as early as 1923 in the case of Army & Navy Club, Manila v. Wenceslao Trinidad, G.R. No. 19297 (44 Phil. 383), it has been stressed that the assessors, in finding the value of the property, have to consider all the circumstances and elements of value and must exercise a prudent discretion in reaching conclusions.

Under Art. VIII, Sec. 17 (1) of the 1973 Constitution, then enforced, the rule of taxation must not only be uniform, but must also be equitable and progressive.

Uniformity has been defined as that principle by which all taxable articles or kinds of property of the same class shall be taxed at the same rate (Churchill v. Concepcion, 34 Phil. 969 [1916]).

Notably in the 1935 Constitution, there was no mention of the equitable or progressive aspects of taxation required in the 1973 Charter (Fernando "The Constitution of the Philippines", p. 221, Second Edition). Thus, the need to examine closely and determine the specific mandate of the Constitution.

Taxation is said to be equitable when its burden falls on those better able to pay. Taxation is progressive when its rate goes up depending on the resources of the person affected (Ibid.).

The power to tax "is an attribute of sovereignty". In fact, it is the strongest of all the powers of government. But for all its plenitude the power to tax is not unconfined as there are restrictions. Adversely effecting as it does property rights, both the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution may properly be invoked to invalidate in appropriate cases a revenue measure. If it were otherwise, there would be truth to the 1903 dictum of Chief Justice Marshall that "the power to tax involves the power to destroy." The web or unreality spun from Marshall's famous dictum was brushed away by one stroke of Mr. Justice Holmes pen, thus: "The power to tax is not the power to destroy while this Court sits. So it is in the Philippines " (Sison, Jr. v. Ancheta, 130 SCRA 655 [1984]; Obillos, Jr. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 139 SCRA 439 [1985]).

In the same vein, the due process clause may be invoked where a taxing statute is so arbitrary that it finds no support in the Constitution. An obvious example is where it can be shown to amount to confiscation of property. That would be a clear abuse of power (Sison v. Ancheta, supra).

The taxing power has the authority to make a reasonable and natural classification for purposes of taxation but the government's act must not be prompted by a spirit of hostility, or at the very least discrimination that finds no support in reason. It suffices then that the laws operate equally and uniformly on all persons under similar circumstances or that all persons must be treated in the same manner, the conditions not being different both in the privileges conferred and the liabilities imposed (Ibid., p. 662).

Finally under the Real Property Tax Code (P.D. 464 as amended), it is declared that the first Fundamental Principle to guide the appraisal and assessment of real property for taxation purposes is that the property must be "appraised at its current and fair market value."

By no strength of the imagination can the market value of properties covered by P.D. No. 20 be equated with the market value of properties not so covered. The former has naturally a much lesser market value in view of the rental restrictions.

Ironically, in the case at bar, not even the factors determinant of the assessed value of subject properties under the "comparable sales approach" were presented by the public respondents, namely: (1) that the sale must represent a bonafide arm's length transaction between a willing seller and a willing buyer and (2) the property must be comparable property (Rollo, p. 27). Nothing can justify or support their view as it is of judicial notice that for properties covered by P.D. 20 especially during the time in question, there were hardly any willing buyers. As a general rule, there were no takers so that there can be no reasonable basis for the conclusion that these properties were comparable with other residential properties not burdened by P.D. 20. Neither can the given circumstances be nonchalantly dismissed by public respondents as imposed under distressed conditions clearly implying that the same were merely temporary in character. At this point in time, the falsity of such premises cannot be more convincingly demonstrated by the fact that the law has existed for around twenty (20) years with no end to it in sight.

Verily, taxes are the lifeblood of the government and so should be collected without unnecessary hindrance. However, such collection should be made in accordance with law as any arbitrariness will negate the very reason for government itself It is therefore necessary to reconcile the apparently conflicting interests of the authorities and the taxpayers so that the real purpose of taxations, which is the promotion of the common good, may be achieved (Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Algue Inc., et al., 158 SCRA 9 [1988]). Consequently, it stands to reason that petitioners who are burdened by the government by its Rental Freezing Laws (then R.A. No. 6359 and P.D. 20) under the principle of social justice should not now be penalized by the same government by the imposition of excessive taxes petitioners can ill afford and eventually result in the forfeiture of their properties.

