Arturo Tolentino vs Secretary of Finance235 SCRA 630 (1994) – 249 SCRA 635 (1995) – Political Law – Origination of

Revenue Bills – EVAT – Amendment by Substitution

Arturo Tolentino et al are questioning the constitutionality of RA 7716 otherwise known as the Expanded Value Added Tax (EVAT) Law. Tolentino averred that this revenue bill did not exclusively originate from the House of Representatives as required by Section 24, Article 6 of the Constitution. Even though RA 7716 originated as HB 11197 and that it passed the 3 readings in the HoR, the same did not complete the 3 readings in Senate for after the 1st reading it was referred to the Senate Ways & Means Committee thereafter Senate passed its own version known as Senate Bill 1630. Tolentino averred that what Senate could have done is amend HB 11197 by striking out its text and substituting it with the text of SB 1630 in that way “the bill remains a House Bill and the Senate version just becomes the text (only the text) of the HB”. (It’s ironic however to note that  Tolentino and co-petitioner Raul Roco even signed the said Senate Bill.)

ISSUE: Whether or not the EVAT law is procedurally infirm.

HELD: No. By a 9-6 vote, the Supreme Court rejected the challenge, holding that such consolidation was consistent with the power of the Senate to propose or concur with amendments to the version originated in the HoR. What the Constitution simply means, according to the 9 justices, is that the initiative must come from the HoR. Note also that there were several instances before where Senate passed its own version rather than having the HoR version as far as revenue and other such bills are concerned. This practice of amendment by substitution has always been accepted. The proposition of Tolentino concerns a mere matter of form. There is no showing that it would make a significant difference if Senate were to adopt his over what has been done.

Tolentino vs secretary of finance

These are motions seeking reconsideration of our decision dismissing the petitions filed in these cases for the declaration of unconstitutionality of R.A. No. 7716, otherwise known as the Expanded Value-Added Tax Law. The motions, of which there are 10 in all, have been filed by the several petitioners in these cases, with the exception of the Philippine Educational Publishers Association, Inc. and the Association of Philippine Booksellers, petitioners in G.R. No. 115931.

The Solicitor General, representing the respondents, filed a consolidated comment, to which the Philippine Airlines, Inc., petitioner in G.R. No. 115852, and the Philippine Press Institute, Inc., petitioner in G.R. No. 115544, and Juan T. David, petitioner in G.R. No. 115525, each filed a reply. In turn the Solicitor General filed on June 1, 1995 a rejoinder to the PPI's reply.

On June 27, 1995 the matter was submitted for resolution.

I. Power of the Senate to propose amendments to revenue bills. Some of the petitioners (Tolentino, Kilosbayan, Inc., Philippine Airlines (PAL), Roco, and Chamber of Real Estate and Builders Association (CREBA)) reiterate previous claims made by them that

R.A. No. 7716 did not "originate exclusively" in the House of Representatives as required by Art. VI, §24 of the Constitution. Although they admit that H. No. 11197 was filed in the House of Representatives where it passed three readings and that afterward it was sent to the Senate where after first reading it was referred to the Senate Ways and Means Committee, they complain that the Senate did not pass it on second and third readings. Instead what the Senate did was to pass its own version (S. No. 1630) which it approved on May 24, 1994. Petitioner Tolentino adds that what the Senate committee should have done was to amend H. No. 11197 by striking out the text of the bill and substituting it with the text of S. No. 1630. That way, it is said, "the bill remains a House bill and the Senate version just becomes the text (only the text) of the House bill."

The contention has no merit.

The enactment of S. No. 1630 is not the only instance in which the Senate proposed an amendment to a House revenue bill by enacting its own version of a revenue bill. On at least two occasions during the Eighth Congress, the Senate passed its own version of revenue bills, which, in consolidation with House bills earlier passed, became the enrolled bills. These were:

R.A. No. 7369 (AN ACT TO AMEND THE OMNIBUS INVESTMENTS CODE OF 1987 BY EXTENDING FROM FIVE (5) YEARS TO TEN YEARS THE PERIOD FOR TAX AND DUTY EXEMPTION AND TAX CREDIT ON CAPITAL EQUIPMENT) which was approved by the President on April 10, 1992. This Act is actually a consolidation of H. No. 34254, which was approved by the House on January 29, 1992, and S. No. 1920, which was approved by the Senate on February 3, 1992.

R.A. No. 7549 (AN ACT GRANTING TAX EXEMPTIONS TO WHOEVER SHALL GIVE REWARD TO ANY FILIPINO ATHLETE WINNING A MEDAL IN OLYMPIC GAMES) which was approved by the President on May 22, 1992. This Act is a consolidation of H. No. 22232, which was approved by the House of Representatives on August 2, 1989, and S. No. 807, which was approved by the Senate on October 21, 1991.

On the other hand, the Ninth Congress passed revenue laws which were also the result of the consolidation of House and Senate bills. These are the following, with indications of the dates on which the laws were approved by the President and dates the separate bills of the two chambers of Congress were respectively passed:

1. R.A. NO. 7642

AN ACT INCREASING THE PENALTIES FOR TAX EVASION, AMENDING FOR THIS PURPOSE THE PERTINENT SECTIONS OF THE NATIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE CODE (December 28, 1992).

House Bill No. 2165, October 5, 1992

Senate Bill No. 32, December 7, 1992

2. R.A. NO. 7643

AN ACT TO EMPOWER THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE TO REQUIRE THE PAYMENT OF THE VALUE-ADDED TAX EVERY MONTH AND TO ALLOW LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS TO SHARE IN VAT REVENUE, AMENDING FOR THIS PURPOSE CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE NATIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE CODE (December 28, 1992)

House Bill No. 1503, September 3, 1992

Senate Bill No. 968, December 7, 1992

3. R.A. NO. 7646

AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE TO PRESCRIBE THE PLACE FOR PAYMENT OF INTERNAL REVENUE TAXES BY LARGE TAXPAYERS, AMENDING FOR THIS PURPOSE CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE NATIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, AS AMENDED (February 24, 1993)

House Bill No. 1470, October 20, 1992

Senate Bill No. 35, November 19, 1992

4. R.A. NO. 7649

AN ACT REQUIRING THE GOVERNMENT OR ANY OF ITS POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS, INSTRUMENTALITIES OR AGENCIES INCLUDING GOVERNMENT-OWNED OR CONTROLLED CORPORATIONS (GOCCS) TO DEDUCT AND WITHHOLD THE VALUE-ADDED TAX DUE AT THE RATE OF THREE PERCENT (3%) ON GROSS PAYMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF GOODS AND SIX PERCENT (6%) ON GROSS RECEIPTS FOR SERVICES RENDERED BY CONTRACTORS (April 6, 1993)

House Bill No. 5260, January 26, 1993

Senate Bill No. 1141, March 30, 1993

5. R.A. NO. 7656

AN ACT REQUIRING GOVERNMENT-OWNED OR CONTROLLED CORPORATIONS TO DECLARE DIVIDENDS UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS TO THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES (November 9, 1993)

House Bill No. 11024, November 3, 1993

Senate Bill No. 1168, November 3, 1993

6. R.A. NO. 7660

AN ACT RATIONALIZING FURTHER THE STRUCTURE AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE DOCUMENTARY STAMP TAX, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE NATIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, AS AMENDED, ALLOCATING FUNDS FOR SPECIFIC PROGRAMS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES (December 23, 1993)

House Bill No. 7789, May 31, 1993

Senate Bill No. 1330, November 18, 1993

7. R.A. NO. 7717

AN ACT IMPOSING A TAX ON THE SALE, BARTER OR EXCHANGE OF SHARES OF STOCK LISTED AND TRADED THROUGH THE LOCAL STOCK EXCHANGE OR THROUGH INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE THE NATIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, AS AMENDED, BY INSERTING A NEW SECTION AND REPEALING CERTAIN SUBSECTIONS THEREOF (May 5, 1994)

House Bill No. 9187, November 3, 1993

Senate Bill No. 1127, March 23, 1994

Thus, the enactment of S. No. 1630 is not the only instance in which the Senate, in the exercise of its power to propose amendments to bills required to originate in the House, passed its own version of a House revenue measure. It is noteworthy that, in the particular case of S. No. 1630, petitioners Tolentino and Roco, as members of the Senate, voted to approve it on second and third readings.

On the other hand, amendment by substitution, in the manner urged by petitioner Tolentino, concerns a mere matter of form. Petitioner has not shown what substantial difference it would make if, as the Senate actually did in this case, a separate bill like S. No. 1630 is instead enacted as a substitute measure, "taking into Consideration . . . H.B. 11197."

Indeed, so far as pertinent, the Rules of the Senate only provide:

RULE XXIX

AMENDMENTS

xxx xxx xxx

§68. Not more than one amendment to the original amendment shall be considered.

No amendment by substitution shall be entertained unless the text thereof is submitted in writing.

Any of said amendments may be withdrawn before a vote is taken thereon.

§69. No amendment which seeks the inclusion of a legislative provision foreign to the subject matter of a bill (rider) shall be entertained.

xxx xxx xxx

§70-A. A bill or resolution shall not be amended by substituting it with another which covers a subject distinct from that proposed in the original bill or resolution. (emphasis added).

Nor is there merit in petitioners' contention that, with regard to revenue bills, the Philippine Senate possesses less power than the U.S. Senate because of textual differences between constitutional provisions giving them the power to propose or concur with amendments.

Art. I, §7, cl. 1 of the U.S. Constitution reads:

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.

Art. VI, §24 of our Constitution reads:

All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing increase of the public debt, bills of local application, and private bills shall originate exclusively in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments.

The addition of the word "exclusively" in the Philippine Constitution and the decision to drop the phrase "as on other Bills" in the American version, according to petitioners, shows the intention of the framers of our Constitution to restrict the Senate's power to propose amendments to revenue bills. Petitioner Tolentino contends that the word "exclusively" was inserted to modify "originate" and "the words 'as in any other bills' (sic) were eliminated so as to show that these bills were not to be like other bills but must be treated as a special kind."

The history of this provision does not support this contention. The supposed indicia of constitutional intent are nothing but the relics of an unsuccessful attempt to limit the power of the Senate. It will be recalled that the 1935 Constitution originally provided for a unicameral National Assembly. When it was decided in 1939 to change to a bicameral legislature, it became necessary to provide for the procedure for lawmaking by the Senate and the House of Representatives. The work of proposing amendments to the Constitution was done by the National Assembly, acting as a constituent assembly, some of whose members, jealous of preserving the Assembly's lawmaking powers, sought to curtail the powers of the proposed Senate. Accordingly they proposed the following provision:

All bills appropriating public funds, revenue or tariff bills, bills of local application, and private bills shall originate exclusively in the Assembly, but the Senate may propose or

concur with amendments. In case of disapproval by the Senate of any such bills, the Assembly may repass the same by a two-thirds vote of all its members, and thereupon, the bill so repassed shall be deemed enacted and may be submitted to the President for corresponding action. In the event that the Senate should fail to finally act on any such bills, the Assembly may, after thirty days from the opening of the next regular session of the same legislative term, reapprove the same with a vote of two-thirds of all the members of the Assembly. And upon such reapproval, the bill shall be deemed enacted and may be submitted to the President for corresponding action.

The special committee on the revision of laws of the Second National Assembly vetoed the proposal. It deleted everything after the first sentence. As rewritten, the proposal was approved by the National Assembly and embodied in Resolution No. 38, as amended by Resolution No. 73. (J. ARUEGO, KNOW YOUR CONSTITUTION 65-66 (1950)). The proposed amendment was submitted to the people and ratified by them in the elections held on June 18, 1940.

This is the history of Art. VI, §18 (2) of the 1935 Constitution, from which Art. VI, §24 of the present Constitution was derived. It explains why the word "exclusively" was added to the American text from which the framers of the Philippine Constitution borrowed and why the phrase "as on other Bills" was not copied. Considering the defeat of the proposal, the power of the Senate to propose amendments must be understood to be full, plenary and complete "as on other Bills." Thus, because revenue bills are required to originate exclusively in the House of Representatives, the Senate cannot enact revenue measures of its own without such bills. After a revenue bill is passed and sent over to it by the House, however, the Senate certainly can pass its own version on the same subject matter. This follows from the coequality of the two chambers of Congress.

That this is also the understanding of book authors of the scope of the Senate's power to concur is clear from the following commentaries:

The power of the Senate to propose or concur with amendments is apparently without restriction. It would seem that by virtue of this power, the Senate can practically re-write a bill required to come from the House and leave only a trace of the original bill. For example, a general revenue bill passed by the lower house of the United States Congress contained provisions for the imposition of an inheritance tax . This was changed by the Senate into a corporation tax. The amending authority of the Senate was declared by the United States Supreme Court to be sufficiently broad to enable it to make the alteration. [Flint v. Stone Tracy Company, 220 U.S. 107, 55 L. ed. 389].

(L. TAÑADA AND F. CARREON, POLITICAL LAW OF THE PHILIPPINES 247 (1961))

The above-mentioned bills are supposed to be initiated by the House of Representatives because it is more numerous in membership and therefore also more representative of the people. Moreover, its members are presumed to be more familiar with the needs of the country in regard to the enactment of the legislation involved.

The Senate is, however, allowed much leeway in the exercise of its power to propose or concur with amendments to the bills initiated by the House of Representatives. Thus, in one case, a bill introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives was changed by the

Senate to make a proposed inheritance tax a corporation tax. It is also accepted practice for the Senate to introduce what is known as an amendment by substitution, which may entirely replace the bill initiated in the House of Representatives.

(I. CRUZ, PHILIPPINE POLITICAL LAW 144-145 (1993)).

In sum, while Art. VI, §24 provides that all appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing increase of the public debt, bills of local application, and private bills must "originate exclusively in the House of Representatives," it also adds, "but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments." In the exercise of this power, the Senate may propose an entirely new bill as a substitute measure. As petitioner Tolentino states in a high school text, a committee to which a bill is referred may do any of the following:

(1) to endorse the bill without changes; (2) to make changes in the bill omitting or adding sections or altering its language; (3) to make and endorse an entirely new bill as a substitute, in which case it will be known as a committee bill; or (4) to make no report at all.

(A. TOLENTINO, THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES 258 (1950))

To except from this procedure the amendment of bills which are required to originate in the House by prescribing that the number of the House bill and its other parts up to the enacting clause must be preserved although the text of the Senate amendment may be incorporated in place of the original body of the bill is to insist on a mere technicality. At any rate there is no rule prescribing this form. S. No. 1630, as a substitute measure, is therefore as much an amendment of H. No. 11197 as any which the Senate could have made.

II. S. No. 1630 a mere amendment of H. No. 11197. Petitioners' basic error is that they assume that S. No. 1630 is an independent and distinct bill. Hence their repeated references to its certification that it was passed by the Senate "in substitution of S.B. No. 1129, taking into consideration P.S. Res. No. 734 and H.B. No. 11197," implying that there is something substantially different between the reference to S. No. 1129 and the reference to H. No. 11197. From this premise, they conclude that R.A. No. 7716 originated both in the House and in the Senate and that it is the product of two "half-baked bills because neither H. No. 11197 nor S. No. 1630 was passed by both houses of Congress."

In point of fact, in several instances the provisions of S. No. 1630, clearly appear to be mere amendments of the corresponding provisions of H. No. 11197. The very tabular comparison of the provisions of H. No. 11197 and S. No. 1630 attached as Supplement A to the basic petition of petitioner Tolentino, while showing differences between the two bills, at the same time indicates that the provisions of the Senate bill were precisely intended to be amendments to the House bill.

Without H. No. 11197, the Senate could not have enacted S. No. 1630. Because the Senate bill was a mere amendment of the House bill, H. No. 11197 in its original form did not have to pass the Senate on second and three readings. It was enough that after it was passed on first reading it was referred to the Senate Committee on Ways and

Means. Neither was it required that S. No. 1630 be passed by the House of Representatives before the two bills could be referred to the Conference Committee.

There is legislative precedent for what was done in the case of H. No. 11197 and S. No. 1630. When the House bill and Senate bill, which became R.A. No. 1405 (Act prohibiting the disclosure of bank deposits), were referred to a conference committee, the question was raised whether the two bills could be the subject of such conference, considering that the bill from one house had not been passed by the other and vice versa. As Congressman Duran put the question:

MR. DURAN. Therefore, I raise this question of order as to procedure: If a House bill is passed by the House but not passed by the Senate, and a Senate bill of a similar nature is passed in the Senate but never passed in the House, can the two bills be the subject of a conference, and can a law be enacted from these two bills? I understand that the Senate bill in this particular instance does not refer to investments in government securities, whereas the bill in the House, which was introduced by the Speaker, covers two subject matters: not only investigation of deposits in banks but also investigation of investments in government securities. Now, since the two bills differ in their subject matter, I believe that no law can be enacted.

Ruling on the point of order raised, the chair (Speaker Jose B. Laurel, Jr.) said:

THE SPEAKER. The report of the conference committee is in order. It is precisely in cases like this where a conference should be had. If the House bill had been approved by the Senate, there would have been no need of a conference; but precisely because the Senate passed another bill on the same subject matter, the conference committee had to be created, and we are now considering the report of that committee.

(2 CONG. REC. NO. 13, July 27, 1955, pp. 3841-42 (emphasis added))

III. The President's certification. The fallacy in thinking that H. No. 11197 and S. No. 1630 are distinct and unrelated measures also accounts for the petitioners' (Kilosbayan's and PAL's) contention that because the President separately certified to the need for the immediate enactment of these measures, his certification was ineffectual and void. The certification had to be made of the version of the same revenue bill which at the momentwas being considered. Otherwise, to follow petitioners' theory, it would be necessary for the President to certify as many bills as are presented in a house of Congress even though the bills are merely versions of the bill he has already certified. It is enough that he certifies the bill which, at the time he makes the certification, is under consideration. Since on March 22, 1994 the Senate was considering S. No. 1630, it was that bill which had to be certified. For that matter on June 1, 1993 the President had earlier certified H. No. 9210 for immediate enactment because it was the one which at that time was being considered by the House. This bill was later substituted, together with other bills, by H. No. 11197.

As to what Presidential certification can accomplish, we have already explained in the main decision that the phrase "except when the President certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment, etc." in Art. VI, §26 (2) qualifies not only the requirement that "printed copies [of a bill] in its final form [must be] distributed to the members three days

before its passage" but also the requirement that before a bill can become a law it must have passed "three readings on separate days." There is not only textual support for such construction but historical basis as well.

Art. VI, §21 (2) of the 1935 Constitution originally provided:

(2) No bill shall be passed by either House unless it shall have been printed and copies thereof in its final form furnished its Members at least three calendar days prior to its passage, except when the President shall have certified to the necessity of its immediate enactment. Upon the last reading of a bill, no amendment thereof shall be allowed and the question upon its passage shall be taken immediately thereafter, and the yeas and nays entered on the Journal.

When the 1973 Constitution was adopted, it was provided in Art. VIII, §19 (2):

(2) No bill shall become a law unless it has passed three readings on separate days, and printed copies thereof in its final form have been distributed to the Members three days before its passage, except when the Prime Minister certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or emergency. Upon the last reading of a bill, no amendment thereto shall be allowed, and the vote thereon shall be taken immediately thereafter, and the yeas and nays entered in the Journal.

This provision of the 1973 document, with slight modification, was adopted in Art. VI, §26 (2) of the present Constitution, thus:

(2) No bill passed by either House shall become a law unless it has passed three readings on separate days, and printed copies thereof in its final form have been distributed to its Members three days before its passage, except when the President certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or emergency. Upon the last reading of a bill, no amendment thereto shall be allowed, and the vote thereon shall be taken immediately thereafter, and the yeasand nays entered in the Journal.

The exception is based on the prudential consideration that if in all cases three readings on separate days are required and a bill has to be printed in final form before it can be passed, the need for a law may be rendered academic by the occurrence of the very emergency or public calamity which it is meant to address.

Petitioners further contend that a "growing budget deficit" is not an emergency, especially in a country like the Philippines where budget deficit is a chronic condition. Even if this were the case, an enormous budget deficit does not make the need for R.A. No. 7716 any less urgent or the situation calling for its enactment any less an emergency.

Apparently, the members of the Senate (including some of the petitioners in these cases) believed that there was an urgent need for consideration of S. No. 1630, because they responded to the call of the President by voting on the bill on second and third readings on the same day. While the judicial department is not bound by the Senate's acceptance of the President's certification, the respect due coequal departments of the

government in matters committed to them by the Constitution and the absence of a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion caution a stay of the judicial hand.

At any rate, we are satisfied that S. No. 1630 received thorough consideration in the Senate where it was discussed for six days. Only its distribution in advance in its final printed form was actually dispensed with by holding the voting on second and third readings on the same day (March 24, 1994). Otherwise, sufficient time between the submission of the bill on February 8, 1994 on second reading and its approval on March 24, 1994 elapsed before it was finally voted on by the Senate on third reading.

The purpose for which three readings on separate days is required is said to be two-fold: (1) to inform the members of Congress of what they must vote on and (2) to give them notice that a measure is progressing through the enacting process, thus enabling them and others interested in the measure to prepare their positions with reference to it. (1 J. G. SUTHERLAND, STATUTES AND STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION §10.04, p. 282 (1972)). These purposes were substantially achieved in the case of R.A. No. 7716.

IV. Power of Conference Committee. It is contended (principally by Kilosbayan, Inc. and the Movement of Attorneys for Brotherhood, Integrity and Nationalism, Inc. (MABINI)) that in violation of the constitutional policy of full public disclosure and the people's right to know (Art. II, §28 and Art. III, §7) the Conference Committee met for two days in executive session with only the conferees present.

As pointed out in our main decision, even in the United States it was customary to hold such sessions with only the conferees and their staffs in attendance and it was only in 1975 when a new rule was adopted requiring open sessions. Unlike its American counterpart, the Philippine Congress has not adopted a rule prescribing open hearings for conference committees.

It is nevertheless claimed that in the United States, before the adoption of the rule in 1975, at least staff members were present. These were staff members of the Senators and Congressmen, however, who may be presumed to be their confidential men, not stenographers as in this case who on the last two days of the conference were excluded. There is no showing that the conferees themselves did not take notes of their proceedings so as to give petitioner Kilosbayan basis for claiming that even in secret diplomatic negotiations involving state interests, conferees keep notes of their meetings. Above all, the public's right to know was fully served because the Conference Committee in this case submitted a report showing the changes made on the differing versions of the House and the Senate.

Petitioners cite the rules of both houses which provide that conference committee reports must contain "a detailed, sufficiently explicit statement of the changes in or other amendments." These changes are shown in the bill attached to the Conference Committee Report. The members of both houses could thus ascertain what changes had been made in the original bills without the need of a statement detailing the changes.

The same question now presented was raised when the bill which became R.A. No. 1400 (Land Reform Act of 1955) was reported by the Conference Committee. Congressman Bengzon raised a point of order. He said:

MR. BENGZON. My point of order is that it is out of order to consider the report of the conference committee regarding House Bill No. 2557 by reason of the provision of Section 11, Article XII, of the Rules of this House which provides specifically that the conference report must be accompanied by a detailed statement of the effects of the amendment on the bill of the House. This conference committee report is not accompanied by that detailed statement, Mr. Speaker. Therefore it is out of order to consider it.

Petitioner Tolentino, then the Majority Floor Leader, answered:

MR. TOLENTINO. Mr. Speaker, I should just like to say a few words in connection with the point of order raised by the gentleman from Pangasinan.

There is no question about the provision of the Rule cited by the gentleman from Pangasinan, but this provision applies to those cases where only portions of the bill have been amended. In this case before us an entire bill is presented; therefore, it can be easily seen from the reading of the bill what the provisions are. Besides, this procedure has been an established practice.

After some interruption, he continued:

MR. TOLENTINO. As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, we have to look into the reason for the provisions of the Rules, and the reason for the requirement in the provision cited by the gentleman from Pangasinan is when there are only certain words or phrases inserted in or deleted from the provisions of the bill included in the conference report, and we cannot understand what those words and phrases mean and their relation to the bill. In that case, it is necessary to make a detailed statement on how those words and phrases will affect the bill as a whole; but when the entire bill itself is copied verbatim in the conference report, that is not necessary. So when the reason for the Rule does not exist, the Rule does not exist.

(2 CONG. REC. NO. 2, p. 4056. (emphasis added))

Congressman Tolentino was sustained by the chair. The record shows that when the ruling was appealed, it was upheld by viva voce and when a division of the House was called, it was sustained by a vote of 48 to 5. (Id., p. 4058)

Nor is there any doubt about the power of a conference committee to insert new provisions as long as these are germane to the subject of the conference. As this Court held in Philippine Judges Association v. Prado, 227 SCRA 703 (1993), in an opinion written by then Justice Cruz, the jurisdiction of the conference committee is not limited to resolving differences between the Senate and the House. It may propose an entirely new provision. What is important is that its report is subsequently approved by the respective houses of Congress. This Court ruled that it would not entertain allegations that, because new provisions had been added by the conference committee, there was thereby a violation of the constitutional injunction that "upon the last reading of a bill, no amendment thereto shall be allowed."

Applying these principles, we shall decline to look into the petitioners' charges that an amendment was made upon the last reading of the bill that eventually became R.A. No. 7354 and that copiesthereof in its final form were not distributed among the members of each House. Both the enrolled bill and the legislative journals certify that the measure was duly enacted i.e., in accordance with Article VI, Sec. 26 (2) of the Constitution. We are bound by such official assurances from a coordinate department of the government, to which we owe, at the very least, a becoming courtesy.

(Id. at 710. (emphasis added))

It is interesting to note the following description of conference committees in the Philippines in a 1979 study:

Conference committees may be of two types: free or instructed. These committees may be given instructions by their parent bodies or they may be left without instructions. Normally the conference committees are without instructions, and this is why they are often critically referred to as "the little legislatures." Once bills have been sent to them, the conferees have almost unlimited authority to change the clauses of the bills and in fact sometimes introduce new measures that were not in the original legislation. No minutes are kept, and members' activities on conference committees are difficult to determine. One congressman known for his idealism put it this way: "I killed a bill on export incentives for my interest group [copra] in the conference committee but I could not have done so anywhere else." The conference committee submits a report to both houses, and usually it is accepted. If the report is not accepted, then the committee is discharged and new members are appointed.

(R. Jackson, Committees in the Philippine Congress, in COMMITTEES AND LEGISLATURES: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS 163 (J. D. LEES AND M. SHAW, eds.)).

In citing this study, we pass no judgment on the methods of conference committees. We cite it only to say that conference committees here are no different from their counterparts in the United States whose vast powers we noted in Philippine Judges Association v. Prado, supra. At all events, under Art. VI, §16(3) each house has the power "to determine the rules of its proceedings," including those of its committees. Any meaningful change in the method and procedures of Congress or its committees must therefore be sought in that body itself.

V. The titles of S. No. 1630 and H. No. 11197. PAL maintains that R.A. No. 7716 violates Art. VI, §26 (1) of the Constitution which provides that "Every bill passed by Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof." PAL contends that the amendment of its franchise by the withdrawal of its exemption from the VAT is not expressed in the title of the law.

Pursuant to §13 of P.D. No. 1590, PAL pays a franchise tax of 2% on its gross revenue "in lieu of all other taxes, duties, royalties, registration, license and other fees and charges of any kind, nature, or description, imposed, levied, established, assessed or collected by any municipal, city, provincial or national authority or government agency, now or in the future."

PAL was exempted from the payment of the VAT along with other entities by §103 of the National Internal Revenue Code, which provides as follows:

§103. Exempt transactions. — The following shall be exempt from the value-added tax:

xxx xxx xxx

(q) Transactions which are exempt under special laws or international agreements to which the Philippines is a signatory.

R.A. No. 7716 seeks to withdraw certain exemptions, including that granted to PAL, by amending §103, as follows:

§103. Exempt transactions. — The following shall be exempt from the value-added tax:

xxx xxx xxx

(q) Transactions which are exempt under special laws, except those granted under Presidential Decree Nos. 66, 529, 972, 1491, 1590. . . .

The amendment of §103 is expressed in the title of R.A. No. 7716 which reads:

AN ACT RESTRUCTURING THE VALUE-ADDED TAX (VAT) SYSTEM, WIDENING ITS TAX BASE AND ENHANCING ITS ADMINISTRATION, AND FOR THESE PURPOSES AMENDING AND REPEALING THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE NATIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, AS AMENDED, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

By stating that R.A. No. 7716 seeks to "[RESTRUCTURE] THE VALUE-ADDED TAX (VAT) SYSTEM [BY] WIDENING ITS TAX BASE AND ENHANCING ITS ADMINISTRATION, AND FOR THESE PURPOSES AMENDING AND REPEALING THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE NATIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, AS AMENDED AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," Congress thereby clearly expresses its intention to amend any provision of the NIRC which stands in the way of accomplishing the purpose of the law.

PAL asserts that the amendment of its franchise must be reflected in the title of the law by specific reference to P.D. No. 1590. It is unnecessary to do this in order to comply with the constitutional requirement, since it is already stated in the title that the law seeks to amend the pertinent provisions of the NIRC, among which is §103(q), in order to widen the base of the VAT. Actually, it is the bill which becomes a law that is required to express in its title the subject of legislation. The titles of H. No. 11197 and S. No. 1630 in fact specifically referred to §103 of the NIRC as among the provisions sought to be amended. We are satisfied that sufficient notice had been given of the pendency of these bills in Congress before they were enacted into what is now R.A.No. 7716.

In Philippine Judges Association v. Prado, supra, a similar argument as that now made by PAL was rejected. R.A. No. 7354 is entitled AN ACT CREATING THE PHILIPPINE POSTAL CORPORATION, DEFINING ITS POWERS, FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES, PROVIDING FOR REGULATION OF THE INDUSTRY AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES CONNECTED THEREWITH. It contained a provision repealing all franking privileges. It was contended that the withdrawal of franking privileges was not expressed in the title of the law. In holding that there was sufficient description of the subject of the law in its title, including the repeal of franking privileges, this Court held:

To require every end and means necessary for the accomplishment of the general objectives of the statute to be expressed in its title would not only be unreasonable but would actually render legislation impossible. [Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, 8th Ed., p. 297] As has been correctly explained:

The details of a legislative act need not be specifically stated in its title, but matter germane to the subject as expressed in the title, and adopted to the accomplishment of the object in view, may properly be included in the act. Thus, it is proper to create in the same act the machinery by which the act is to be enforced, to prescribe the penalties for its infraction, and to remove obstacles in the way of its execution. If such matters are properly connected with the subject as expressed in the title, it is unnecessary that they should also have special mention in the title. (Southern Pac. Co. v. Bartine, 170 Fed. 725)

(227 SCRA at 707-708)

VI. Claims of press freedom and religious liberty. We have held that, as a general proposition, the press is not exempt from the taxing power of the State and that what the constitutional guarantee of free press prohibits are laws which single out the press or target a group belonging to the press for special treatment or which in any way discriminate against the press on the basis of the content of the publication, and R.A. No. 7716 is none of these.

Now it is contended by the PPI that by removing the exemption of the press from the VAT while maintaining those granted to others, the law discriminates against the press. At any rate, it is averred, "even nondiscriminatory taxation of constitutionally guaranteed freedom is unconstitutional."

With respect to the first contention, it would suffice to say that since the law granted the press a privilege, the law could take back the privilege anytime without offense to the Constitution. The reason is simple: by granting exemptions, the State does not forever waive the exercise of its sovereign prerogative.

Indeed, in withdrawing the exemption, the law merely subjects the press to the same tax burden to which other businesses have long ago been subject. It is thus different from the tax involved in the cases invoked by the PPI. The license tax in Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 80 L. Ed. 660 (1936) was found to be discriminatory because it was laid on the gross advertising receipts only of newspapers whose weekly circulation was over 20,000, with the result that the tax applied only to 13 out of 124 publishers in Louisiana. These large papers were critical of Senator Huey

Long who controlled the state legislature which enacted the license tax. The censorial motivation for the law was thus evident.

On the other hand, in Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Comm'r of Revenue, 460 U.S. 575, 75 L. Ed. 2d 295 (1983), the tax was found to be discriminatory because although it could have been made liable for the sales tax or, in lieu thereof, for the use tax on the privilege of using, storing or consuming tangible goods, the press was not. Instead, the press was exempted from both taxes. It was, however, later made to pay a special use tax on the cost of paper and ink which made these items "the only items subject to the use tax that were component of goods to be sold at retail." The U.S. Supreme Court held that the differential treatment of the press "suggests that the goal of regulation is not related to suppression of expression, and such goal is presumptively unconstitutional." It would therefore appear that even a law that favors the press is constitutionally suspect. (See the dissent of Rehnquist, J. in that case)

Nor is it true that only two exemptions previously granted by E.O. No. 273 are withdrawn "absolutely and unqualifiedly" by R.A. No. 7716. Other exemptions from the VAT, such as those previously granted to PAL, petroleum concessionaires, enterprises registered with the Export Processing Zone Authority, and many more are likewise totally withdrawn, in addition to exemptions which are partially withdrawn, in an effort to broaden the base of the tax.

The PPI says that the discriminatory treatment of the press is highlighted by the fact that transactions, which are profit oriented, continue to enjoy exemption under R.A. No. 7716. An enumeration of some of these transactions will suffice to show that by and large this is not so and that the exemptions are granted for a purpose. As the Solicitor General says, such exemptions are granted, in some cases, to encourage agricultural production and, in other cases, for the personal benefit of the end-user rather than for profit. The exempt transactions are:

(a) Goods for consumption or use which are in their original state (agricultural, marine and forest products, cotton seeds in their original state, fertilizers, seeds, seedlings, fingerlings, fish, prawn livestock and poultry feeds) and goods or services to enhance agriculture (milling of palay, corn, sugar cane and raw sugar, livestock, poultry feeds, fertilizer, ingredients used for the manufacture of feeds).

(b) Goods used for personal consumption or use (household and personal effects of citizens returning to the Philippines) or for professional use, like professional instruments and implements, by persons coming to the Philippines to settle here.

(c) Goods subject to excise tax such as petroleum products or to be used for manufacture of petroleum products subject to excise tax and services subject to percentage tax.

(d) Educational services, medical, dental, hospital and veterinary services, and services rendered under employer-employee relationship.

(e) Works of art and similar creations sold by the artist himself.

(f) Transactions exempted under special laws, or international agreements.

(g) Export-sales by persons not VAT-registered.

(h) Goods or services with gross annual sale or receipt not exceeding P500,000.00.

(Respondents' Consolidated Comment on the Motions for Reconsideration, pp. 58-60)

The PPI asserts that it does not really matter that the law does not discriminate against the press because "even nondiscriminatory taxation on constitutionally guaranteed freedom is unconstitutional." PPI cites in support of this assertion the following statement in Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 87 L. Ed. 1292 (1943):

The fact that the ordinance is "nondiscriminatory" is immaterial. The protection afforded by the First Amendment is not so restricted. A license tax certainly does not acquire constitutional validity because it classifies the privileges protected by the First Amendment along with the wares and merchandise of hucksters and peddlers and treats them all alike. Such equality in treatment does not save the ordinance. Freedom of press, freedom of speech, freedom of religion are in preferred position.

The Court was speaking in that case of a license tax, which, unlike an ordinary tax, is mainly for regulation. Its imposition on the press is unconstitutional because it lays a prior restraint on the exercise of its right. Hence, although its application to others, such those selling goods, is valid, its application to the press or to religious groups, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, in connection with the latter's sale of religious books and pamphlets, is unconstitutional. As the U.S. Supreme Court put it, "it is one thing to impose a tax on income or property of a preacher. It is quite another thing to exact a tax on him for delivering a sermon."

A similar ruling was made by this Court in American Bible Society v. City of Manila, 101 Phil. 386 (1957) which invalidated a city ordinance requiring a business license fee on those engaged in the sale of general merchandise. It was held that the tax could not be imposed on the sale of bibles by the American Bible Society without restraining the free exercise of its right to propagate.

The VAT is, however, different. It is not a license tax. It is not a tax on the exercise of a privilege, much less a constitutional right. It is imposed on the sale, barter, lease or exchange of goods or properties or the sale or exchange of services and the lease of properties purely for revenue purposes. To subject the press to its payment is not to burden the exercise of its right any more than to make the press pay income tax or subject it to general regulation is not to violate its freedom under the Constitution.

Additionally, the Philippine Bible Society, Inc. claims that although it sells bibles, the proceeds derived from the sales are used to subsidize the cost of printing copies which are given free to those who cannot afford to pay so that to tax the sales would be to increase the price, while reducing the volume of sale. Granting that to be the case, the resulting burden on the exercise of religious freedom is so incidental as to make it difficult to differentiate it from any other economic imposition that might make the right to disseminate religious doctrines costly. Otherwise, to follow the petitioner's argument, to

increase the tax on the sale of vestments would be to lay an impermissible burden on the right of the preacher to make a sermon.

On the other hand the registration fee of P1,000.00 imposed by §107 of the NIRC, as amended by §7 of R.A. No. 7716, although fixed in amount, is really just to pay for the expenses of registration and enforcement of provisions such as those relating to accounting in §108 of the NIRC. That the PBS distributes free bibles and therefore is not liable to pay the VAT does not excuse it from the payment of this fee because it also sells some copies. At any rate whether the PBS is liable for the VAT must be decided in concrete cases, in the event it is assessed this tax by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

VII. Alleged violations of the due process, equal protection and contract clauses and the rule on taxation. CREBA asserts that R.A. No. 7716 (1) impairs the obligations of contracts, (2) classifies transactions as covered or exempt without reasonable basis and (3) violates the rule that taxes should be uniform and equitable and that Congress shall "evolve a progressive system of taxation."

With respect to the first contention, it is claimed that the application of the tax to existing contracts of the sale of real property by installment or on deferred payment basis would result in substantial increases in the monthly amortizations to be paid because of the 10% VAT. The additional amount, it is pointed out, is something that the buyer did not anticipate at the time he entered into the contract.

The short answer to this is the one given by this Court in an early case: "Authorities from numerous sources are cited by the plaintiffs, but none of them show that a lawful tax on a new subject, or an increased tax on an old one, interferes with a contract or impairs its obligation, within the meaning of the Constitution. Even though such taxation may affect particular contracts, as it may increase the debt of one person and lessen the security of another, or may impose additional burdens upon one class and release the burdens of another, still the tax must be paid unless prohibited by the Constitution, nor can it be said that it impairs the obligation of any existing contract in its true legal sense." (La Insular v. Machuca Go-Tauco and Nubla Co-Siong, 39 Phil. 567, 574 (1919)). Indeed not only existing laws but also "the reservation of the essential attributes of sovereignty, is . . . read into contracts as a postulate of the legal order." (Philippine-American Life Ins. Co. v. Auditor General, 22 SCRA 135, 147 (1968)) Contracts must be understood as having been made in reference to the possible exercise of the rightful authority of the government and no obligation of contract can extend to the defeat of that authority. (Norman v. Baltimore and Ohio R.R., 79 L. Ed. 885 (1935)).