By the public respondents' own computation the assessment by income approach would amount to only P10.00 per sq. meter at the time in question.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, (a) the petition is GRANTED; (b) the assailed decisions of public respondents are REVERSED and SET ASIDE; and (e) the respondent Board of Assessment Appeals of Manila and the City Assessor of Manila are ordered to make a new assessment by the income approach method to guarantee a fairer and more realistic basis of computation (Rollo, p. 71).

SO ORDERED.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. L-28896February 17, 1988

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner, vs.ALGUE, INC., and THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, respondents.

CRUZ, J.:

Taxes are the lifeblood of the government and so should be collected without unnecessary hindrance On the other hand, such collection should be made in accordance with law as any arbitrariness will negate the very reason for government itself. It is therefore necessary to reconcile the apparently conflicting interests of the authorities and the taxpayers so that the real purpose of taxation, which is the promotion of the common good, may be achieved.

The main issue in this case is whether or not the Collector of Internal Revenue correctly disallowed the P75,000.00 deduction claimed by private respondent Algue as legitimate business expenses in its income tax returns. The corollary issue is whether or not the appeal of the private respondent from the decision of the Collector of Internal Revenue was made on time and in accordance with law.

We deal first with the procedural question.

The record shows that on January 14, 1965, the private respondent, a domestic corporation engaged in engineering, construction and other allied activities, received a letter from the petitioner assessing it in the total amount of P83,183.85 as delinquency income taxes for the years 1958 and 1959. 1 On January 18, 1965, Algue flied a letter of protest or request for reconsideration, which letter was stamp received on the same day in the office of the petitioner. 2 On March 12, 1965, a warrant of distraint and levy was presented to the private respondent, through its counsel, Atty. Alberto Guevara, Jr., who refused to receive it on the ground of the pending protest. 3 A search of the protest in the dockets of the case proved fruitless. Atty. Guevara produced his file copy and gave a photostat to BIR agent Ramon Reyes, who deferred service of the warrant. 4 On April 7, 1965, Atty. Guevara was finally informed that the BIR was not taking any action on the protest and it was only then that he accepted the warrant of distraint and levy earlier sought to be served. 5 Sixteen days later, on April 23, 1965, Algue filed a petition for review of the decision of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue with the Court of Tax Appeals. 6

The above chronology shows that the petition was filed seasonably. According to Rep. Act No. 1125, the appeal may be made within thirty days after receipt of the decision or ruling challenged. 7 It is true that as a rule the warrant of distraint and levy is "proof of the finality of the assessment" 8 and renders hopeless a request for reconsideration," 9 being "tantamount to an outright denial thereof and makes the said request deemed rejected." 10 But there is a special circumstance in the case at bar that prevents application of this accepted doctrine.

The proven fact is that four days after the private respondent received the petitioner's notice of assessment, it filed its letter of protest. This was apparently not taken into account before the warrant of distraint and levy was issued; indeed, such protest could not be located in the office of the petitioner. It was only after Atty. Guevara gave the BIR a copy of the protest that it was, if at all, considered by the tax authorities. During the intervening period, the warrant was premature and could therefore not be served.

As the Court of Tax Appeals correctly noted," 11 the protest filed by private respondent was not pro forma and was based on strong legal considerations. It thus had the effect of suspending on January 18, 1965, when it was filed, the reglementary period which started on the date the assessment was received, viz., January 14, 1965. The period started running again only on April 7, 1965, when the private respondent was definitely informed of the implied rejection of the said protest and the warrant was finally served on it. Hence, when the appeal was filed on April 23, 1965, only 20 days of the reglementary period had been consumed.

Now for the substantive question.

The petitioner contends that the claimed deduction of P75,000.00 was properly disallowed because it was not an ordinary reasonable or necessary business expense. The Court of Tax Appeals had seen it differently. Agreeing with Algue, it held that the said amount had been legitimately paid by the private respondent for actual services rendered. The payment was in the form of promotional fees. These were collected by the Payees for their work in the creation of the Vegetable Oil Investment Corporation of the Philippines and its subsequent purchase of the properties of the Philippine Sugar Estate Development Company.