It is next pointed out that while §4 of R.A. No. 7716 exempts such transactions as the sale of agricultural products, food items, petroleum, and medical and veterinary services, it grants no exemption on the sale of real property which is equally essential. The sale of real property for socialized and low-cost housing is exempted from the tax, but CREBA claims that real estate transactions of "the less poor," i.e., the middle class, who are equally homeless, should likewise be exempted.

The sale of food items, petroleum, medical and veterinary services, etc., which are essential goods and services was already exempt under §103, pars. (b) (d) (1) of the NIRC before the enactment of R.A. No. 7716. Petitioner is in error in claiming that R.A.

No. 7716 granted exemption to these transactions, while subjecting those of petitioner to the payment of the VAT. Moreover, there is a difference between the "homeless poor" and the "homeless less poor" in the example given by petitioner, because the second group or middle class can afford to rent houses in the meantime that they cannot yet buy their own homes. The two social classes are thus differently situated in life. "It is inherent in the power to tax that the State be free to select the subjects of taxation, and it has been repeatedly held that 'inequalities which result from a singling out of one particular class for taxation, or exemption infringe no constitutional limitation.'" (Lutz v. Araneta, 98 Phil. 148, 153 (1955). Accord, City of Baguio v. De Leon, 134 Phil. 912 (1968); Sison, Jr. v. Ancheta, 130 SCRA 654, 663 (1984); Kapatiran ng mga Naglilingkod sa Pamahalaan ng Pilipinas, Inc. v. Tan, 163 SCRA 371 (1988)).

Finally, it is contended, for the reasons already noted, that R.A. No. 7716 also violates Art. VI, §28(1) which provides that "The rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable. The Congress shall evolve a progressive system of taxation."

Equality and uniformity of taxation means that all taxable articles or kinds of property of the same class be taxed at the same rate. The taxing power has the authority to make reasonable and natural classifications for purposes of taxation. To satisfy this requirement it is enough that the statute or ordinance applies equally to all persons, forms and corporations placed in similar situation. (City of Baguio v. De Leon, supra; Sison, Jr. v. Ancheta, supra)

Indeed, the VAT was already provided in E.O. No. 273 long before R.A. No. 7716 was enacted. R.A. No. 7716 merely expands the base of the tax. The validity of the original VAT Law was questioned in Kapatiran ng Naglilingkod sa Pamahalaan ng Pilipinas, Inc. v. Tan, 163 SCRA 383 (1988) on grounds similar to those made in these cases, namely, that the law was "oppressive, discriminatory, unjust and regressive in violation of Art. VI, §28(1) of the Constitution." (At 382) Rejecting the challenge to the law, this Court held:

As the Court sees it, EO 273 satisfies all the requirements of a valid tax. It is uniform. . . .

The sales tax adopted in EO 273 is applied similarly on all goods and services sold to the public, which are not exempt, at the constant rate of 0% or 10%.

The disputed sales tax is also equitable. It is imposed only on sales of goods or services by persons engaged in business with an aggregate gross annual sales exceeding P200,000.00. Small corner sari-sari stores are consequently exempt from its application. Likewise exempt from the tax are sales of farm and marine products, so that the costs of basic food and other necessities, spared as they are from the incidence of the VAT, are expected to be relatively lower and within the reach of the general public.

(At 382-383)

The CREBA claims that the VAT is regressive. A similar claim is made by the Cooperative Union of the Philippines, Inc. (CUP), while petitioner Juan T. David argues that the law contravenes the mandate of Congress to provide for a progressive system of

taxation because the law imposes a flat rate of 10% and thus places the tax burden on all taxpayers without regard to their ability to pay.

The Constitution does not really prohibit the imposition of indirect taxes which, like the VAT, are regressive. What it simply provides is that Congress shall "evolve a progressive system of taxation." The constitutional provision has been interpreted to mean simply that "direct taxes are . . . to be preferred [and] as much as possible, indirect taxes should be minimized." (E. FERNANDO, THE CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES 221 (Second ed. (1977)). Indeed, the mandate to Congress is not to prescribe, but to evolve, a progressive tax system. Otherwise, sales taxes, which perhaps are the oldest form of indirect taxes, would have been prohibited with the proclamation of Art. VIII, §17(1) of the 1973 Constitution from which the present Art. VI, §28(1) was taken. Sales taxes are also regressive.

Resort to indirect taxes should be minimized but not avoided entirely because it is difficult, if not impossible, to avoid them by imposing such taxes according to the taxpayers' ability to pay. In the case of the VAT, the law minimizes the regressive effects of this imposition by providing for zero rating of certain transactions (R.A. No. 7716, §3, amending §102 (b) of the NIRC), while granting exemptions to other transactions. (R.A. No. 7716, §4, amending §103 of the NIRC).

Thus, the following transactions involving basic and essential goods and services are exempted from the VAT:

(a) Goods for consumption or use which are in their original state (agricultural, marine and forest products, cotton seeds in their original state, fertilizers, seeds, seedlings, fingerlings, fish, prawn livestock and poultry feeds) and goods or services to enhance agriculture (milling of palay, corn sugar cane and raw sugar, livestock, poultry feeds, fertilizer, ingredients used for the manufacture of feeds).

(b) Goods used for personal consumption or use (household and personal effects of citizens returning to the Philippines) and or professional use, like professional instruments and implements, by persons coming to the Philippines to settle here.

(c) Goods subject to excise tax such as petroleum products or to be used for manufacture of petroleum products subject to excise tax and services subject to percentage tax.

(d) Educational services, medical, dental, hospital and veterinary services, and services rendered under employer-employee relationship.

(e) Works of art and similar creations sold by the artist himself.

(f) Transactions exempted under special laws, or international agreements.

(g) Export-sales by persons not VAT-registered.

(h) Goods or services with gross annual sale or receipt not exceeding P500,000.00.

(Respondents' Consolidated Comment on the Motions for Reconsideration, pp. 58-60)

On the other hand, the transactions which are subject to the VAT are those which involve goods and services which are used or availed of mainly by higher income groups. These include real properties held primarily for sale to customers or for lease in the ordinary course of trade or business, the right or privilege to use patent, copyright, and other similar property or right, the right or privilege to use industrial, commercial or scientific equipment, motion picture films, tapes and discs, radio, television, satellite transmission and cable television time, hotels, restaurants and similar places, securities, lending investments, taxicabs, utility cars for rent, tourist buses, and other common carriers, services of franchise grantees of telephone and telegraph.

The problem with CREBA's petition is that it presents broad claims of constitutional violations by tendering issues not at retail but at wholesale and in the abstract. There is no fully developed record which can impart to adjudication the impact of actuality. There is no factual foundation to show in the concrete the application of the law to actual contracts and exemplify its effect on property rights. For the fact is that petitioner's members have not even been assessed the VAT. Petitioner's case is not made concrete by a series of hypothetical questions asked which are no different from those dealt with in advisory opinions.

The difficulty confronting petitioner is thus apparent. He alleges arbitrariness. A mere allegation, as here, does not suffice. There must be a factual foundation of such unconstitutional taint. Considering that petitioner here would condemn such a provision as void on its face, he has not made out a case. This is merely to adhere to the authoritative doctrine that where the due process and equal protection clauses are invoked, considering that they are not fixed rules but rather broad standards, there is a need for proof of such persuasive character as would lead to such a conclusion. Absent such a showing, the presumption of validity must prevail.

(Sison, Jr. v. Ancheta, 130 SCRA at 661)

Adjudication of these broad claims must await the development of a concrete case. It may be that postponement of adjudication would result in a multiplicity of suits. This need not be the case, however. Enforcement of the law may give rise to such a case. A test case, provided it is an actual case and not an abstract or hypothetical one, may thus be presented.

Nor is hardship to taxpayers alone an adequate justification for adjudicating abstract issues. Otherwise, adjudication would be no different from the giving of advisory opinion that does not really settle legal issues.We are told that it is our duty under Art. VIII, §1, ¶2 to decide whenever a claim is made that "there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government." This duty can only arise if an actual case or controversy is before us. Under Art . VIII, §5 our jurisdiction is defined in terms of "cases" and all that Art. VIII, §1, ¶2 can plausibly mean is that in the exercise of that jurisdiction we have the judicial power to determine questions of grave abuse of discretion by any branch or instrumentality of the government.

Put in another way, what is granted in Art. VIII, §1, ¶2 is "judicial power," which is "the power of a court to hear and decide cases pending between parties who have the right to sue and be sued in the courts of law and equity" (Lamb v. Phipps, 22 Phil. 456, 559 (1912)), as distinguished from legislative and executive power. This power cannot be directly appropriated until it is apportioned among several courts either by the Constitution, as in the case of Art. VIII, §5, or by statute, as in the case of the Judiciary Act of 1948 (R.A. No. 296) and the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 (B.P. Blg. 129). The power thus apportioned constitutes the court's "jurisdiction," defined as "the power conferred by law upon a court or judge to take cognizance of a case, to the exclusion of all others." (United States v. Arceo, 6 Phil. 29 (1906)) Without an actual case coming within its jurisdiction, this Court cannot inquire into any allegation of grave abuse of discretion by the other departments of the government.VIII. Alleged violation of policy towards cooperatives. On the other hand, the Cooperative Union of the Philippines (CUP), after briefly surveying the course of legislation, argues that it was to adopt a definite policy of granting tax exemption to cooperatives that the present Constitution embodies provisions on cooperatives. To subject cooperatives to the VAT would therefore be to infringe a constitutional policy. Petitioner claims that in 1973, P.D. No. 175 was promulgated exempting cooperatives from the payment of income taxes and sales taxes but in 1984, because of the crisis which menaced the national economy, this exemption was withdrawn by P.D. No. 1955; that in 1986, P.D. No. 2008 again granted cooperatives exemption from income and sales taxes until December 31, 1991, but, in the same year, E.O. No. 93 revoked the exemption; and that finally in 1987 the framers of the Constitution "repudiated the previous actions of the government adverse to the interests of the cooperatives, that is, the repeated revocation of the tax exemption to cooperatives and instead upheld the policy of strengthening the cooperatives by way of the grant of tax exemptions," by providing the following in Art. XII:§1. The goals of the national economy are a more equitable distribution of opportunities, income, and wealth; a sustained increase in the amount of goods and services produced by the nation for the benefit of the people; and an expanding productivity as the key to raising the quality of life for all, especially the underprivileged.The State shall promote industrialization and full employment based on sound agricultural development and agrarian reform, through industries that make full and efficient use of human and natural resources, and which are competitive in both domestic and foreign markets. However, the State shall protect Filipino enterprises against unfair foreign competition and trade practices.In the pursuit of these goals, all sectors of the economy and all regions of the country shall be given optimum opportunity to develop. Private enterprises, including corporations, cooperatives, and similar collective organizations, shall be encouraged to broaden the base of their ownership.§15. The Congress shall create an agency to promote the viability and growth of cooperatives as instruments for social justice and economic development.Petitioner's contention has no merit. In the first place, it is not true that P.D. No. 1955 singled out cooperatives by withdrawing their exemption from income and sales taxes under P.D. No. 175, §5. What P.D. No. 1955, §1 did was to withdraw the exemptions and preferential treatments theretofore granted to private business enterprises in general, in view of the economic crisis which then beset the nation. It is true that after P.D. No. 2008, §2 had restored the tax exemptions of cooperatives in 1986, the exemption was again repealed by E.O. No. 93, §1, but then again cooperatives were not the only ones whose exemptions were withdrawn. The withdrawal of tax incentives applied to all, including government and private entities. In the second place, the Constitution does not really require that cooperatives be granted tax exemptions in order to promote their growth and viability. Hence, there is no basis for petitioner's assertion

that the government's policy toward cooperatives had been one of vacillation, as far as the grant of tax privileges was concerned, and that it was to put an end to this indecision that the constitutional provisions cited were adopted. Perhaps as a matter of policy cooperatives should be granted tax exemptions, but that is left to the discretion of Congress. If Congress does not grant exemption and there is no discrimination to cooperatives, no violation of any constitutional policy can be charged.Indeed, petitioner's theory amounts to saying that under the Constitution cooperatives are exempt from taxation. Such theory is contrary to the Constitution under which only the following are exempt from taxation: charitable institutions, churches and parsonages, by reason of Art. VI, §28 (3), and non-stock, non-profit educational institutions by reason of Art. XIV, §4 (3).CUP's further ground for seeking the invalidation of R.A. No. 7716 is that it denies cooperatives the equal protection of the law because electric cooperatives are exempted from the VAT. The classification between electric and other cooperatives (farmers cooperatives, producers cooperatives, marketing cooperatives, etc.) apparently rests on a congressional determination that there is greater need to provide cheaper electric power to as many people as possible, especially those living in the rural areas, than there is to provide them with other necessities in life. We cannot say that such classification is unreasonable.We have carefully read the various arguments raised against the constitutional validity of R.A. No. 7716. We have in fact taken the extraordinary step of enjoining its enforcement pending resolution of these cases. We have now come to the conclusion that the law suffers from none of the infirmities attributed to it by petitioners and that its enactment by the other branches of the government does not constitute a grave abuse of discretion. Any question as to its necessity, desirability or expediency must be addressed to Congress as the body which is electorally responsible, remembering that, as Justice Holmes has said, "legislators are the ultimate guardians of the liberties and welfare of the people in quite as great a degree as are the courts." (Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co. v. May, 194 U.S. 267, 270, 48 L. Ed. 971, 973 (1904)). It is not right, as petitioner in G.R. No. 115543 does in arguing that we should enforce the public accountability of legislators, that those who took part in passing the law in question by voting for it in Congress should later thrust to the courts the burden of reviewing measures in the flush of enactment. This Court does not sit as a third branch of the legislature, much less exercise a veto power over legislation.WHEREFORE, the motions for reconsideration are denied with finality and the temporary restraining order previously issued is hereby lifted.SO ORDERED.

CASSANOVAS VS. HORD [8 Phil 125; No. 3473; 22 Mar 1907]

Facts: The Spanish Govt. by virtue of a royal decree granted the plaintiff certain mines. The plaintiff is now the owner of those mines. The Collector of Internal Revenue imposed tax on the properties, contending that they were valid perfected mine concessions and it falls within the provisions of sec.134 of Act No. 1189 known as Internal Revenue Act. The plaintiff paid under protest. He brought an action against the defendant Collector of Internal Revenue to recover the sum of Php. 9, 600 paid by him as taxes. Judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant, so the plaintiff appealed. 

Issue: Whether or Not Sec. 164 is void or valid.

Held: The deed constituted a contract between the Spanish Government and the plaintiff. The obligation of which contract was impaired by the enactment of sec. 134 of the Internal Revenue Law infringing sec. 5 of the Act of Congress which provides that “no law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be enacted”. Sec. 134 of theInternal Revenue Law of 1904 is void because it impairs the obligation of contracts contained in the concessions of mine made by the Spanish Government. Judgment reversed.

EN BANCG.R. No. 3473            March 22, 1907J. CASANOVAS, plaintiff-appellant, 

vs.JNO. S. HORD, defendant-appellee.

F.G. Waite for appellant.Attorney-General Araneta for appellee.

WILLARD, J.:

The plaintiff brought this action against the defendant, the Collector of Internal Revenue, to recover the sum of P9,600, paid by him under protest as taxes on certain mining claims owned by him in the Province of Ambos Camarines. Judgment was rendered in the court below in favor of the defendant, and from that judgment the plaintiff appealed.

There is no dispute about the facts.

In January, 1897, the Spanish Government, in accordance with the provisions of the royal decree of the 14th of May, 1867, granted to the plaintiff certain mines in the said Province of Ambos Camarines, of which mines the plaintiff is now the owner.

That there were valid perfected mining concessions granted prior to the 11th of April, 1899, is conceded. They were so considered by the Collector of Internal Revenue and were by him said to fall within the provisions of section 134 of Act No. 1189, known as the Internal Revenue Act. That section is as follows:

SEC. 134. On all valid perfected mining concessions granted prior to April eleventh, eighteen hundred and ninety-nine, there shall be levied and collected on the after January first, nineteen hundred and five, the following taxes:

2. (a) On each claim containing an area of sixty thousand square meters, an annual tax of one hundred pesos; (b) and at the same rate proportionately on each claim containing an area in excess of, or less than, sixty thousand square meters.

3. On the gross output of each an ad valorem tax equal to three per centum of the actual market value of such output.

The defendant accordingly imposed upon these properties the tax mentioned in section 134, which tax, as has before been stated, plaintiff paid under protest.

The only question in the case is whether this section 134 is void or valid.

I. It is claimed by the plaintiff that it is void because it comes within the provision of section 5 of the act of Congress of July 1, 19021 (32 U.S. Stat. L., 691), which provides "that no law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be enacted." The royal decree of the 14th of May, 1867, provided, among other things, as follows:

ART. 76. On each pertenencia minera (mining claim) of the area prescribed in the first paragraph of article 13 (sixty thousand square meters) there shall be paid annually a fixed tax of forty escudos (about P20.00). The pertenencia referred to in the second paragraph of the same article, though of greater area than the others (one hundred and fifty thousand square meters), shall pay only twenty escudos (about P10.00).

ART. 78. Pertenencia of iron mines and mines of combustible minerals shall be exempt from the annual tax for a period of thirty years from the date of publication of this decree.

ART. 80. A further tax of three per centum on the gross earnings shall be paid without deduction of costs of any kind whatsoever. All substances enumerated in section one shall be exempt from said tax of three per centum for a period of thirty years.

ART. 81. No other taxes than those herein mentioned shall be imposed upon mining and metallurgical industries.

The royal decree and regulation for its enforcement provided that the deeds granted by the Government should be in a particular form, which form was inserted in the regulations. It must be presumed that the deeds granted to the plaintiff were made as provided by law, and, in fact, one of such concessions was exhibited during the argument in this court, and was found to be in exact conformity with the form prescribed by law. The deed is as follows:

Don Camilo Garcia de Polavieja, Marquez de Polavieja, Teniente General de los Ejercitos Nacionales, Caballero Gran Cruz de la Real y Militar Orden de San Hermenegildo, de la Real y distinguida de Isabel la Catolica, de la del Merito Militar Roja, de la de la Corona de Italia, Comendador de Carlos Tercero, Bennemerito de la

Patria en grado eminente, condecorado con varias cruses de distincion por meritos de guerra, Capitan General y Gobernador General de Filipinas.

Whereas I have granted to Don Joaquin Casanovas y Llovet and to Don Martin Buck the concession of a gold mine entitled "Nueva California Segunda" in the jurisdiction of Paracale, Province of Ambos Camarines: Now, therefore, in the name of His Majesty the King (whom God preserve), and pursuant to the provisions of article 37 of the royal decree of May 14, 1867, regulating mining in these Islands, I issue, this fifth day of November, eighteen hundred and ninety-six, this title deed to four pertenencias, comprising an area of two hundred and forty thousand square meters, as shown in the attached sketch map drafted by the engineer Don Enrique Abella y Casariego, and dated at Manila December sixteenth of the said year, subject to the following general terms and conditions:

1. That the mine shall be worked in conformity with the rules in mining, the grantee and his laborers to be governed by the police rules established by existing regulations.

2. That the grantee shall be liable for all damages to third parties that may be caused by his operations.

3. That the grantee shall likewise indemnify his neighbors for any damage they may suffer by reason of water accumulated on his works, if, upon being requested, he fail to drain the same within the time indicated.

4. That he shall contribute for the drainage of the adjacent mines and for the general galleries for drainage or haulage in proportion to the benefit he derives therefrom, whenever, by authority of the Governor-General, such works shall be opened for a group of pertenencias or for the entire mining locality in which the mine is situated.

5. That he shall commence work on the mine immediately upon receipt of this concession unless prevented by force majeure.

6. That he shall keep the mine in active operation by employing at the rate of at least four laborers for eachpertenencia for at least six months of each year.

7. That he shall strengthen the walls of the mine within the time indicated whenever, by reason of mismanagement of the work, it threatens to cave in, unless he be prevented by force majeure.

8. That he shall not render further profitable development of the mine difficult or impossible by avaricious operation.

9. That he shall not suspend the operation of the mine with the intention of abandoning the same without first informing the Governor of his intention, in which case he must leave the mine in a good state of timbering.

10. That he shall pay taxes on the mine and its output as prescribed in the royal decree.

11. Finally, that he shall comply with all the requirements contained in the royal decree and in the regulations for concessions of the same nature as the present.

Without special conditions.

Now, therefore, by virtue of this title deed, I grant to Don Joaquin Casanovas y Llovet and to Don Martin Buck the ownership of the said mine for an unlimited period of time so long as they shall comply with the foregoing terms and conditions, to the end that they may develop the same and make free use and disposition of the output thereof, with the right to alienate the said mine subject to the provisions of existing laws, and to enjoy all the rights and benefits conceded to such grantees by the royal decree and by the mining regulations. And for the prompt fulfillment and observance of the said conditions, both on the part of the said grantees and by all authorities, courts, corporations, and private persons whom it may concern, I have ordered this title deed to be issued — given under my hand and the proper seal and countersigned by the undersigned Director-General of Civil Administration.

It seems very clear to us that this deed constituted a contract between the Spanish Government and the plaintiff, the obligation of which contract was impaired by the enactment of section 134 of the Internal Revenue Law above cited, thereby infringing the provisions above quoted from section 5 of the act of Congress of July 1, 1902. This conclusion seems necessarily to result from the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in similar cases. In the case of McGee vs. Mathis (4 Wallace, 143), it appeared that the State of Arkansas, by an act of the legislature of 1851, provided for the sale of certain swamp lands granted to it by the United States; for the issue of transferable scrip receivable for any lands not already taken up at the time of selection by the holder; for contracts for the making of levees and drains, and for the payment of contractors in scrip and otherwise. In the fourteenth section of this act it was provided that —

To encourage by all just means the progress and completion of the reclaiming of such lands by offering inducements to purchasers and contractors to take up said lands, all said swamp and overflowed lands shall be exempt from taxation for the term of ten years or until they shall be reclaimed.

In 1855 this section was repealed and provision was made by law for the taxation of swamp and overflowed lands, sold or to be sold, precisely as other lands. McGee, before this appeal, had become the owner by transfer from contractors of a large amount of scrip issued under the Act of 1851, and with this scrip, after the repeal, took up and paid for many sections and parts of sections of the granted lands. Taxes were levied by the State on the lands so taken up by McGee. The Supreme Court held that these taxes could not be collected. The Court said at page 156:

It seems quite clear that the Act of 1851 authorizing the issue of land scrip constituted a contract between the State and the holders of the land scrip issued under the act.

In the case of the Home of the Friendless vs. Rouse (8 Wallace, 430), it appeared that on the 3d day of February, 1853, the legislature of Missouri passed on act to incorporate the Home of the Friendless in the city of St. Louis. Section 1 of the act provided that —

All property of said corporation shall be exempt from taxation.

The court held that the State had no power afterwards to pass laws providing for the levying of taxes upon this institution. The Court said among other things at page 438:

The validity of this contract is questioned at the bar on the ground that the legislature had no authority to grant away the power of taxation. The answer to this position is, that the question is no longer open for argument here, for it is settled by the repeated adjudications of this court, that a State may be contract based on a consideration exempt the property of an individual or corporation from taxation, either for a specified period or permanently. And it is equally well settled that the exemption is presumed to be on sufficient consideration, and binds the State if the charter containing it is accepted.

In the case of The Asylum vs. The City of New Orleans (105 U.S., 362), it appears that St. Ariva's Asylum was incorporated by an act of the legislature of Louisiana, approved April 29, 1853. The law incorporating it provided that it should enjoy the same exemption from taxation which was enjoyed by the Orphan Boys' Asylum of New Orleans. The law relating to the last named institution provided (page 364):

That, from and after the passage of this act, all the property, real and personal, belonging to the Orphan Boys' Asylum of New Orleans be, and the same is hereby exempted from all taxation, either by the State, parish, or city in which it is situated, any law to the contrary notwithstanding.

It was held that the State had no power by subsequent legislation to impose taxes upon the property of this institution.

That the doctrine announced in these cases is still maintained in that court is apparent from the case of Powers vs.The Detroit, Grand Haven and Milwaukee Railway which was decided on the 16th of April, 1906, and reported in 201 U. S., 543. Section 9 of the act of the legislature of Michigan, incorporating the railway company, provided:

Said company shall, on or before the 1st day of July, pay to the State treasurer, an annual tax of one per cent on the capital stock of said company, pain in, which tax shall be in lieu of all other taxation.

The court said at page 556:

It has often been decided by this court, so often that a citation on authorities in unnecessary, that the legislature of a State may, in the absence of special restrictions in its constitution, make a valid contract with a corporation in respect to taxation, and that such contract can be enforced against the State at the instance of the corporation.

The case at bar falls within the cases hereinbefore cited. It is to be distinguished from the case of the Metropolitan Street Railway Company vs. The New York State Board of Tax Commissioners (199 U.S., 1). In that case it was provided by various acts of the legislature, that the companies therein referred to, should pay annually to the city of New York, a fixed amount or percentage, varying from 2 to 8 per cent of their gross earnings

additional taxes was sustained by the court. It was sustained on the ground that the prior legislation did not expressly say that the taxes thus provided for should be in lieu of all other taxes. The court said at page 37:

Applying these well-established rules to the several contracts, it will be perceived that there was no express relinquishment of the right of taxation. The plaintiff in error must rely upon some implication, and not upon any direct stipulation. In each contract there was a grant of privileges, but the grant was specifically or privileges in respect to the construction, operation and maintenance of the street railroad. These were all that in terms were granted. As consideration for this grant, the grantees were to pay something, and such payment is nowhere said to be in lieu of, or as an equivalent or substitute of taxes. All that can be extracted from the language used, was a grant of privileges and a payment therefor. Other words must be written into the contract before there can be found any relinquishment of the power of taxation.

But in the case at bar, there is found not only the provisions for the payment of certain taxes annually, but there is also found the provision contained in article 81, above quoted, which expressly declares that no other taxes shall be imposed upon these mines.

The present case is to be distinguished also from that class of cases of which Grands Lodge vs. The City of New Orleans (166 U.S., 143) is a type, and which includes Salt Company vs. East Saginaw (13 Wall., 373) and Welchvs. Cook (97 U.S., 541). In these cases the exemption was a mere bounty and did not form a part of any contract.

The fact that this concession was made by the Government of Spain, and not by the Government of the United States, is not important. (Trustees of Dartmouth College vs. Woodward, 4 Wheaton, 518.)

Our conclusion is that the concessions granted by the Government of Spain to the plaintiff, constitute contracts between the parties; that section 134 of the Internal Revenue Law impairs the obligation of these contracts, and is therefore void as to them.

II. We think that this section is also void because in conflict with section 60 of the act of Congress of July 1, 1902. This section is as follows:

That nothing in this Act shall be construed to effect the rights of any person, partnership, or corporation, having a valid, perfected mining concession granted prior to April eleventh, eighteen hundred and ninety-nine, but all such concessions shall be conducted under the provisions of the law in force at the time they were granted, subject at all times to cancellation by reason of illegality in the procedure by which they were obtained, or for failure to comply with the conditions prescribed as requisite to their retention in the laws under which they were granted: Provided, That the owner or owners of every such concession shall cause the corners made by its boundaries to be distinctly marked with permanent monuments within six months after this act has been promulgated in the Philippine Islands, and that any concessions, the boundaries of which are not so marked within this period shall be free and open to explorations and purchase under the provisions of this act.2

This section seems to indicate that concessions, like those in question, can be canceled only by reason of illegality in the procedure by which they were obtained, or for failure to comply with the conditions prescribed as requisite for their retention in the laws under which they were granted. There is nothing in the section which indicates that they can be canceled for failure to comply with the conditions prescribed by subsequent legislation. In fact, the real intention of the act seems to be that such concession should be subject to the former legislation and not to any subsequent legislation. There is no claim in this case that there was any illegality in the procedure by which these concessions were obtained, nor is there any claim that the plaintiff has not complied with the conditions prescribed in the said royal decree of 1867.

III. In view of the result at which we have arrived, it is not necessary to consider the further claim made by the plaintiff that the taxes imposed by article 134 above quoted, are in violation of the part of section 5 of the act of July 1, 1902, which declares "that the rule of taxation in said Islands shall be uniform."

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and judgment is ordered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant for P9,600, with interest thereon, at 6 per cent, from the 21st day of February, 1906, and the costs of the Court of First Instance. No costs will be allowed to either party in this court.

After the expiration of twenty days let judgment be entered in accordance herewith and ten days thereafter let the case be remanded to the court from whence it came for proper action. So ordered.

Cagayan Electric Power & Light Co. Inc. v CIR GR No. L-60126, September 25, 1985 

FACTS:Cagayan Electric is a holder of a legislative franchise under RA 3247 where payment of 3% tax on gross earning is in lieu of all taxes and assessments upon privileges. In 1968, RA 5431 amended the franchise by making all corporate taxpayers liable for income tax.

In 1969, through RA 6020, its franchise was extended to two other towns and the tax exemption was reenacted. The commissioner required the company to pay deficiency

income taxes for the intervening period (1968-1969).

ISSUE:Is CEPALCO liable for the tax? 

RULING:Yes. Congress could impair the company’s legislative franchise by making it liable for

income tax. The Constitution provides that a franchise is subject to amendment, alteration or repeal by the Congress when the public interest so requires. However, it cannot be denied that the said 1969 assessment appears to be highly controversial. It had reason not to pay income tax

because of the tax exemption its franchise. For this reason, it should be liable only for tax proper and should not be held liable for surcharge and interest.

SECOND DIVISIONG.R. No. L-60126 September 25, 1985

CAGAYAN ELECTRIC POWER & LIGHT CO., INC., petitioner, vs.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE and COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

Quasha, De Guzman Makalintal & Barot for petitioner.AQUINO, J.:

This is about the liability of petitioner Cagayan Electric Power & Light Co., Inc. for income tax amounting to P75,149.73 for the more than seven-month period of the year 1969 in addition to franchise tax.

The petitioner is the holder of a legislative franchise, Republic Act No. 3247, under which its payment of 3% tax on its gross earnings from the sale of electric current is "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" (Sec. 3).

On June 27, 1968, Republic Act No. 5431 amended section 24 of the Tax Code by making liable for income tax all corporate taxpayers not specifically exempt under paragraph (c) (1) of said section and section 27 of the Tax Code notwithstanding the "provisions of existing special or general laws to the contrary". Thus, franchise companies were subjected to income tax in addition to franchise tax.

However, in petitioner's case, its franchise was amended by Republic Act No. 6020, effective August 4, 1969, by authorizing the petitioner to furnish electricity to the municipalities of Villanueva and Jasaan, Misamis Oriental in addition to Cagayan de Oro City and the municipalities of Tagoloan and Opol. The amendment reenacted the tax exemption in its original charter or neutralized the modification made by Republic Act No. 5431 more than a year before.

By reason of the amendment to section 24 of the Tax Code, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in a demand letter dated February 15, 1973 required the petitioner to pay deficiency income taxes for 1968-to 1971. The petitioner contested the assessments. The Commissioner cancelled the assessments for 1970 and 1971 but insisted on those for 1968 and 1969.

The petitioner filed a petition for review with the Tax Court, which on February 26, 1982 held the petitioner liable only for the income tax for the period from January 1 to August 3, 1969 or before the passage of Republic Act No. 6020 which reiterated its tax exemption. The petitioner appealed to this Court.

It contends that the Tax Court erred (1) in not holding that the franchise tax paid by the petitioner is a commutative tax which already includes the income tax; (2) in holding that Republic Act No. 5431 as amended, altered or repealed petitioner's franchise; (3) in holding that petitioner's franchise is a contract which can be impaired by an implied repeal and (4) in not holding that section 24(d) of the Tax Code should be construed strictly against the Government.

We hold that Congress could impair petitioner's 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.

The Constitution provides that a franchise is subject to amendment, alteration or repeal by the Congress when the public interest so requires (Sec. 8, Art. XIV, 1935 Constitution; Sec. 5, Art. XIV, 1973 Constitution),

Section 1 of petitioner's franchise, Republic Act No. 3247, provides that it is subject to the provisions of the Constitution and to the terms and conditions established in Act No. 3636 whose section 12 provides that the franchise is subject to amendment, alteration or repeal by Congress.

Republic Act No. 5431, in amending section 24 of the Tax Code by subjecting to income tax all corporate taxpayers not expressly exempted therein and in section 27 of the Code, had the effect of withdrawing petitioner's exemption from income tax.

The Tax Court acted correctly in holding that the exemption was restored by the subsequent enactment on August 4, 1969 of Republic Act No. 6020 which reenacted the said tax exemption. Hence, the petitioner is liable only for the income tax for the period from January 1 to August 3, 1969 when its tax exemption was modified by Republic Act No. 5431.

It is relevant to note that franchise companies, like the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, have been paying income tax in addition to the franchise tax.

However, it cannot be denied that the said 1969 assessment appears to be highly controversial. The Commissioner at the outset was not certain as to petitioner's income tax liability. It had reason not to pay income tax because of the tax exemption in its franchise.

For this reason, it should be liable only for tax proper and should not be held liable for the surcharge and interest. (Advertising Associates, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue and Court of Tax Appeals, G. R. No. 59758, December 26, 1984,133 SCRA 765; Imus Electric Co., Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 125 Phil. 1024; C.M. Hoskins & Co., Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, L-28383, June 22, 1976, 71 SCRA 511.)

WHEREFORE, the judgment of the Tax Court is affirmed with the modification that the petitioner is liable only for the tax proper and that it should not pay the delinquency penalties. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Manila Electric Co, Inc. vs Province of LagunaG.R. No. 131359

Subject: Public CorporationDoctrine: Power to generate revenues

Facts:MERALCO was granted franchise for the supply of electric light, heat and power by certain municipalities of the Province of Laguna including, Biñan, Sta Rosa, San Pedro, Luisiana, Calauan and Cabuyao. 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 providing for franchise tax at a rate of 50% of 1% of the gross annual receipts. Provincial Treasurer, then 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. 01-92, insofar as it concerned MERALCO, contravened the provisions of Section 1 of P.D. 551 which provides “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 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 RTC a complaint for refund against the Province of Laguna and also Benito R. Balazo in his capacity as the Provincial Treasurer of Laguna. RTC dismissed the complaint holding that the power to tax exercised by the province of Laguna was valid.

ISSUE: Whether or not the power to tax was validly exercised.

HELD:Prefatorily, it might be well to recall that local governments do not have the inherent power to tax 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.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 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.” 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. The Code, in addition, contains a general repealing clause in its Section 534 which states that “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.”WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED. No costs.

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.

D E C I S I O NVITUG, 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. 01-92, 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. Ordering the dismissal of the Complaint; and

2. 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 x x x x x x

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 ofcontracts 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 non-impairment 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.

G.R. No. 144486. April 13, 2005 

RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. (RCPI), Petitioner, vs. 

PROVINCIAL ASSESOR OF SOUTH COTABATO, PROVINCIAL TREASURER OF SOUTH COTABATO, MUNICIPAL ASSESSOR OF TUPI, SOUTH COTABATO, and

MUNICIPAL TREASURER OF TUPI, SOUTH COTABATO, Respondents. 

Facts: 

R.A. No. 2036 of 1957, as amended by R.A. No. 4054, granted RCPI a 50-year franchise. Thus, Sec. 14 of the amended law, in gist, provides that the grantee shall pay the same taxes as may be required by law. Said tax 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 national, from which taxes the grantee is hereby

expressly exempted. 

On 10 June 1985, the municipal treasurer of Tupi, South Cotabato assessed RCPI real property taxes from 1981 to 1985. The municipal treasurer demanded that RCPI pay

P166,810 as real property tax on its radio station building in Barangay Kablon, as well as on its machinery shed, radio relay station tower and its accessories, and generating sets,

based on the following tax declarations. 

RCPI protested the assessment before the Local Board of Assessment Appeals (LBAA') and claimed that all its assessed properties are personal properties and thus exempt

from the real property tax. It also pointed out that its franchise exempts RCPI from 'paying any and all taxes of any kind, nature or description in exchange for its payment of tax equal to one and one-half per cent on all gross receipts from the business conducted under its franchise. It further claimed that any deviation from its franchise would violate the non-impairment of contract clause of the Constitution. Finally, RCPI stated that the value of the properties assessed has depreciated since their acquisition in the 1960s. 

The Provincial Assessor of South Cotabato opposed RCPI's claims on all points. The Local Board of Assessment Appeals ruled that appellant is ordered to pay the real

property taxes, inclusive of all penalties, surcharges and interest accruing as of the date of actual payment, on the properties covered; in which the Central Board of Assessment

Appeals affirmed. 

The Appelate Court ruled that decision of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals is hereby MODIFIED. Petitioner is declared exempt from paying the real property taxes

assessed upon its machinery and radio equipment mounted as accessories to its relay tower. The decision assessing taxes upon petitioner's radio station building, machinery

shed, and relay station tower is, however, affirmed. 

Issues: 

1. Whether the appellate court erred when it excluded RCPI's tower, relay station building, and machinery shed from tax exemption; and 

2. Whether the appellate court erred when it did not resolve the issue of nullity of the tax declarations and assessments due to non-inclusion of depreciation allowance. 

Held: 

Exemption from Real Property Tax 

First, Congress passed the Local Government Code that withdrew all the tax exemptions existing at the time of its passage including that of RCPI's. Second, Congress enacted the franchise of telecommunications companies, such as Islacom, Bell, Island Country,

IslaTel, TeleTech, Major Telecoms, and Smart, with the 'in lieu of all taxes' proviso. Third, Congress passed RA 7925 entitled 'An Act to Promote and Govern the

Development of Philippine Telecommunications and the Delivery of Public Telecommunications Services' which, through Section 23, mandated the equality of

treatment of service providers in the telecommunications industry. 

The existing legislative policy is clearly against the revival of the 'in lieu of all taxes' clause in franchises of telecommunications companies. After the VAT on

telecommunications companies took effect on January 1, 1996, Congress never again included the 'in lieu of all taxes' clause in any telecommunications franchise it

subsequently approved. RCPI cannot also invoke the equality of treatment clause under Section 23 of Republic Act No. 7925. The franchises of the petitioners all expressly

declare that the franchisee shall pay the real estate tax, using words similar to Section 14 of RA 2036, as amended. 

It is an elementary rule in taxation that exemptions are strictly construed against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing authority. It is the taxpayer's duty to justify the exemption by words too plain to be mistaken and too categorical to be misinterpreted. 

Exclusion of Depreciation Allowance 

RCPI contends that the tax declarations and assessments covering its radio relay station tower, radio station building, and machinery shed are void because the assessors did

not consider depreciation allowance in their assessments. The Court have examined the records of this case and found that RCPI raised before the LBAA and the CBAA the

nullity of the assessments due to the non-inclusion of depreciation allowance. Therefore, RCPI did not raise this issue for the first time. However, even if the court considers this

issue, under the Real Property Tax Code depreciation allowance applies only to machinery and not to real property. 