Parenthetically, it may be observed that the petitioner had Originally claimed these promotional fees to be personal holding company income 12 but later conformed to the decision of the respondent court rejecting this assertion. 13 In fact, as the said court found, the amount was earned through the joint efforts of the persons among whom it was distributed It has been established that the Philippine Sugar Estate Development Company had earlier appointed Algue as its agent, authorizing it to sell its land, factories and oil manufacturing process. Pursuant to such authority, Alberto Guevara, Jr., Eduardo Guevara, Isabel Guevara, Edith, O'Farell, and Pablo Sanchez, worked for the formation of the Vegetable Oil Investment Corporation, inducing other persons to invest in it. 14 Ultimately, after its incorporation largely through the promotion of the said persons, this new corporation purchased the PSEDC properties. 15 For this sale, Algue received as agent a commission of P126,000.00, and it was from this commission that the P75,000.00 promotional fees were paid to the aforenamed individuals. 16

There is no dispute that the payees duly reported their respective shares of the fees in their income tax returns and paid the corresponding taxes thereon. 17 The Court of Tax Appeals also found, after examining the evidence, that no distribution of dividends was involved. 18

The petitioner claims that these payments are fictitious because most of the payees are members of the same family in control of Algue. It is argued that no indication was made as to how such payments were made, whether by check or in cash, and there is not enough substantiation of such payments. In short, the petitioner suggests a tax dodge, an attempt to evade a legitimate assessment by involving an imaginary deduction.

We find that these suspicions were adequately met by the private respondent when its President, Alberto Guevara, and the accountant, Cecilia V. de Jesus, testified that the payments were not made in one lump sum but periodically and in different amounts as each payee's need arose. 19 It should be remembered that this was a family corporation where strict business procedures were not applied and immediate issuance of receipts was not required. Even so, at the end of the year, when the books were to be closed, each payee made an accounting of all of the fees received by him or her, to make up the total of P75,000.00. 20 Admittedly, everything seemed to be informal. This arrangement was understandable, however, in view of the close relationship among the persons in the family corporation.

We agree with the respondent court that the amount of the promotional fees was not excessive. The total commission paid by the Philippine Sugar Estate Development Co. to the private respondent was P125,000.00. 21 After deducting the said fees, Algue still had a balance of P50,000.00 as clear profit from the transaction. The amount of P75,000.00 was 60% of the total commission. This was a reasonable proportion, considering that it was the payees who did practically everything, from the formation of the Vegetable Oil Investment Corporation to the actual purchase by it of the Sugar Estate properties. This finding of the respondent court is in accord with the following provision of the Tax Code:

SEC. 30. Deductions from gross income.--In computing net income there shall be allowed as deductions

(a) Expenses:

(1)In general.--All the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business, including a reasonable allowance for salaries or other compensation for personal services actually rendered; ... 22

and Revenue Regulations No. 2, Section 70 (1), reading as follows:

SEC. 70. Compensation for personal services.--Among the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred in carrying on any trade or business may be included a reasonable allowance for salaries or other compensation for personal services actually rendered. The test of deductibility in the case of compensation payments is whether they are reasonable and are, in fact, payments purely for service. This test and deductibility in the case of compensation payments is whether they are reasonable and are, in fact, payments purely for service. This test and its practical application may be further stated and illustrated as follows:

Any amount paid in the form of compensation, but not in fact as the purchase price of services, is not deductible. (a) An ostensible salary paid by a corporation may be a distribution of a dividend on stock. This is likely to occur in the case of a corporation having few stockholders, Practically all of whom draw salaries. If in such a case the salaries are in excess of those ordinarily paid for similar services, and the excessive payment correspond or bear a close relationship to the stockholdings of the officers of employees, it would seem likely that the salaries are not paid wholly for services rendered, but the excessive payments are a distribution of earnings upon the stock. . . . (Promulgated Feb. 11, 1931, 30 O.G. No. 18, 325.)

It is worth noting at this point that most of the payees were not in the regular employ of Algue nor were they its controlling stockholders. 23

The Solicitor General is correct when he says that the burden is on the taxpayer to prove the validity of the claimed deduction. In the present case, however, we find that the onus has been discharged satisfactorily. The private respondent has proved that the payment of the fees was necessary and reasonable in the light of the efforts exerted by the payees in inducing investors and prominent businessmen to venture in an experimental enterprise and involve themselves in a new business requiring millions of pesos. This was no mean feat and should be, as it was, sufficiently recompensed.

It is said that taxes are what we pay for civilization society. Without taxes, the government would be paralyzed for lack of the motive power to activate and operate it. Hence, despite the natural reluctance to surrender part of one's hard earned income to the taxing authorities, every person who is able to must contribute his share in the running of the government. The government for its part, is expected to respond in the form of tangible and intangible benefits intended to improve the lives of the people and enhance their moral and material values. This symbiotic relationship is the rationale of taxation and should dispel the erroneous notion that it is an arbitrary method of exaction by those in the seat of power.