The petition is denied and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals.FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 144486. April 13, 2005]RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. (RCPI), petitioner, vs. PROVINCIAL

ASSESOR OF SOUTH COTABATO, PROVINCIAL TREASURER OF SOUTH COTABATO, MUNICIPAL ASSESSOR OF TUPI, SOUTH COTABATO, and MUNICIPAL TREASURER OF

TUPI, SOUTH COTABATO, respondents.D E C I S I O N

CARPIO, J.:

The Case

This is a petition for review[1] to set aside the Decision[2] dated 29 March 2000 of the Court of Appeals (appellate court) in CA-G.R. SP No. 47446. The appellate court modified the ruling of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals (CBAA) and exempted

petitioner Radio Communications of the Philippines, Inc. (RCPI) from paying real property tax assessed on its machinery and radio equipment mounted on its relay station tower as accessories. However, the appellate court held RCPI liable for real property tax on its radio station building, machinery shed, and relay station tower.

The Facts

In 1957, Republic Act No. 2036 (RA 2036)[3] granted RCPI a fifty-year franchise. Section 14 of RA 2036, as amended by Republic Act No. 4054 (RA 4054) in 1964, reads:

Sec. 14. In consideration of the franchise and rights hereby granted and any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, the grantee shall pay the same taxes as are now or may hereafter be required by law from other individuals, copartnerships, private, public or quasi-public associations, corporations or joint stock companies, on real estate, buildings and other personal property except radio equipment, machinery and spare parts needed in connection with the business of the grantee, which shall be exempt from customs duties, tariffs and other taxes, as well as those properties declared exempt in this section. In consideration of the franchise, a tax equal to one and one-half per centum of all gross receipts from the business transacted under this franchise by the grantee shall be paid to the Treasurer of the Philippines each year, within ten days after the audit and approval of the accounts as prescribed in this Act. Said tax 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 national, from which taxes the grantee is hereby expressly exempted. (Emphasis supplied)

On 10 June 1985, the municipal treasurer of Tupi, South Cotabato assessed RCPI real property taxes from 1981 to 1985.[4] The municipal treasurer demanded that RCPI pay P166,810 as real property tax on its radio station building in Barangay Kablon, as well as on its machinery shed, radio relay station tower and its accessories, and generating sets, based on the following tax declarations:[5]

1. Tax Declaration No. 7639 - Radio station building

2. Tax Declaration No. 7640 - Machinery shed3. Tax Declaration No. 7641 - Radio relay station

tower and accessories (100 feet high)

4. Tax Declaration No. 7642 - Two (2) units machinery [lister generating set]

RCPI protested the assessment before the Local Board of Assessment Appeals (LBAA).[6] RCPI claimed that all its assessed properties are personal properties and thus exempt from the real property tax. Assuming that the assessed properties are real property, they are still exempt from real property taxes. Section 3 of Presidential Decree No. 464 (PD 464) states that to be taxable, the machinery should be attached to the real estate and essential for manufacturing, commercial, mining, industrial, or agricultural purposes. RCPI claimed that the assessed properties are not used for manufacturing,

commercial, mining, industrial, or agricultural purposes. Besides, the assessed properties are attached to a building on a lot not owned by RCPI.

RCPI also pointed out that its franchise exempts RCPI from paying any and all taxes of any kind, nature or description in exchange for its payment of tax equal to one and one-half per cent on all gross receipts from the business conducted under its franchise. RCPI further claimed that any deviation from its franchise would violate the non-impairment of contract clause of the Constitution. Finally, RCPI stated that the value of the properties assessed has depreciated since their acquisition in the 1960s.

The Provincial Assessor of South Cotabato (provincial assessor) opposed RCPIs claims on all points. The provincial assessor insisted that the assessed properties are subject to the real property tax.

The Ruling of the Local Board of Assessment Appeals

In its Decision[7] dated 19 May 1995, the LBAA of Koronadal, South Cotabato affirmed the notices of assessment as valid and consistent with the law. The properties covered by Tax Declaration Nos. 7639, 7640, 7641 and 7642 are real properties for purposes of real property taxation under PD 464. The in lieu of all taxes clause in RCPIs franchise does not exempt its properties from the real property tax. Finally, despite its protests, RCPI did not submit evidence as to the date of acquisition, acquisition cost, and condition of the assessed properties to support its claim of depreciation. The LBAA, in the absence of contrary evidence, relied on the validity of the Notice of Assessment and on the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed. The dispositive portion of the LBAAs decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the appellant is hereby ordered to pay the real property taxes, inclusive of all penalties, surcharges and interest accruing as of the date of actual payment, on the properties covered by Tax Declaration Nos. 7639, 7640, 7641, and 7642, as computed.

SO ORDERED.[8]

RCPI appealed to the CBAA.[9] RCPI maintained that the in lieu of all taxes clause in its franchise forecloses the imposition of taxes other than the franchise tax. RCPI also reiterated its arguments before the LBAA. Respondent assessors repeated their opposition to RCPIs appeal.

The Ruling of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals

In its Decision[10] dated 7 November 1996, the CBAA dismissed RCPIs appeal. The CBAA held that RCPIs liability for the franchise tax does not exempt RCPI from the real property tax. Under RCPIs franchise, only personal properties such as radio equipment, machinery and spare parts are exempt from customs duties, tariffs and other taxes. The CBAA ruled that RCPI was liable for the real property tax on the assessed properties. RCPI could also not invoke the non-impairment of contract clause since no legal right of RCPI was violated. The dispositive portion of the CBAAs decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the Decision rendered by the Local Board of Assessment Appeals of the Province of South Cotabato, dated 19 May 1995, is hereby AFFIRMED and the instant appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.[11]

The Ruling of the Court of Appeals

RCPI filed its petition for review of the CBAA ruling before the appellate court. In its Decision[12] dated 29 March 2000, the appellate court modified the CBAA ruling. The appellate court ruled that Section 14 of RA 2036, as amended by RA 4054, clearly exempts RCPI from tax on radio equipment, machinery, and spare parts needed in connection with its business. Therefore, RCPI is not liable for real property tax on the generating sets, and on its radio relay station tower and its accessories consisting of two units of UHF communication equipment, power distribution unit boar, and battery charger, which are actually varying types of radio equipment. The appellate court explained thus:

The tower upon which these different types of radio equipment are mounted or attached is, however, subject to real property tax since a tower is not strictly a radio equipment as it only serves as a support for antennas or other communication equipment mounted thereon for the transmission and reception of radio signals (Colliers Encyclopedia, Vol. 22, p. 127). Nor could it be classified as machinery, which is a combination of mechanical devices (26 Words and Phrases, p. 7), for without attachments to it, a tower is merely a structure designed primarily with a view to elevation (Websters New International Dictionary of the English Language, 2nd Ed., Unabridged).

As RCPIs tax exemption covers only its radio equipment, machinery, and spare parts essential to its business, it is liable for realty tax on its radio station building. The machinery shed is likewise taxable as the same is a kind of real property falling within the classification of buildings or permanent structures intended to shelter human beings or domestic animals, or to receive, retain, or confine the goods in which a person deals, or to house the tools or machinery he uses, or the persons he employs in his business (5 Words and Phrases, p. 877).[13]

The dispositive portion of the appellate courts decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals is hereby MODIFIED. Petitioner is declared exempt from paying the real property taxes assessed upon its machinery and radio equipment mounted as accessories to its relay tower. The decision assessing taxes upon petitioners radio station building, machinery shed, and relay station tower is, however, AFFIRMED.[14]

RCPI filed a partial motion for reconsideration, claiming that its exemption from real property tax applies to the radio relay station tower, the radio station building, and the machinery shed.[15] The appellate court denied the motion.[16]

The Issues

RCPI filed its petition for review before this Court. RCPI presented the following issues for resolution:

1. The appellate court erred when it excluded RCPIs tower, relay station building and machinery shed from tax exemption; and

2. The appellate court erred when it did not resolve the issue of nullity of the tax declarations and assessments due to non-inclusion of depreciation allowance.[17]

The Ruling of the Court

Exemption from Real Property Tax

Respondents assert that RCPI not only changed its arguments, RCPI also made incorrect arguments. RCPI earlier maintained that its radio relay station tower, radio station building, and machinery shed are personal properties and are thus not subject to the real property tax. RCPI now argues that its radio relay station tower, radio station building, and machinery shed are tax-exempt because of the in lieu of all taxes clause in its franchise, which exempts RCPI from the real estate tax.

RCPI contends that the in lieu of all taxes clause in its amended franchise exempts it from paying all taxes other than franchise tax. It is thus no longer necessary to determine whether the tower, relay station building, and machinery shed are radio equipment for purposes of exemption from the real estate tax.

RCPI also states that legislative enactments during the pendency of this petition caused it to lose and then regain its tax-exempt status. RCPI enumerated thus:

First, Congress passed the Local Government Code that withdrew all the tax exemptions existing at the time of its passageincluding that of RCPIs.

Second, Congress enacted the franchise of telecommunications companies, such as Islacom, Bell, Island Country, IslaTel, TeleTech, Major Telecoms, and Smart, with the in lieu of all taxes proviso.

Third, Congress passed RA 7925 entitled An Act to Promote and Govern the Development of Philippine Telecommunications and the Delivery of Public Telecommunications Services which, through Section 23, mandated the equality of treatment of service providers in the telecommunications industry.[18]

We are not persuaded.

As found by the appellate court, RCPIs radio relay station tower, radio station building, and machinery shed are real properties and are thus subject to the real property tax. Section 14 of RA 2036, as amended by RA 4054, states that [i]n consideration of the franchise and rights hereby granted and any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, the grantee shall pay the same taxes as are now or may hereafter be

required by law from other individuals, copartnerships, private, public or quasi-public associations, corporations or joint stock companies, on real estate, buildings and other personal property x x x.[19] The clear language of Section 14 states that RCPI shall pay the real estate tax.

The in lieu of all taxes clause in Section 14 of RA 2036, as amended by RA 4054, cannot exempt RCPI from the real estate tax because the same Section 14 expressly states that RCPI shall pay the same taxes x x x on real estate, buildings x x x. The in lieu of all taxes clause in the third sentence of Section 14 cannot negate the first sentence of the same Section 14, which imposes the real estate tax on RCPI. The Court must give effect to both provisions of the same Section 14. This means that the real estate tax is an exception to the in lieu of all taxes clause.

Subsequent legislations have radically amended the in lieu of all taxes clause in franchises of public utilities. As RCPI correctly observes, the Local Government Code of 1991 withdrew all the tax exemptions existing at the time of its passage including that of RCPIs with respect to local taxes like the real property tax. Also, Republic Act No. 7716 (RA 7716) abolished the franchise tax on telecommunications companies effective 1 January 1996. To replace the franchise tax, RA 7716 imposed a 10 percent value-added-tax on telecommunications companies under Section 102[20] of the National Internal Revenue Code. The present state of the law on the in lieu of all taxes clause in franchises of telecommunications companies was summarized as follows:

The existing legislative policy is clearly against the revival of the in lieu of all taxes clause in franchises of telecommunications companies. After the VAT on telecommunications companies took effect on January 1, 1996, Congress never again included the in lieu of all taxes clause in any telecommunications franchise it subsequently approved. Also, from September 2000 to July 2001, all the fourteen telecommunications franchises approved by Congress uniformly and expressly state that the franchisee shall be subject to all taxes under the National Internal Revenue Code, except the specific tax. The following is substantially the uniform tax provision in these fourteen franchises:

Tax Provisions. The grantee, its successors or assigns, shall be subject to the payment of all taxes, duties, fees, or charges and other impositions under the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended, and other applicable laws: Provided, That nothing herein shall be construed as repealing any specific tax exemptions, incentives or privileges granted under any relevant law: Provided, further, That all rights, privileges, benefits and exemptions accorded to existing and future telecommunications entities shall likewise be extended to the grantee.

Thus, after the imposition of the VAT on telecommunications companies, Congress refused to grant any tax exemption to telecommunications companies that sought new franchises from Congress, except the exemption from specific tax. More importantly, the uniform tax provision in these new franchises expressly states that the franchisee shall pay not only all taxes, except specific tax, under the National Internal Revenue Code, but also all taxes under other applicable laws. One of the other applicable laws is the Local Government Code of 1991, which empowers local governments to impose a franchise tax on telecommunications companies. This, to reiterate, is the existing legislative policy.[21]

RCPI cannot also invoke the equality of treatment clause under Section 23 of Republic Act No. 7925.[22] The franchises of Smart,[23] Islacom,[24] TeleTech,[25] Bell,[26] Major Telecoms,[27] Island Country,[28] and IslaTel,[29] all expressly declare that the franchisee shall pay the real estate tax, using words similar to Section 14 of RA 2036, as amended. The provisions of these subsequent telecommunication franchises imposing the real estate tax on franchisees only confirm that RCPI is subject to the real estate tax. Otherwise, RCPI will stick out like a sore thumb, being the only telecommunications company exempt from the real estate tax, in mockery of the spirit of equality of treatment that RCPI is invoking, not to mention the violation of the constitutional rule on uniformity of taxation.

It is an elementary rule in taxation that exemptions are strictly construed against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing authority. It is the taxpayers duty to justify the exemption by words too plain to be mistaken and too categorical to be misinterpreted.[30]

Exclusion of Depreciation Allowance

RCPI contends that the tax declarations and assessments covering its radio relay station tower, radio station building, and machinery shed are void because the assessors did not consider depreciation allowance in their assessments.

We have examined the records of this case and found that RCPI raised before the LBAA and the CBAA the nullity of the assessments due to the non-inclusion of depreciation allowance. Therefore, RCPI did not raise this issue for the first time. However, even if we consider this issue, under the Real Property Tax Code depreciation allowance applies only to machinery and not to real property.[31]

WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. We AFFIRM the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 47446 dated 29 March 2000.

SO ORDERED.

City Government of QC vs. Bayantel

Facts: Section 234 of the Local Government Code withdrew any exemption from realty tax granted to or enjoyed by all persons, natural or juridical. 

Thereafter, Congress enacted Rep. Act No. 7633, amending Bayantel’s original franchise. It provided that the same, its successors or assigns shall be liable to pay the same taxes on their real estate, buildings and personal property, exclusive of this franchise, as other persons or corporations are now or hereafter may be required by law to pay. 

Within the territorial boundary of Quezon City, Bayantel owned several real properties on which it maintained various telecommunications facilities. 

In 1993, the government of Quezon City, pursuant to the taxing power vested on local government units by Section 5, Article X of the 1987 Constitution, in relation to Section 232 of the LGC, enactedCity Ordinance No. SP-91, S-93, otherwise known as the Quezon City Revenue Code (QCRC), imposing, under Section 5 thereof, a real property tax on all real properties in Quezon City, and, reiterating in its Section 6, the withdrawal of exemption from real property tax under Section 234 of the LGC. Furthermore, much like the LGC, the QCRC, under its Section 230, withdrew tax exemption privileges in general. 

Conformably with the City’s Revenue Code, new tax declarations for Bayantel’s real properties in Quezon City were issued by the CityAssessor. Bayantel wrote the office of the City Assessor seeking the exclusion of its real properties in the city from the roll of taxable real properties. With its request having been denied, Bayantel interposed an appeal with the Local Board of Assessment Appeals (LBAA). And, evidently on its firm belief of its exempt status, Bayantel did not pay the real property taxes assessed against it by the Quezon City government. 

On account thereof, the Quezon City Treasurer sent out notices of delinquency , followed by the issuance of several warrants of levy against Bayantel’s properties preparatory to their sale at a public auction. 

Threatened with the imminent loss of its properties, Bayantel immediately withdrew its appeal with the LBAA and instead filed with the RTC of Quezon City a petition for prohibition with an urgentapplication for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or writ of preliminary injunction. 

In the eve of the public auction, the lower court issued a TRO, followed, after due hearing, by a writ of preliminary injunction. 

RTC: declared exempt from real estate taxation the properties of Bayantel in QC. Denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration having been denied . 

Petitioners elevated the case directly to the Supreme Court on pure questions of law. 

Petitioners: Bayantel had failed to avail itself of the administrative remedies provided for under the LGC, thus the trial court erred in giving due course to Bayantel’s petition for prohibition. The appeal mechanics under the LGC constitute Bayantel’s plain and speedy remedy in this case. 

Issue: Whether or not Bayantel's failure to appeal its case to the LBAA precludes its filing of a petition for prohibition. 

Held: NO. 

With the reality that Bayantel’s real properties were already levied upon on account of its nonpayment of real estate taxes thereon, an appeal to the LBAA is not a speedy and adequate remedy within the context of the aforequoted Section 2 of Rule 65. This is not to mention of the auction sale of said properties already scheduled. 

Moreover, one of the recognized exceptions to the exhaustion- of-administrative remedies rule is when, as here, only legal issues are to be resolved. In fact, the Court, cognizant of the nature of the questions presently involved, gave due course to the instant petition. 

An appeal to the LBAA, to be properly considered, required prior payment under protest of the amount of P43,878,208.18, a figure which, in the light of the then prevailing Asian financial crisis, may have been difficult to raise up. Given this reality, an appeal to the LBAA may not be considered as a plain, speedy and adequate remedy. It is thus understandable why Bayantel opted to withdraw its earlier appeal with the LBAA and, instead, filed its petition for prohibition with urgent application for injunctive relief.

SECOND DIVISIONG.R. No. 162015 March 6, 2006

THE CITY GOVERNMENT OF QUEZON CITY, AND THE CITY TREASURER OF QUEZON CITY, DR. VICTOR B. ENRIGA, Petitioners,

vs.BAYAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., Respondent.

D E C I S I O NGARCIA,J.:

Before the Court, on pure questions of law, is this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court to nullify and set aside the following issuances of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 227, in its Civil Case No. Q-02-47292, to wit:

1) Decision1 dated June 6, 2003, declaring respondent Bayan Telecommunications, Inc. exempt from real estate taxation on its real properties located in Quezon City; and

2) Order2 dated December 30, 2003, denying petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.

The facts:

Respondent Bayan Telecommunications, Inc.3 (Bayantel) is a legislative franchise holder under Republic Act (Rep. Act) No. 32594 to establish and operate radio stations for domestic telecommunications, radiophone, broadcasting and telecasting.

Of relevance to this controversy is the tax provision of Rep. Act No. 3259, embodied in Section 14 thereof, which reads:

SECTION 14. (a) The grantee shall be liable to pay the same taxes on its real estate, buildings and personal property, exclusive of the franchise, as other persons or corporations are now or hereafter may be required by law to pay. (b) The grantee shall further pay to the Treasurer of the Philippines each year, within ten days after the audit and approval of the accounts as prescribed in this Act, one and one-half per centum of all gross receipts from the business transacted under this franchise by the said grantee (Emphasis supplied).

On January 1, 1992, Rep. Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the "Local Government Code of 1991" (LGC), took effect. Section 232 of the Code grants local government units within the Metro Manila Area the power to levy tax on real properties, thus:

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 hereinafter specifically exempted.

Complementing the aforequoted provision is the second paragraph of Section 234 of the same Code which withdrew any exemption from realty tax heretofore granted to or enjoyed by all persons, natural or juridical, to wit:

SEC. 234 - Exemptions from Real Property Tax. The following are exempted from payment of the real property tax:

xxx xxx xxx

Except as provided herein, any exemption from payment of real property tax previously granted to, or enjoyed by, all persons, whether natural or juridical, including government-owned-or-controlled corporations is hereby withdrawn upon effectivity of this Code (Emphasis supplied).

On July 20, 1992, barely few months after the LGC took effect, Congress enacted Rep. Act No. 7633, amending Bayantel’s original franchise. The amendatory law (Rep. Act No. 7633) contained the following tax provision:

SEC. 11. The grantee, its successors or assigns shall be liable to pay the same taxes on their real estate, buildings and personal property, exclusive of this franchise, as other persons or corporations are now or hereafter may be required by law to pay. In addition thereto, the grantee, its successors or assigns shall pay a franchise tax equivalent to

three percent (3%) of all gross receipts of the telephone or other telecommunications businesses transacted under this franchise by the grantee, its successors or assigns and the said percentage shall be in lieu of all taxes on this franchise or earnings thereof. Provided, That the grantee, its successors or assigns shall continue to be liable for income taxes payable under Title II of the National Internal Revenue Code …. xxx. [Emphasis supplied]

It is undisputed that within the territorial boundary of Quezon City, Bayantel owned several real properties on which it maintained various telecommunications facilities. These real properties, as hereunder described, are covered by the following tax declarations:

(a) Tax Declaration Nos. D-096-04071, D-096-04074, D-096-04072 and D-096-04073 pertaining to Bayantel’s Head Office and Operations Center in Roosevelt St., San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City allegedly the nerve center of petitioner’s telecommunications franchise operations, said Operation Center housing mainly petitioner’s Network Operations Group and switching, transmission and related equipment;

(b) Tax Declaration Nos. D-124-01013, D-124-00939, D-124-00920 and D-124-00941 covering Bayantel’s land, building and equipment in Maginhawa St., Barangay East Teacher’s Village, Quezon City which houses telecommunications facilities; and

(c) Tax Declaration Nos. D-011-10809, D-011-10810, D-011-10811, and D-011-11540 referring to Bayantel’s Exchange Center located in Proj. 8, Brgy. Bahay Toro, Tandang Sora, Quezon City which houses the Network Operations Group and cover switching, transmission and other related equipment.

In 1993, the government of Quezon City, pursuant to the taxing power vested on local government units by Section 5, Article X of the 1987 Constitution, infra, in relation to Section 232 of the LGC, supra, enacted City Ordinance No. SP-91, S-93, otherwise known as the Quezon City Revenue Code (QCRC),5 imposing, under Section 5 thereof, a real property tax on all real properties in Quezon City, and, reiterating in its Section 6, the withdrawal of exemption from real property tax under Section 234 of the LGC, supra. Furthermore, much like the LGC, the QCRC, under its Section 230, withdrew tax exemption privileges in general, as follows:

SEC. 230. 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 RA 6938, non-stock and non-profit hospitals and educational institutions, business enterprises certified by the Board of Investments (BOI) as pioneer or non-pioneer for a period of six (6) and four (4) years, respectively, … are hereby withdrawn effective upon approval of this Code (Emphasis supplied).

Conformably with the City’s Revenue Code, new tax declarations for Bayantel’s real properties in Quezon City were issued by the City Assessor and were received by

Bayantel on August 13, 1998, except one (Tax Declaration No. 124-01013) which was received on July 14, 1999.

Meanwhile, on March 16, 1995, Rep. Act No. 7925,6 otherwise known as the "Public Telecommunications Policy Act of the Philippines," envisaged to level the playing field among telecommunications companies, took effect. Section 23 of the Act provides:

SEC. 23. Equality of Treatment in the Telecommunications Industry. – 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: Provided, however, That the foregoing shall neither apply to nor affect provisions of telecommunications franchises concerning territory covered by the franchise, the life span of the franchise, or the type of service authorized by the franchise.

On January 7, 1999, Bayantel wrote the office of the City Assessor seeking the exclusion of its real properties in the city from the roll of taxable real properties. With its request having been denied, Bayantel interposed an appeal with the Local Board of Assessment Appeals (LBAA). And, evidently on its firm belief of its exempt status, Bayantel did not pay the real property taxes assessed against it by the Quezon City government.

On account thereof, the Quezon City Treasurer sent out notices of delinquency for the total amount ofP43,878,208.18, followed by the issuance of several warrants of levy against Bayantel’s properties preparatory to their sale at a public auction set on July 30, 2002.

Threatened with the imminent loss of its properties, Bayantel immediately withdrew its appeal with the LBAA and instead filed with the RTC of Quezon City a petition for prohibition with an urgent application for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or writ of preliminary injunction, thereat docketed as Civil Case No. Q-02-47292, which was raffled to Branch 227 of the court.

On July 29, 2002, or in the eve of the public auction scheduled the following day, the lower court issued a TRO, followed, after due hearing, by a writ of preliminary injunction via its order of August 20, 2002.

And, having heard the parties on the merits, the same court came out with its challenged Decision of June 6, 2003, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, pursuant to the enabling franchise under Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7633, the real estate properties and buildings of petitioner [now, respondent Bayantel] which have been admitted to be used in the operation of petitioner’s franchise described in the following tax declarations are hereby DECLARED exempt from real estate taxation:(1) Tax Declaration No. D-096-04071 –(2) Tax Declaration No. D-096-04074 –(3) Tax Declaration No. D-124-01013 –(4) Tax Declaration No. D-011-10810 –

(5) Tax Declaration No. D-011-10811 –(6) Tax Declaration No. D-011-10809 –(7) Tax Declaration No. D-124-00941 –(8) Tax Declaration No. D-124-00940 –(9) Tax Declaration No. D-124-00939 –(10) Tax Declaration No. D-096-04072 –(11) Tax Declaration No. D-096-04073 –(12) Tax Declaration No. D-011-11540 –

The preliminary prohibitory injunction issued in the August 20, 2002 Order of this Court is hereby made permanent. Since this is a resolution of a purely legal issue, there is no pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Their motion for reconsideration having been denied by the court in its Order dated December 30, 2003, petitioners elevated the case directly to this Court on pure questions of law, ascribing to the lower court the following errors:

I. [I]n declaring the real properties of respondent exempt from real property taxes notwithstanding the fact that the tax exemption granted to Bayantel in its original franchise had been withdrawn by the [LGC] and that the said exemption was not restored by the enactment of RA 7633.

II. [In] declaring the real properties of respondent exempt from real property taxes notwithstanding the enactment of the [QCRC] which withdrew the tax exemption which may have been granted by RA 7633.

III. [In] declaring the real properties of respondent exempt from real property taxes notwithstanding the vague and ambiguous grant of tax exemption provided under Section 11 of RA 7633.

IV. [In] declaring the real properties of respondent exempt from real property taxes notwithstanding the fact that [it] had failed to exhaust administrative remedies in its claim for real property tax exemption. (Words in bracket added.)

As we see it, the errors assigned may ultimately be reduced to two (2) basic issues, namely:

1. Whether or not Bayantel’s real properties in Quezon City are exempt from real property taxes under its legislative franchise; and

2. Whether or not Bayantel is required to exhaust administrative remedies before seeking judicial relief with the trial court.

We shall first address the second issue, the same being procedural in nature.

Petitioners argue that Bayantel had failed to avail itself of the administrative remedies provided for under the LGC, adding that the trial court erred in giving due course to Bayantel’s petition for prohibition. To petitioners, the appeal mechanics under the LGC constitute Bayantel’s plain and speedy remedy in this case.

The Court does not agree.

Petitions for prohibition are governed by the following provision of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court:

SEC. 2. Petition for prohibition. – When the proceedings of any tribunal, … are without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent to desist from further proceedings in the action or matter specified therein, or otherwise, granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.

With the reality that Bayantel’s real properties were already levied upon on account of its nonpayment of real estate taxes thereon, the Court agrees with Bayantel that an appeal to the LBAA is not a speedy and adequate remedy within the context of the aforequoted Section 2 of Rule 65. This is not to mention of the auction sale of said properties already scheduled on July 30, 2002.

Moreover, one of the recognized exceptions to the exhaustion- of-administrative remedies rule is when, as here, only legal issues are to be resolved. In fact, the Court, cognizant of the nature of the questions presently involved, gave due course to the instant petition. As the Court has said in Ty vs. Trampe:7

xxx. Although as a rule, administrative remedies must first be exhausted before resort to judicial action can prosper, there is a well-settled exception in cases where the controversy does not involve questions of fact but only of law. xxx.

Lest it be overlooked, an appeal to the LBAA, to be properly considered, required prior payment under protest of the amount of P43,878,208.18, a figure which, in the light of the then prevailing Asian financial crisis, may have been difficult to raise up. Given this reality, an appeal to the LBAA may not be considered as a plain, speedy and adequate remedy. It is thus understandable why Bayantel opted to withdraw its earlier appeal with the LBAA and, instead, filed its petition for prohibition with urgent application for injunctive relief in Civil Case No. Q-02-47292. The remedy availed of by Bayantel under Section 2, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court must be upheld.

This brings the Court to the more weighty question of whether or not Bayantel’s real properties in Quezon City are, under its franchise, exempt from real property tax.

The lower court resolved the issue in the affirmative, basically owing to the phrase "exclusive of this franchise" found in Section 11 of Bayantel’s amended franchise, Rep. Act No. 7633. To petitioners, however, the language of Section 11 of Rep. Act No. 7633

is neither clear nor unequivocal. The elaborate and extensive discussion devoted by the trial court on the meaning and import of said phrase, they add, suggests as much. It is petitioners’ thesis that Bayantel was in no time given any express exemption from the payment of real property tax under its amendatory franchise.

There seems to be no issue as to Bayantel’s exemption from real estate taxes by virtue of the term "exclusive of the franchise" qualifying the phrase "same taxes on its real estate, buildings and personal property," found in Section 14, supra, of its franchise, Rep. Act No. 3259, as originally granted.

The legislative intent expressed in the phrase "exclusive of this franchise" cannot be construed other than distinguishing between two (2) sets of properties, be they real or personal, owned by the franchisee, namely, (a) those actually, directly and exclusively used in its radio or telecommunications business, and (b) those properties which are not so used. It is worthy to note that the properties subject of the present controversy are only those which are admittedly falling under the first category.

To the mind of the Court, Section 14 of Rep. Act No. 3259 effectively works to grant or delegate to local governments of Congress’ inherent power to tax the franchisee’s properties belonging to the second group of properties indicated above, that is, all properties which, "exclusive of this franchise," are not actually and directly used in the pursuit of its franchise. As may be recalled, the taxing power of local governments under both the 1935 and the 1973 Constitutions solely depended upon an enabling law. Absent such enabling law, local government units were without authority to impose and collect taxes on real properties within their respective territorial jurisdictions. While Section 14 of Rep. Act No. 3259 may be validly viewed as an implied delegation of power to tax, the delegation under that provision, as couched, is limited to impositions over properties of the franchisee which are not actually, directly and exclusively used in the pursuit of its franchise. Necessarily, other properties of Bayantel directly used in the pursuit of its business are beyond the pale of the delegated taxing power of local governments. In a very real sense, therefore, real properties of Bayantel, save those exclusive of its franchise, are subject to realty taxes. Ultimately, therefore, the inevitable result was that all realties which are actually, directly and exclusively used in the operation of its franchise are "exempted" from any property tax.

Bayantel’s franchise being national in character, the "exemption" thus granted under Section 14 of Rep. Act No. 3259 applies to all its real or personal properties found anywhere within the Philippine archipelago.

However, with the LGC’s taking effect on January 1, 1992, Bayantel’s "exemption" from real estate taxes for properties of whatever kind located within the Metro Manila area was, by force of Section 234 of the Code, supra, expressly withdrawn. But, not long thereafter, however, or on July 20, 1992, Congress passed Rep. Act No. 7633 amending Bayantel’s original franchise. Worthy of note is that Section 11 of Rep. Act No. 7633 is a virtual reenacment of the tax provision, i.e., Section 14, supra, of Bayantel’s original franchise under Rep. Act No. 3259. Stated otherwise, Section 14 of Rep. Act No. 3259 which was deemed impliedly repealed by Section 234 of the LGC was expressly revived under Section 14 of Rep. Act No. 7633. In concrete terms, the realty tax exemption heretofore enjoyed by Bayantel under its original franchise, but subsequently withdrawn

by force of Section 234 of the LGC, has been restored by Section 14 of Rep. Act No. 7633.

The Court has taken stock of the fact that by virtue of Section 5, Article X of the 1987 Constitution,8 local governments are empowered to levy taxes. And pursuant to this constitutional empowerment, juxtaposed with Section 2329 of the LGC, the Quezon City government enacted in 1993 its local Revenue Code, imposing real property tax on all real properties found within its territorial jurisdiction. And as earlier stated, the City’s Revenue Code, just like the LGC, expressly withdrew, under Section 230 thereof, supra, all tax exemption privileges in general.

This thus raises the question of whether or not the City’s Revenue Code pursuant to which the city treasurer of Quezon City levied real property taxes against Bayantel’s real properties located within the City effectively withdrew the tax exemption enjoyed by Bayantel under its franchise, as amended.

Bayantel answers the poser in the negative arguing that once again it is only "liable to pay the same taxes, as any other persons or corporations on all its real or personal properties, exclusive of its franchise."

Bayantel’s posture is well-taken. While the system of local government taxation has changed with the onset of the 1987 Constitution, the power of local government units to tax is still limited. As we explained in Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority:10

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 be virtue of a valid delegation as before, but pursuant to direct authority conferred by Section 5, Article X of the Constitution. Under the latter, the exercise of the power may be subject to such guidelines and limitations as the Congress may provide which, however, must be consistent with the basic policy of local autonomy. (at p. 680; Emphasis supplied.)

Clearly then, while a new slant on the subject of local taxation now prevails in the sense that the former doctrine of local government units’ delegated power to tax had been effectively modified with Article X, Section 5 of the 1987 Constitution now in place, .the basic doctrine on local taxation remains essentially the same. For as the Court stressed in Mactan, "the power to tax is [still] primarily vested in the Congress."

This new perspective is best articulated by Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J., himself a Commissioner of the 1986 Constitutional Commission which crafted the 1987 Constitution, thus:What is the effect of Section 5 on the fiscal position of municipal corporations? Section 5 does not change the doctrine that municipal corporations do not possess inherent powers of taxation. What it does is to confer municipal corporations a general power to levy taxes and otherwise create sources of revenue. They no longer have to wait for a statutory grant of these powers. The power of the legislative authority relative to the fiscal powers of local governments has been reduced to the authority to impose limitations on municipal powers. Moreover, these limitations must be "consistent with the basic policy of local autonomy." The important legal effect of Section 5 is thus to reverse the principle that doubts are resolved against municipal corporations. Henceforth, in

interpreting statutory provisions on municipal fiscal powers, doubts will be resolved in favor of municipal corporations. It is understood, however, that taxes imposed by local government must be for a public purpose, uniform within a locality, must not be confiscatory, and must be within the jurisdiction of the local unit to pass.11(Emphasis supplied).In net effect, the controversy presently before the Court involves, at bottom, a clash between the inherent taxing power of the legislature, which necessarily includes the power to exempt, and the local government’s delegated power to tax under the aegis of the 1987 Constitution.Now to go back to the Quezon City Revenue Code which imposed real estate taxes on all real properties within the city’s territory and removed exemptions theretofore "previously granted to, or presently enjoyed by all persons, whether natural or juridical ….,"12 there can really be no dispute that the power of the Quezon City Government to tax is limited by Section 232 of the LGC which expressly provides that "a province or city or municipality within the Metropolitan Manila Area may levy an annual ad valorem tax on real property such as land, building, machinery, and other improvement not hereinafter specifically exempted." Under this law, the Legislature highlighted its power to thereafter exempt certain realties from the taxing power of local government units. An interpretation denying Congress such power to exempt would reduce the phrase "not hereinafter specifically exempted" as a pure jargon, without meaning whatsoever. Needless to state, such absurd situation is unacceptable.For sure, in Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, Inc. (PLDT) vs. City of Davao,13 this Court has upheld the power of Congress to grant exemptions over the power of local government units to impose taxes. There, the Court wrote:Indeed, the grant of taxing powers to local government units under the Constitution and the LGC does not affect the power of Congress to grant exemptions to certain persons, pursuant to a declared national policy. The legal effect of the constitutional grant to local governments simply means that in interpreting statutory provisions on municipal taxing powers, doubts must be resolved in favor of municipal corporations. (Emphasis supplied.)As we see it, then, the issue in this case no longer dwells on whether Congress has the power to exempt Bayantel’s properties from realty taxes by its enactment of Rep. Act No. 7633 which amended Bayantel’s original franchise. The more decisive question turns on whether Congress actually did exempt Bayantel’s properties at all by virtue of Section 11 of Rep. Act No. 7633.Admittedly, Rep. Act No. 7633 was enacted subsequent to the LGC. Perfectly aware that the LGC has already withdrawn Bayantel’s former exemption from realty taxes, Congress opted to pass Rep. Act No. 7633 using, under Section 11 thereof, exactly the same defining phrase "exclusive of this franchise" which was the basis for Bayantel’s exemption from realty taxes prior to the LGC. In plain language, Section 11 of Rep. Act No. 7633 states that "the grantee, its successors or assigns shall be liable to pay the same taxes on their real estate, buildings and personal property, exclusive of this franchise, as other persons or corporations are now or hereafter may be required by law to pay." The Court views this subsequent piece of legislation as an express and real intention on the part of Congress to once again remove from the LGC’s delegated taxing power, all of the franchisee’s (Bayantel’s) properties that are actually, directly and exclusively used in the pursuit of its franchise.WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.No pronouncement as to costs.SO ORDERED.

SMART COMMUNICATIONS, INC. vs. THE CITY OF DAVAO, represented Mayor DUTERTE, and the SANGGUNIANG PANLUNGSOD

NACHURA, J.:

                            On March 27, 1992, Smart obtained its legislative franchise under R.A. No. 7294. Sec. 9 of said law provides that “The grantee, its successors or assigns shall be liable to pay the same taxes on their real estate buildings and personal property, exclusive of' this franchise, as other persons or corporations which are now or hereafter may be required by law to pay. In addition thereto, the grantee, its successors or assigns shall pay a franchise tax equivalent to three percent (3%) of all gross receipts of the business transacted under this franchise by the grantee, its successors or assigns and the said percentage shall be in lieu of all taxes on this franchise or earnings thereof: Provided, That the grantee, its successors or assigns shall continue to be liable for income taxes payable under Title II of the National Internal Revenue Code pursuant to Section 2 of Executive Order No. 72 unless the latter enactment is amended or repealed, in which case the amendment or repeal shall be applicable thereto.

 The grantee shall file the return with and pay the tax due thereon to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue or his duly authorized representative in accordance with the National Internal Revenue Code and the return shall be subject to audit by the Bureau of Internal Revenue.  (Emphasis supplied.)”

On January 1, 1992, the Local Government Code (R.A. No. 7160) took effect. Section 137, in relation to Section 151 of R.A. No. 7160, allowed the imposition of franchise tax by the local government units.

 R.A. No. 7716 or the VAT Law was enacted which specifically expressed under Section 20, repealing provisions of all special laws (that includes the legislative franchise R.A. No. 7294, a special law) relative to the rate of franchise taxes. It also repealed, amended, or modified all other laws, orders, issuances, rules and regulations, or parts thereof which are inconsistent with it. It is in effect, rendered ineffective the “in lieu of all taxes” clause in R.A. No. 7294.

Tax Code of the City of Davao, Section 1, Article 10 thereof, 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.

 Smart filed a special civil action for declaratory relief for the ascertainment of its rights and obligations under the Tax Code of the City of Davao and contends that its telecenter in Davao City is exempt from payment of franchise tax to the City, on the following grounds:

the issuance of its franchise under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7294, subsequent to R.A. No. 7160 shows the clear legislative intent to exempt it from the provisions of  R.A. 7160

that the “in lieu of all taxes” clause in Section 9 of its franchise exempts it from all taxes, both local and national, except the national franchise tax (now VAT), income tax, and real property tax

Section 137 of  R.A. No. 7160 can only apply to exemptions already existing at the time of its effectivity and not to future exemptions;

not covered bec. The franchise was granted after the effectivity of the LGC

the power of the City of Davao to impose a franchise tax is subject to statutory limitations such as the “in lieu of all taxes” clause found in Section 9 of R.A. No. 7294; and

only taxes it may be made to bear under its franchise are the national franchise tax (now VAT), income tax, and real property tax

exempt from the local franchise tax because the “in lieu of taxes” clause in its franchise does not distinguish between national and local taxes.

the imposition of franchise tax by the City of Davao would amount to a violation of the constitutional provision against impairment of contracts.

franchise is in the nature of a contract between the government and Smart.