But even as we concede the inevitability and indispensability of taxation, it is a requirement in all democratic regimes that it be exercised reasonably and in accordance with the prescribed procedure. If it is not, then the taxpayer has a right to complain and the courts will then come to his succor. For all the awesome power of the tax collector, he may still be stopped in his tracks if the taxpayer can demonstrate, as it has here, that the law has not been observed.

We hold that the appeal of the private respondent from the decision of the petitioner was filed on time with the respondent court in accordance with Rep. Act No. 1125. And we also find that the claimed deduction by the private respondent was permitted under the Internal Revenue Code and should therefore not have been disallowed by the petitioner.

ACCORDINGLY, the appealed decision of the Court of Tax Appeals is AFFIRMED in toto, without costs.

SO ORDERED.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 149110 April 9, 2003

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.CITY OF CABANATUAN, respondent.

PUNO, J.:

This is a petition for review1 of the Decision2 and the Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals dated March 12, 2001 and July 10, 2001, respectively, finding petitioner National Power Corporation (NPC) liable to pay franchise tax to respondent City of Cabanatuan.

Petitioner is a government-owned and controlled corporation created under Commonwealth Act No. 120, as amended.4 It is tasked to undertake the "development of hydroelectric generations of power and the production of electricity from nuclear, geothermal and other sources, as well as, the transmission of electric power on a nationwide basis."5 Concomitant to its mandated duty, petitioner has, among others, the power to construct, operate and maintain power plants, auxiliary plants, power stations and substations for the purpose of developing hydraulic power and supplying such power to the inhabitants.6

For many years now, petitioner sells electric power to the residents of Cabanatuan City, posting a gross income of P107,814,187.96 in 1992.7 Pursuant to section 37 of Ordinance No. 165-92,8 the respondent assessed the petitioner a franchise tax amounting to P808,606.41, representing 75% of 1% of the latter's gross receipts for the preceding year.9

Petitioner, whose capital stock was subscribed and paid wholly by the Philippine Government,10 refused to pay the tax assessment. It argued that the respondent has no authority to impose tax on government entities. Petitioner also contended that as a non-profit organization, it is exempted from the payment of all forms of taxes, charges, duties or fees11 in accordance with sec. 13 of Rep. Act No. 6395, as amended, viz:

"Sec.13. Non-profit Character of the Corporation; Exemption from all Taxes, Duties, Fees, Imposts and Other Charges by Government and Governmental Instrumentalities.- The Corporation shall be non-profit and shall devote all its return from its capital investment, as well as excess revenues from its operation, for expansion. To enable the Corporation to pay its indebtedness and obligations and in furtherance and effective implementation of the policy enunciated in Section one of this Act, the Corporation is hereby exempt:

(a) From the payment of all taxes, duties, fees, imposts, charges, costs and service fees in any court or administrative proceedings in which it may be a party, restrictions and duties to the Republic of the Philippines, its provinces, cities, municipalities and other government agencies and instrumentalities;

(b) From all income taxes, franchise taxes and realty taxes to be paid to the National Government, its provinces, cities, municipalities and other government agencies and instrumentalities;

(c) From all import duties, compensating taxes and advanced sales tax, and wharfage fees on import of foreign goods required for its operations and projects; and

(d) From all taxes, duties, fees, imposts, and all other charges imposed by the Republic of the Philippines, its provinces, cities, municipalities and other government agencies and instrumentalities, on all petroleum products used by the Corporation in the generation, transmission, utilization, and sale of electric power."12

The respondent filed a collection suit in the Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan City, demanding that petitioner pay the assessed tax due, plus a surcharge equivalent to 25% of the amount of tax, and 2% monthly interest.13 Respondent alleged that petitioner's exemption from local taxes has been repealed by section 193 of Rep. Act No. 7160,14 which reads as follows:

"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."