 Respondent invoked its power granted by the Constitution to local government units to create their own sources of revenue.

 

RTC denied the petition on the ground that petitioner failed to prove that it is exempt from tax applying strictissimi juris against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing authority. On the issue of violation of the non-impairment clause of the Constitution, it cited Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority v. Marcos and declared that the city’s power to tax is based not merely on a valid delegation of legislative power but on the direct authority granted to it by the fundamental law.  That while such power may be subject to restrictions or conditions imposed by Congress, any such legislated limitation must be consistent with the basic policy of local autonomy.

 ISSUES: 

Exemption from Franchise Tax under Section 9, RA 7294 which contains “in lieu of taxes” clause

“In lieu of taxes” clause applies to national taxes or local taxes or both?

Violation to the Constitutional prohibition against “impairment of contracts”

 HELD: Petition is denied.

On “In lieu of all taxes“ Clause in RA 7294:

R.A. No. 7294 is not definite in granting exemption to Smart from local taxation. Section 9 of R.A. No. 7294 imposes on Smart a franchise tax equivalent to three percent (3%) of all gross receipts of the business transacted under the franchise and the said percentage shall be in lieu of all taxes on the franchise or earnings thereof. R.A. No 7294 does not expressly provide what kind of taxes Smart is exempted from. It is not clear whether the “in lieu of all taxes” provision in the franchise of Smart would include exemption from local or national taxation. What is clear is that Smart shall pay franchise tax equivalent to three percent (3%) of all gross receipts of the business transacted under its franchise. But whether the franchise tax exemption would include exemption from exactions by both the local and the national government is not unequivocal.

 In this case, the doubt must be resolved in favor of the City of Davao. The “in lieu of all taxes” clause applies only to national internal revenue taxes and not to local taxes. It is clear that the “in lieu of all taxes” clause apply only to taxes under the NIRC and not to local taxes. It is not even applied to income tax, as shown in the provision itself, to wit:

proviso in the first paragraph of Section 9, Smart's franchise states that the grantee shall "continue to be liable for income taxes payable under Title II of the National Internal Revenue Code."

second paragraph of Section 9, speaks of tax returns filed and taxes paid to the "Commissioner of Internal Revenue or his duly authorized representative in accordance with the National Internal Revenue Code."

same paragraph, declares that the tax returns "shall be subject to audit by the Bureau of Internal Revenue."

If Congress intended the "in lieu of all taxes" clause in Smart's franchise to also apply to local taxes, Congress would have expressly mentioned the exemption from municipal and provincial taxes.

It should be noted that the “in lieu of all taxes” clause in R.A. No. 7294 has become functus officio with the abolition of the franchise tax on telecommunications companies. Currently, Smart along with other telecommunications companies pays the uniform 10% value-added tax. The VAT on sale of services of telephone franchise grantees is equivalent to 10% of gross receipts derived from the sale or exchange of services, as provided in R.A. No. 7716, as amended by the Expanded Value Added Tax Law (R.A. No. 8241).

 On the burden of grant to Tax exemptions:

          Tax exemptions are never presumed and are strictly construed against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing authority. They can only be given force when

the grant is clear and categorical. If the intention of the legislature is open to doubt, then the intention of the legislature must be resolved in favor of the State.

 On impairment of contracts:

There is no violation of Article III, Section 10 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. The franchise of Smart does not expressly provide for exemption from local taxes. Absent the express provision on such exemption under the franchise, we are constrained to rule against it. Due to this ambiguity in the law, the doubt must be resolved against the grant of tax exemption.

Contract Clause has never been thought as a limitation on the exercise of the State’s power of taxation save only where a tax exemption has been granted for a valid consideration.

THIRD DIVISIONG.R. No. 155491 July 21, 2009

SMART COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Petitioner, vs.

THE CITY OF DAVAO, represented herein by its Mayor Hon. RODRIGO DUTERTE, and the SANGGUNIANG PANLUNSOD OF DAVAO CITY, Respondents.

R E S O L U T I O NNACHURA, J.:

Before the Court is a Motion for Reconsideration1 filed by Smart Communications, Inc. (Smart) of the Decision2 of the Court dated September 16, 2008, denying its appeal of the Decision and Order of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City, dated July 19, 2002 and September 26, 2002, respectively.

Briefly, the factual antecedents are as follows:

On February 18, 2002, Smart filed a special civil action for declaratory relief3 for the ascertainment of its rights and obligations under the Tax Code of the City of Davao, which imposes a franchise tax on businesses enjoying a franchise within the territorial jurisdiction of Davao. Smart avers that its telecenter in Davao City is exempt from payment of franchise tax to the City.

On July 19, 2002, the RTC rendered a Decision denying the petition. Smart filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the trial court in an Order dated September 26, 2002. Smart filed an appeal before this Court, but the same was denied in a decision dated September 16, 2008. Hence, the instant motion for reconsideration raising the following grounds: (1) the "in lieu of all taxes" clause in Smart’s franchise, Republic Act No. 7294 (RA 7294), covers local taxes; the rule of strict construction against tax exemptions is not applicable; (2) the "in lieu of all taxes" clause is not rendered ineffective by the Expanded VAT Law; (3) Section 23 of Republic Act No. 79254 (RA 7925) includes a tax exemption; and (4) the imposition of a local franchise tax

on Smart would violate the constitutional prohibition against impairment of the obligation of contracts.

Section 9 of RA 7294 and Section 23 of RA 7925 are once again put in issue. Section 9 of Smart’s legislative franchise contains the contentious "in lieu of all taxes" clause. The Section reads:

Section 9. Tax provisions. — The grantee, its successors or assigns shall be liable to pay the same taxes on their real estate buildings and personal property, exclusive of this franchise, as other persons or corporations which are now or hereafter may be required by law to pay. In addition thereto, the grantee, its successors or assigns shall pay a franchise tax equivalent to three percent (3%) of all gross receipts of the business transacted under this franchise by the grantee, its successors or assigns and the said percentage shall be in lieu of all taxes on this franchise or earnings thereof: Provided, That the grantee, its successors or assigns shall continue to be liable for income taxes payable under Title II of the National Internal Revenue Code pursuant to Section 2 of Executive Order No. 72 unless the latter enactment is amended or repealed, in which case the amendment or repeal shall be applicable thereto.

xxx5

Section 23 of RA 7925, otherwise known as the most favored treatment clause or equality clause, contains the word "exemption," viz.:

SEC. 23. Equality of Treatment in the Telecommunications Industry — 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: Provided, however, That the foregoing shall neither apply to nor affect provisions of telecommunications franchises concerning territory covered by the franchise, the life span of the franchise, or the type of the service authorized by the franchise.6

A review of the recent decisions of the Court on the matter of exemptions from local franchise tax and the interpretation of the word "exemption" found in Section 23 of RA 7925 is imperative in order to resolve this issue once and for all.

In Digital Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. (Digitel) v. Province of Pangasinan,7 Digitel used as an argument the "in lieu of all taxes" clauses/provisos found in the legislative franchises of Globe,8 Smart and Bell,9 vis-à-visSection 23 of RA 7925, in order to claim exemption from the payment of local franchise tax. Digitel claimed, just like the petitioner in this case, that it was exempt from the payment of any other taxes except the national franchise and income taxes. Digitel alleged that Smart was exempted from the payment of local franchise tax.However, it failed to substantiate its allegation, and, thus, the Court denied Digitel’s claim for exemption from provincial franchise tax. Cited was the ruling of the Court in PLDT v. City of Davao,10 wherein the Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Vicente V. Mendoza, held that in approving Section 23 of RA No. 7925, Congress did not intend it to operate as a blanket tax exemption to all telecommunications entities. Section 23 cannot be

considered as having amended PLDT’s franchise so as to entitle it to exemption from the imposition of local franchise taxes. The Court further held that tax exemptions are highly disfavored and that a tax exemption must be expressed in the statute in clear language that leaves no doubt of the intention of the legislature to grant such exemption. And, even in the instances when it is granted, the exemption must be interpreted in strictissimi juris against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing authority.The Court also clarified the meaning of the word "exemption" in Section 23 of RA 7925: that the word "exemption" as used in the statute refers or pertains merely to an exemption from regulatory or reporting requirements of the Department of Transportation and Communication or the National Transmission Corporation and not to an exemption from the grantee’s tax liability.In Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) v. Province of Laguna,11 PLDT was a holder of a legislative franchise under Act No. 3436, as amended. On August 24, 1991, the terms and conditions of its franchise were consolidated under Republic Act No. 7082, Section 12 of which embodies the so-called "in-lieu-of-all taxes" clause. Under the said Section, PLDT shall pay a franchise tax equivalent to three percent (3%) of all its gross receipts, which franchise tax shall be "in lieu of all taxes." The issue that the Court had to resolve was whether PLDT was liable to pay franchise tax to the Province of Laguna in view of the "in lieu of all taxes" clause in its franchise and Section 23 of RA 7925.lawph!lApplying the rule of strict construction of laws granting tax exemptions and the rule that doubts are resolved in favor of municipal corporations in interpreting statutory provisions on municipal taxing powers, the Court held that Section 23 of RA 7925 could not be considered as having amended petitioner's franchise so as to entitle it to exemption from the imposition of local franchise taxes.In ruling against the claim of PLDT, the Court cited the previous decisions in PLDT v. City of Davao12 and PLDT v. City of Bacolod,13 in denying the claim for exemption from the payment of local franchise tax.In sum, the aforecited jurisprudence suggests that aside from the national franchise tax, the franchisee is still liable to pay the local franchise tax, unless it is expressly and unequivocally exempted from the payment thereof under its legislative franchise. The "in lieu of all taxes" clause in a legislative franchise should categorically state that the exemption applies to both local and national taxes; otherwise, the exemption claimed should be strictly construed against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing authority.Republic Act No. 7716, otherwise known as the "Expanded VAT Law," did not remove or abolish the payment of local franchise tax. It merely replaced the national franchise tax that was previously paid by telecommunications franchise holders and in its stead imposed a ten percent (10%) VAT in accordance with Section 108 of the Tax Code. VAT replaced the national franchise tax, but it did not prohibit nor abolish the imposition of local franchise tax by cities or municipaties.The power to tax by local government units emanates from Section 5, Article X of the Constitution which empowers them to create their own sources of revenues and to levy taxes, fees and charges subject to such guidelines and limitations as the Congress may provide. The imposition of local franchise tax is not inconsistent with the advent of the VAT, which renders functus officio the franchise tax paid to the national government. VAT inures to the benefit of the national government, while a local franchise tax is a revenue of the local government unit.WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED, and this denial is final.SO ORDERED.

QUEZON CITY vs. ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION - Local Franchise Tax

FACTS:

ABS-CBN was granted a franchise which provides that it “shall pay a 3% franchise tax and the said percentage tax shall be “in lieu of all taxes on this franchise or earnings thereof”. It thus filed a complaint against the imposition of local franchise tax.ISSUE:

Does the “in lieu of all taxes” provision in ABS-CBN’s franchise exempt it from payment of the local franchise tax? HELD:

NO. The right to exemption from local franchise tax must be clearly established beyond reasonable doubt and cannot be made out of inference or implications.

The uncertainty over whether the “in lieu of all taxes” provision pertains to exemption from local or national taxes, or both, should be construed against Respondent who has the burden to prove that it is in fact covered by the exemption claimed. Furthermore, the “in lieu of all taxes” clause in Respondent’s franchise has become ineffective with the abolition of the franchise tax on broadcasting companies with yearly gross receipts exceeding P10 million as they are now subject to the VAT. 

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

 D E C I S I O N

  REYES, R.T., J.:

  CLAIMS for tax exemption must be based on language in law too plain to be mistaken. It cannot be made out of inference or implication.

 The principle is relevant in this petition for review on certiorari of the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) and that[2] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) ordering the refund and declaring invalid the imposition and collection oflocal franchise tax by the City Treasurer of Quezon City on ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation (ABS-CBN).

 The Facts

 Petitioner City Government of Quezon City is a local government unit duly organized and existing by virtue of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 537, otherwise known as the Revised Charter of Quezon City. Petitioner City Treasurer ofQuezon City is primarily responsible for the imposition and collection of taxes within the territorial jurisdiction ofQuezon City.

 

Under Section 31, Article 13 of the Quezon City Revenue Code of 1993,[3] a franchise tax was imposed on businesses operating within its jurisdiction. The provision states:

 Section 31. Imposition of Tax. Any provision of special laws or grant of tax exemption to the contrary notwithstanding, any person, corporation, partnership or association enjoying a franchise whether issued by the national government or local government and, doing business in Quezon City, shall pay a franchise tax at the rate of ten percent (10%) of one percent (1%) for 1993-1994, twenty percent (20%) of one percent (1%) for 1995, and thirty percent (30%) of one percent (1%) for 1996 and the succeeding years thereafter, of gross receipts and sales derived from the operation of the business in Quezon City during the preceding calendar year.

 On May 3, 1995, ABS-CBN was granted the franchise to install and operate radio and television broadcasting stations in the Philippines under R.A. No. 7966.[4] Section 8 of R.A. No. 7966 provides the tax liabilities of ABS-CBN which reads:

 Section 8. Tax Provisions. The grantee, its successors or assigns, shall be liable to pay the same taxes on their real estate, buildings and personal property, exclusive of this franchise, as other persons or corporations are now hereafter may be required by law to pay. In addition thereto, the grantee, its successors or assigns, shall pay a franchise tax equivalent to three percent (3%) of all gross receipts of the radio/television business transacted under this franchise by the grantee, its successors or assigns, and the said percentage tax shall be in lieu of all taxes on this franchise or earnings thereof; Provided that the grantee, its successors or assigns shall continue to be liable for income taxes under Title II of the National Internal Revenue Code pursuant to Section 2 of Executive No. 72 unless the latter enactment is amended or repealed, in which case the amendment or repeal shall be applicable thereto. (Emphasis added)

 ABS-CBN had been paying local franchise tax imposed by Quezon City. However, in view of the above provision in R.A. No. 9766 that it shall pay a franchise tax x x x in lieu of all taxes, the corporation developed the opinion that it is not liable to pay the local franchise tax imposed by Quezon City. Consequently, ABS-CBN paid under protest the local franchise tax imposed by Quezon City on the dates, in the amounts and under the official receipts as follows: O.R. No. Date Amount Paid2464274 07-18-95 P 1,489,977.282484651 10-20-95 1,489,977.282536134 1-22-96 2,880,975.658354906 1-23-97 8,621,470.830048756 1-23-97 2,731,135.810067352 4-03-97 2,731,135.81

Total P19,944,672.66[5]

 

On January 29, 1997, ABS-CBN filed a written claim for refund for local franchise tax paid to Quezon City for 1996 and for the first quarter of 1997 in the total amount of

Fourteen Million Two Hundred Thirty-Three Thousand Five Hundred Eighty-Two and 29/100 centavos (P14,233,582.29) broken down as follows: O.R. No Date Amount Paid2536134 1-22-96 P 2,880,975.658354906 1-23-97 8,621,470.830048756 1-23-97 2,731,135.81Total P14,233,582.29[6]

 In a letter dated March 3, 1997 to the Quezon City Treasurer, ABS-CBN reiterated its claim for refund of local franchise taxes paid.

 On June 25, 1997, for failure to obtain any response from the Quezon City Treasurer, ABS-CBN filed a complaint before the RTC in Quezon City seeking the declaration of nullity of the imposition of local franchise tax by the City Government of Quezon City for being unconstitutional. It likewise prayed for the refund of local franchise tax in the amount of Nineteen Million Nine Hundred Forty-Four Thousand Six Hundred Seventy-Two and 66/100 centavos (P19,944,672.66) broken down as follows: O.R. No. Date Amount Paid2464274 7-18-95 P 1,489,977.282484651 10-20-95 1,489,977.282536134 1-22-96 2,880,975.658354906 1-23-97 8,621,470.830048756 1-23-97 2,731,135.810067352 4-03-97 2,731,135.81Total P19,944,672.66[7] Quezon City argued that the in lieu of all taxes provision in R.A. No. 9766 could not have been intended to prevail over a constitutional mandate which ensures the viability and self-sufficiency of local government units. Further, that taxes collectible by and payable to the local government were distinct from taxes collectible by and payable to the national government, considering that the Constitution specifically declared that the taxes imposed by local government units shall accrue exclusively to the local governments. Lastly, the City contended that the exemption claimed by ABS-CBN under R.A. No. 7966 was withdrawn by Congress when the Local Government Code (LGC) was passed.[8]Section 193 of the LGC provides:

 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. (Emphasis added)

 On August 13, 1997, ABS-CBN filed a supplemental complaint adding to its claim for refund the local franchise tax paid for the third quarter of 1997 in the amount of Two Million Seven Hundred Thirty-One Thousand One Hundred Thirty-Five and 81/100 centavos (P2,731,135.81) and of other amounts of local franchise tax as may have been and will be paid by ABS-CBN until the resolution of the case.

 

Quezon City insisted that the claim for refund must fail because of the absence of a prior written claim for it.

 RTC and CA Dispositions

 On January 20, 1999, the RTC rendered judgment declaring as invalid the imposition on and collection from ABS-CBN of local franchise tax paid pursuant to Quezon City Ordinance No. SP-91, S-93, after the enactment of R.A. No. 7966, and ordered the refund of all payments made. The dispositive portion of the RTC decision reads:

 WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered declaring the imposition on and collection from plaintiff ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION of local franchise taxes pursuant to Quezon City Ordinance No. SP-91, S-93 after the enactment of Republic Act No. 7966 to be invalid, and, accordingly, the Court hereby orders the defendants to refund all its payments made after the effectivity of its legislative franchise on May 3, 1995.

 SO ORDERED.[9]

 In its decision, the RTC ruled that the in lieu of all taxes provision contained in Section 8 of R.A. No. 7966 absolutely excused ABS-CBN from the payment of local franchise tax imposed under Quezon City Ordinance No. SP-91, S-93.The intent of the legislature to excuse ABS-CBN from payment of local franchise tax could be discerned from the usage of the in lieu of all taxes provision and from the absence of any qualification except income taxes. Had Congress intended to exclude taxes imposed from the exemption, it would have expressly mentioned so in a fashion similar to the proviso on income taxes.

 The RTC also based its ruling on the 1990 case of Province of Misamis Oriental v. Cagayan Electric Power and Light Company, Inc. (CEPALCO).[10] In said case, the exemption of respondent electric company CEPALCO from payment of provincial franchise tax was upheld on the ground that the franchise of CEPALCO was a special law, while the Local Tax Code, on which the provincial ordinance imposing the local franchise tax was based, was a general law.Further, it was held that whenever there is a conflict between two laws, one special and particular and the other general, the special law must be taken as intended to constitute an exception to the general act.

 The RTC noted that the legislative franchise of ABS-CBN was granted years after the effectivity of the LGC.Thus, it was unavoidable to conclude that Section 8 of R.A. No. 7966 was an exception since the legislature ought to be presumed to have enacted it with the knowledge and awareness of the existence and prior enactment of Section 137[11] of the LGC.