On January 25, 1996, the trial court issued an Order15 dismissing the case. It ruled that the tax exemption privileges granted to petitioner subsist despite the passage of Rep. Act No. 7160 for the following reasons: (1) Rep. Act No. 6395 is a particular law and it may not be repealed by Rep. Act No. 7160 which is a general law; (2) section 193 of Rep. Act No. 7160 is in the nature of an implied repeal which is not favored; and (3) local governments have no power to tax instrumentalities of the national government. Pertinent portion of the Order reads:

"The question of whether a particular law has been repealed or not by a subsequent law is a matter of legislative intent. The lawmakers may expressly repeal a law by incorporating therein repealing provisions which expressly and specifically cite(s) the particular law or laws, and portions thereof, that are intended to be repealed. A declaration in a statute, usually in its repealing clause, that a particular and specific law, identified by its number or title is repealed is an express repeal; all others are implied repeal. Sec. 193 of R.A. No. 7160 is an implied repealing clause because it fails to identify the act or acts that are intended to be repealed. It is a well-settled rule of statutory construction that repeals of statutes by implication are not favored. The presumption is against inconsistency and repugnancy for the legislative is presumed to know the existing laws on the subject and not to have enacted inconsistent or conflicting statutes. It is also a well-settled rule that, generally, general law does not repeal a special law unless it clearly appears that the legislative has intended by the latter general act to modify or repeal the earlier special law. Thus, despite the passage of R.A. No. 7160 from which the questioned Ordinance No. 165-92 was based, the tax exemption privileges of defendant NPC remain.

Another point going against plaintiff in this case is the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Basco vs. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation, 197 SCRA 52, where it was held that:

'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. xxx 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 mere local government.'

Like PAGCOR, NPC, being a government owned and controlled corporation with an original charter and its shares of stocks owned by the National Government, is beyond the taxing power of the Local Government. Corollary to this, it should be noted here that in the NPC Charter's declaration of Policy, Congress declared that: 'xxx (2) the total electrification of the Philippines through the development of power from all services to meet the needs of industrial development and dispersal and needs of rural electrification are primary objectives of the nations which shall be pursued coordinately and supported by all instrumentalities and agencies of the government, including its financial institutions.' (underscoring supplied). To allow plaintiff to subject defendant to its tax-ordinance would be to impede the avowed goal of this government instrumentality.

Unlike the State, a city or municipality has no inherent power of taxation. Its taxing power is limited to that which is provided for in its charter or other statute. Any grant of taxing power is to be construed strictly, with doubts resolved against its existence.

From the existing law and the rulings of the Supreme Court itself, it is very clear that the plaintiff could not impose the subject tax on the defendant."16

On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's Order17 on the ground that section 193, in relation to sections 137 and 151 of the LGC, expressly withdrew the exemptions granted to the petitioner.18 It ordered the petitioner to pay the respondent city government the following: (a) the sum of P808,606.41 representing the franchise tax due based on gross receipts for the year 1992, (b) the tax due every year thereafter based in the gross receipts earned by NPC, (c) in all cases, to pay a surcharge of 25% of the tax due and unpaid, and (d) the sum of P 10,000.00 as litigation expense.19

On April 4, 2001, the petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration on the Court of Appeal's Decision. This was denied by the appellate court, viz:

"The Court finds no merit in NPC's motion for reconsideration. Its arguments reiterated therein that the taxing power of the province under Art. 137 (sic) of the Local Government Code refers merely to private persons or corporations in which category it (NPC) does not belong, and that the LGC (RA 7160) which is a general law may not impliedly repeal the NPC Charter which is a special lawfinds the answer in Section 193 of the LGC to the effect that '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 xxx are hereby withdrawn.' The repeal is direct and unequivocal, not implied.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED.

SO ORDERED."20

In this petition for review, petitioner raises the following issues:

"A. THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT NPC, A PUBLIC NON-PROFIT CORPORATION, IS LIABLE TO PAY A FRANCHISE TAX AS IT FAILED TO CONSIDER THAT SECTION 137 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE IN RELATION TO SECTION 131 APPLIES ONLY TO PRIVATE PERSONS OR CORPORATIONS ENJOYING A FRANCHISE.

B. THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT NPC'S EXEMPTION FROM ALL FORMS OF TAXES HAS BEEN REPEALED BY THE PROVISION OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE AS THE ENACTMENT OF A LATER LEGISLATION, WHICH IS A GENERAL LAW, CANNOT BE CONSTRUED TO HAVE REPEALED A SPECIAL LAW.

C. THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THAT AN EXERCISE OF POLICE POWER THROUGH TAX EXEMPTION SHOULD PREVAIL OVER THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE."21

It is beyond dispute that the respondent city government has the authority to issue Ordinance No. 165-92 and impose an annual tax on "businesses enjoying a franchise," pursuant to section 151 in relation to section 137 of the LGC, viz:

"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." (emphasis supplied)

x x x

Sec. 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."

Petitioner, however, submits that it is not liable to pay an annual franchise tax to the respondent city government. It contends that sections 137 and 151 of the LGC in relation to section 131, limit the taxing power of the respondent city government to private entities that are engaged in trade or occupation for profit.22

Section 131 (m) of the LGC defines a "franchise" as "a right or privilege, affected with public interest which is conferred upon private persons or corporations, under such terms and conditions as the government and its political subdivisions may impose in the interest of the public welfare, security and safety." From the phraseology of this provision, the petitioner claims that the word "private" modifies the terms "persons" and "corporations." Hence, when the LGC uses the term "franchise," petitioner submits that it should refer specifically to franchises granted to private natural persons and to private corporations.23 Ergo, its charter should not be considered a "franchise" for the purpose of imposing the franchise tax in question.

On the other hand, section 131 (d) of the LGC defines "business" as "trade or commercial activity regularly engaged in as means of livelihood or with a view to profit." Petitioner claims that it is not engaged in an activity for profit, in as much as its charter specifically provides that it is a "non-profit organization." In any case, petitioner argues that the accumulation of profit is merely incidental to its operation; all these profits are required by law to be channeled for expansion and improvement of its facilities and services.24

Petitioner also alleges that it is an instrumentality of the National Government,25 and as such, may not be taxed by the respondent city government. It cites the doctrine in Basco vs. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation26 where this Court held that local governments have no power to tax instrumentalities of the National Government, viz:

"Local governments have no power to tax instrumentalities of 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. (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 seriously burden it from accomplishment of them.' (Antieau, Modern Constitutional Law, Vol. 2, p. 140, italics 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 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."27

Petitioner contends that section 193 of Rep. Act No. 7160, withdrawing the tax privileges of government-owned or controlled corporations, is in the nature of an implied repeal. A special law, its charter cannot be amended or modified impliedly by the local government code which is a general law. Consequently, petitioner claims that its exemption from all taxes, fees or charges under its charter subsists despite the passage of the LGC, viz:

"It is a well-settled rule of statutory construction that repeals of statutes by implication are not favored and as much as possible, effect must be given to all enactments of the legislature. Moreover, it has to be conceded that the charter of the NPC constitutes a special law. Republic Act No. 7160, is a general law. It is a basic rule in statutory construction that the enactment of a later legislation which is a general law cannot be construed to have repealed a special law. Where there is a conflict between a general law and a special statute, the special statute should prevail since it evinces the legislative intent more clearly than the general statute."28

Finally, petitioner submits that the charter of the NPC, being a valid exercise of police power, should prevail over the LGC. It alleges that the power of the local government to impose franchise tax is subordinate to petitioner's exemption from taxation; "police power being the most pervasive, the least limitable and most demanding of all powers, including the power of taxation."29

The petition is without merit.

Taxes are the lifeblood of the government,30 for without taxes, the government can neither exist nor endure. A principal attribute of sovereignty,31 the exercise of taxing power derives its source from the very existence of the state whose social contract with its citizens obliges it to promote public interest and common good. The theory behind the exercise of the power to tax emanates from necessity;32 without taxes, government cannot fulfill its mandate of promoting the general welfare and well-being of the people.

In recent years, the increasing social challenges of the times expanded the scope of state activity, and taxation has become a tool to realize social justice and the equitable distribution of wealth, economic progress and the protection of local industries as well as public welfare and similar objectives.33 Taxation assumes even greater significance with the ratification of the 1987 Constitution. Thenceforth, the power to tax is no longer vested exclusively on Congress; local legislative bodies are now given direct authority to levy taxes, fees and other charges34 pursuant to Article X, section 5 of the 1987 Constitution, viz:

"Section 5.- Each Local Government unit shall have the power to create its own sources of revenue, 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."

This paradigm shift results from the realization that genuine development can be achieved only by strengthening local autonomy and promoting decentralization of governance. For a long time, the country's highly centralized government structure has bred a culture of dependence among local government leaders upon the national leadership. It has also "dampened the spirit of initiative, innovation and imaginative resilience in matters of local development on the part of local government leaders."35 The only way to shatter this culture of dependence is to give the LGUs a wider role in the delivery of basic services, and confer them sufficient powers to generate their own sources for the purpose. To achieve this goal, section 3 of Article X of the 1987 Constitution mandates Congress to enact a local government code that will, consistent with the basic policy of local autonomy, set the guidelines and limitations to this grant of taxing powers, viz:

"Section 3. The Congress shall enact a local government code which shall provide for a more respo