 In addition, the RTC, again citing the case of Province of Misamis Oriental v. Cagayan Electric Power and Light Company, Inc. (CEPALCO),[12] ruled that the imposition of the local franchise tax was an impairment of ABS-CBNs contract with the government. The imposition of another franchise on the corporation by the local authority would constitute an impairment of the formers charter, which is in the nature of a private contract between it and the government.

 

As to the amounts to be refunded, the RTC rejected Quezon Citys position that a written claim for refund pursuant to Section 196 of the LGC was a condition sine qua non before filing the case in court. The RTC ruled that although Fourteen Million Two Hundred Thirty-Three Thousand Five Hundred Eighty-Two and 29/100 centavos (P14,233,582.29) was the only amount stated in the letter to the Quezon City Treasurer claiming refund, ABS-CBNshould nonetheless be also refunded of all payments made after the effectivity of R.A. No. 7966. The inaction of the City Treasurer on the claim for refund of ABS-CBN legally rendered any further claims for refund on the part of plaintiff absurd and futile in relation to the succeeding payments.

 The City of Quezon and its Treasurer filed a motion for reconsideration which was subsequently denied by the RTC.Thus, appeal was made to the CA. On September 1, 2004, the CA dismissed the petition of Quezon City and its Treasurer. According to the appellate court, the issues raised were purely legal questions cognizable only by the Supreme Court. The CA ratiocinated:

 For another, the issues which appellants submit for this Courts consideration are more of legal query necessitating a legal opinion rather than a call for adjudication on the matter in dispute.

 The first issue has earlier been categorized in Province of Misamis Oriental v. Cagayan Electric and Power Co., Inc. to be a legal one. There is no more argument to this.

 The next issue although it may need the reexamination of the pertinent provisions of the local franchise and the legislative franchise given to appellee, also needs no evaluation of facts. It suffices that there may be a conflict which may need to be reconciled, without regard to the factual backdrop of the case.

 The last issue deals with a legal question, because whether or not there is a prior written claim for refund is no longer in dispute. Rather, the question revolves on whether the said requirement may be dispensed with, which obviously is not a factual issue.[13]

 On September 23, 2004, petitioner moved for reconsideration. The motion was, however, denied by the CA in its Resolution dated December 16, 2004. Hence, the present recourse.

 Issues

 Petitioner submits the following issues for resolution:

 I.

Whether or not the phrase in lieu of all taxes indicated in the franchise of the respondent appellee (Section 8 of RA 7966) serves to exempt it from the payment of the local franchise tax imposed by the petitioners-appellants.

 II.

Whether or not the petitioners-appellants raised factual and legal issues before the Honorable Court of Appeals.[14]

 Our Ruling

 The second issue, being procedural in nature, shall be dealt with immediately. But there are other resultant issues linked to the first.

 I. The dismissal by the CA of petitioners appeal is in order because it raised purely legal issues, namely:

 1) Whether appellee, whose franchise expressly provides that its payment of franchise tax shall be in lieu of all taxes in this franchise or earnings thereof, is absolutely excused from paying the franchise tax imposed by appellants;

 2) Whether appellants imposition of local franchise tax is a violation of appellees legislative franchise; and

 3) Whether one can do away with the requirement on prior written claim for refund.[15]

 Obviously, these are purely legal questions, cognizable by this Court, to the exclusion of all other courts. There is a question of law when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is pertaining to a certain state of facts.[16]

 Section 2, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court provides that an appeal taken to the CA under Rule 41 raising only questions of law is erroneous and shall be dismissed, issues of pure law not being within its jurisdiction.[17]Consequently, the dismissal by the CA of petitioners appeal was in order.

 In the recent case of Sevilleno v. Carilo,[18] this Court ruled that the dismissal of the appeal of petitioner was valid, considering the issues raised there were pure questions of law, viz.:

 Petitioners interposed an appeal to the Court of Appeals but it was dismissed for being the wrong mode of appeal. The appellate court held that since the issue being raised is whether the RTC has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case, which is a question of law, the appeal should have been elevated to the Supreme Court under Rule 45 of the 1997Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. Section 2, Rule 41 of the same Rules which governs appeals from judgments and final orders of the RTC to the Court of Appeals, provides:

 SEC. 2. Modes of appeal.

(a) Ordinary appeal. The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be taken by 

filing a notice of appeal with the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from and serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party. No record on appeal shall be required except in special proceedings and other cases of multiple or separate appeals where the law or these Rules so require. In such cases, the record on appeal shall be filed and served in like manner.

 (b) Petition for review. The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction shall be by petition for review in accordance with Rule 42.

 (c) Appeal by certiorari. In all cases where only questions of law are raised or involved, the appeal shall be to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari in accordance with Rule 45.

 In Macawili Gold Mining and Development Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, we summarized the rule on appeals as follows:

 (1) In all cases decided by the RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, appeal may be made to the Court of Appeals by mere notice of appeal where the appellant raises questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law;

 (2) In all cases decided by the RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction where the appellant raises only questions of law, the appeal must be taken to the Supreme Court on a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45;

 (3) All appeals from judgments rendered by the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, regardless of whether the appellant raises questions of fact, questions of law, or mixed questions of fact and law, shall be brought to the Court of Appeals by filing a petition for review under Rule 42.

 It is not disputed that the issue brought by petitioners to the Court of Appeals involves the jurisdiction of the RTCover the subject matter of the case. We have a long standing rule that a courts jurisdiction over the subject matter of an action is conferred only by the Constitution or by statute. Otherwise put, jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter of the action is a matter of law. Consequently, issues which deal with the jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter of a case are pure questions of law. As petitioners appeal solely involves a question of law, they should have directly taken their appeal to this Court by filing a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, not an ordinary appeal with the Court of Appeals under Rule 41. Clearly, the appellate court did not err in holding that petitioners pursued the wrong mode of appeal.

 Indeed, the Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing petitioners appeal. Section 2, Rule 50 of the same Rules provides that an appeal from the RTC to the Court of Appeals raising only questions of law shall be dismissed; and that an appeal erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals shall be dismissed outright, x x x.[19] (Emphasis added)

 

However, to serve the demands of substantial justice and equity, the Court opts to relax procedural rules and rule upon on the merits of the case. In Ong Lim Sing Jr. v. FEB Leasing and Finance Corporation,[20] this Court stated:

 Courts have the prerogative to relax procedural rules of even the most mandatory character, mindful of the duty to reconcile both the need to speedily put an end to litigation and the parties right to due process. In numerous cases, this Court has allowed liberal construction of the rules when to do so would serve the demands of substantial justice and equity. In Aguam v. Court of Appeals, the Court explained:

The court has the discretion to dismiss or not to dismiss an appellants appeal. It is a power conferred on the court, not a duty. The discretion must be a sound one, to be exercised in accordance with the tenets of justice and fair play, having in mind the circumstances obtaining in each case. Technicalities, however, must be avoided. The law abhors technicalities that impede the cause of justice. The courts primary duty is to render or dispense justice. A litigation is not a game of technicalities. Lawsuits unlike duels are not to be won by a rapiers thrust. Technicality, when it deserts its proper office as an aid to justice and becomes itsgreat hindrance and chief enemy, deserves scant consideration from courts. Litigations must be decided on their merits and not on technicality. Every party litigant must be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause, free from the unacceptable plea of technicalities. Thus, dismissal of appeals purely on technical grounds is frowned upon where the policy of the court is to encourage hearings of appeals on their merits and the rules of procedure ought not to be applied in a very rigid, technical sense; rules of procedure are used only to help secure, not override substantial justice. It is a far better and more prudent course of action for the court to excuse a technical lapse and afford the parties a review of the case on appeal to attain the ends of justice rather than dispose of the case on technicality and cause a grave injustice to the parties, giving a false impression of speedy disposal of cases while actually resulting in more delay, if not a miscarriage of justice.[21]

 II. The in lieu of all taxes provision in its franchise does not exempt ABS-CBN from payment of local franchise tax.

 A. The present controversy essentially boils down to a dispute between the inherent taxing power of Congress and the delegated authority to tax of local governments under the 1987 Constitution and effected under the LGC of 1991.

 The power of the local government of Quezon City to impose franchise tax is based on Section 151 in relation to Section 137 of the LGC, to wit:

 Section 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 the 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. x x x

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 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. (Emphasis supplied)

 Such taxing power by the local government, however, is limited in the sense that Congress can enact legislation granting exemptions. This principle was upheld in City Government of Quezon City, et al. v. Bayan Telecommunications, Inc.[22] Said this Court:

 This thus raises the question of whether or not the Citys Revenue Code pursuant to which the city treasurer ofQuezon City levied real property taxes against Bayantels real properties located within the City effectively withdrew the tax exemption enjoyed by Bayantel under its franchise, as amended.

 Bayantel answers the poser in the negative arguing that once again it is only liable to pay the same taxes, as any other persons or corporations on all its real or personal properties, exclusive of its franchise.

 Bayantels posture is well-taken. While the system of local government taxation has changed with the onset of the 1987 Constitution, the power of local government units to tax is still limited. As we explained in Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority:

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 be virtue of a valid delegation as before, but pursuant to direct authority conferred by Section 5, Article X of the Constitution. Under the latter, the exercise of the power may be subject to such guidelines and limitations as the Congress may provide which, however, must be consistent with the basic policy of local autonomy. x x x

 Clearly then, while a new slant on the subject of local taxation now prevails in the sense that the former doctrine of local government units delegated power to tax had been effectively modified with Article X, Section 5 of the 1987 Constitution now in place, the basic doctrine on local taxation remains essentially the same. For as the Court stressed in Mactan, the power to tax is [still] primarily vested in the Congress.

 This new perspective is best articulated by Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J., himself a Commissioner of the 1986 Constitutional Commission which crafted the 1987 Constitution, thus:

 What is the effect of Section 5 on the fiscal position of municipal corporations? Section 5 does not change the doctrine that municipal corporations do not possess inherent powers of taxation. What it does is to confer municipal corporations a general power to levy taxes and otherwise create sources of revenue.They no longer have to wait for a

statutory grant of these powers. The power of the legislative authority relative to the fiscal powers of local governments has been reduced to the authority to impose limitations on municipal powers. Moreover, these limitations must be consistent with the basic policy of local autonomy.The important legal effect of Section 5 is thus to reverse the principle that doubts are resolved against municipal corporations. Henceforth, in interpreting statutory provisions on municipal fiscal powers, doubts will be resolved in favor of municipal corporations. It is understood, however, that taxes imposed by local government must be for a public purpose, uniform within a locality, must not be confiscatory, and must be within the jurisdiction of the local unit to pass.

 In net effect, the controversy presently before the Court involves, at bottom, a clash between the inherent taxing power of the legislature, which necessarily includes the power to exempt, and the local governments delegated power to tax under the aegis of the 1987 Constitution.

 Now to go back to the Quezon City Revenue Code which imposed real estate taxes on all real properties within the citys territory and removed exemptions theretofore previously granted to, or presently enjoyed by all persons, whether natural or juridical [x x x] there can really be no dispute that the power of the Quezon City Government to tax is limited by Section 232 of the LGC which expressly provides that a province or city or municipality within the Metropolitan Manila Area may levy an annual ad valorem tax on real property such as land, building, machinery, and other improvement not hereinafter specifically exempted. Under this law, the Legislature highlighted its power to thereafter exempt certain realties from the taxing power of local government units. An interpretation denying Congress such power to exempt would reduce the phrase not hereinafter specifically exempted as a pure jargon, without meaning whatsoever. Needless to state, such absurd situation is unacceptable.

 For sure, in Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, Inc. (PLDT) vs. City of Davao, this Court has upheld the power of Congress to grant exemptions over the power of local government units to impose taxes. There, the Court wrote:

 Indeed, the grant of taxing powers to local government units under the Constitution and the LGC does not affect the power of Congress to grant exemptions to certain persons, pursuant to a declared national policy. The legal effect of the constitutional grant to local governments simply means that in interpreting statutory provisions on municipal taxing powers, doubts must be resolved in favor of municipal corporations.[23] (Emphasis supplied)

 In the case under review, the Philippine Congress enacted R.A. No. 7966 on March 30, 1995, subsequent to the effectivity of the LGC on January 1, 1992. Under it, ABS-CBN was granted the franchise to install and operate radio and television broadcasting stations in the Philippines. Likewise, Section 8 imposed on ABS-CBN the duty of paying 3% franchise tax. It bears stressing, however, that payment of the percentage franchise tax shall be in lieu of all taxes on the said franchise.[24]

 Congress has the inherent power to tax, which includes the power to grant tax exemptions. On the other hand, the power of Quezon City to tax is prescribed by Section 151 in relation to Section 137 of the LGC which expressly provides that notwithstanding any exemption granted by any law or other special law, the City may impose a franchise

tax. It must be noted that Section 137 of the LGC does not prohibit grant of future exemptions. As earlier discussed, this Court in City Government of Quezon City v. Bayan Telecommunications, Inc.[25] sustained the power of Congress to grant tax exemptions over and above the power of the local governments delegated power to tax.

 B. The more pertinent issue now to consider is whether or not by passing R.A. No. 7966, which contains the in lieu of all taxes provision, Congress intended to exempt ABS-CBN from local franchise tax.

 Petitioners argue that the in lieu of all taxes provision in ABS-CBNs franchise does not expressly exempt it from payment of local franchise tax. They contend that a tax exemption cannot be created by mere implication and that one who claims tax exemptions must be able to justify his claim by clearest grant of organic law or statute.

 Taxes are what civilized people pay for civilized society. They are the lifeblood of the nation. Thus, statutes granting tax exemptions are construed stricissimi juris against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing authority. A claim of tax exemption must be clearly shown and based on language in law too plain to be mistaken.Otherwise stated, taxation is the rule, exemption is the exception.[26] The burden of proof rests upon the party claiming the exemption to prove that it is in fact covered by the exemption so claimed.[27]

 The basis for the rule on strict construction to statutory provisions granting tax exemptions or deductions is to minimize differential treatment and foster impartiality, fairness and equality of treatment among taxpayers.[28] He who claims an exemption from his share of common burden must justify his claim that the legislature intended to exempt him by unmistakable terms. For exemptions from taxation are not favored in law, nor are they presumed. They must be expressed in the clearest and most unambiguous language and not left to mere implications. It has been held that exemptions are never presumed, the burden is on the claimant to establish clearly his right to exemption and cannot be made out of inference or implications but must be laid beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, since taxation is the rule and exemption the exception, the intention to make an exemption ought to be expressed in clear and unambiguous terms.[29]

 Section 8 of R.A. No. 7966 imposes on ABS-CBN a franchise tax equivalent to three (3) percent of all gross receipts of the radio/television business transacted under the franchise and the franchise tax shall be in lieu of all taxes on the franchise or earnings thereof.

 The in lieu of all taxes provision in the franchise of ABS-CBN does not expressly provide what kind of taxesABS-CBN is exempted from. It is not clear whether the exemption would include both local, whether municipal, city or provincial, and national tax. What is clear is that ABS-CBN shall be liable to pay three (3) percent franchise tax and income taxes under Title II of the NIRC. But whether the in lieu of all taxes provision would include exemption from local tax is not unequivocal.

 As adverted to earlier, the right to exemption from local franchise tax must be clearly established and cannot be made out of inference or implications but must be laid beyond

reasonable doubt. Verily, the uncertainty in the in lieu of all taxes provision should be construed against ABS-CBN. ABS-CBN has the burden to prove that it is in fact covered by the exemption so claimed. ABS-CBN miserably failed in this regard.

 ABS-CBN cites the cases Carcar Electric & Ice Plant v. Collector of Internal Revenue,[30] Manila Railroad v. Rafferty,[31] Philippine Railway Co. v. Collector of Internal Revenue,[32] and Visayan Electric Co. v. David[33] to support its claim that that the in lieu of all taxes clause includes exemption from all taxes.

 However, a review of the foregoing case law reveals that the grantees respective franchises expressly exempt them from municipal and provincial taxes. Said the Court in Manila Railroad v. Rafferty:[34]

 On the 7th day of July 1906, by an Act of the Philippine Legislature, a special charter was granted to the Manila Railroad Company. Subsection 12 of Section 1 of said Act (No. 1510) provides that:

 In consideration of the premises and of the granting of this concession or franchise, there shall be paid by the grantee to the Philippine Government, annually, for the period of thirty (30) years from the date hereof, an amount equal to one-half (1/2) of one per cent of the gross earnings of the grantee in respect of the lines covered hereby for the preceding year; after said period of thirty (30) years, and for the fifty (50) years thereafter, the amount so to be paid annually shall be an amount equal to one and one-half (1) per cent of such gross earnings for the preceding year; and after such period of eighty (80) years, the percentage and amount so to be paid annually by the grantee shall be fixed by the Philippine Government.

 Such annual payments, when promptly and fully made by the grantee, shall be in lieu of all taxes of every name and nature municipal, provincial or central upon its capital stock, franchises, right of way, earnings, and all other property owned or operated by the grantee under this concession or franchise.[35](Underscoring supplied)

 In the case under review, ABS-CBNs franchise did not embody an exemption similar to those in Carcar, Manila Railroad, Philippine Railway, and Visayan Electric. Too, the franchise failed to specify the taxing authority from whose jurisdiction the taxing power is withheld, whether municipal, provincial, or national. In fine, since ABS-CBNfailed to justify its claim for exemption from local franchise tax, by a grant expressed in terms too plain to be mistakenits claim for exemption for local franchise tax must fail.

 C. The in lieu of all taxes clause in the franchise of ABS-CBN has become functus officio with the abolition of the franchise tax on broadcasting companies with yearly gross receipts exceeding Ten Million Pesos.

 In its decision dated January 20, 1999, the RTC held that pursuant to the in lieu of all taxes provision contained in Section 8 of R.A. No. 7966, ABS-CBN is exempt from the payment of the local franchise tax. The RTC further pronounced that ABS-CBN shall instead be liable to pay a franchise tax of 3% of all gross receipts in lieu of all other taxes.

 On this score, the RTC ruling is flawed. In keeping with the laws that have been passed since the grant of ABS-CBNs franchise, the corporation should now be subject to VAT, instead of the 3% franchise tax. At the time of the enactment of its franchise on May 3, 1995, ABS-CBN was subject to 3% franchise tax under Section 117(b) of the 1977 National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), as amended, viz.: SECTION 117. Tax on franchises. Any provision of general or special laws to the contrary notwithstanding, there shall be levied, assessed and collected in respect to all franchise, upon the gross receipts from the business covered by the law granting the franchise, a tax in accordance with the schedule prescribed hereunder: (a) On electric utilities, city gas, and water supplies Two (2%) percent(b) On telephone and/or telegraph systems, radio and/or broadcasting stations Three (3%) percent(c) On other franchises Five (5%) percent. (Emphasis supplied)On January 1, 1996, R.A. No. 7716, otherwise known as the Expanded Value Added Tax Law,[36] took effect and subjected to VAT those services rendered by radio and/or broadcasting stations. Section 3 of R.A. No. 7716 provides: Section 3. Section 102 of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended is hereby further amended to read as follows: SEC. 102. Value-added tax on sale of services and use or lease of properties. (a) Rate and base of tax. There shall be levied, assessed and collected, as value-added tax equivalent to 10% of gross receiptsderived from the sale or exchange of services, including the use or lease of properties. The phrase sale or exchange of services means the performance of all kinds of services in the Philippines, for others for a fee, remuneration or consideration, including those performed or rendered by construction and service contractors; x x x services of franchise grantees of telephone and telegraph, radio and television broadcasting and all other franchise grantees except those under Section 117 of this Code; x x x (Emphasis supplied) Notably, under the same law, telephone and/or telegraph systems, broadcasting stations and other franchise grantees were omitted from the list of entities subject to franchise tax. The impression was that these entities were subject to 10% VAT but not to franchise tax. Only the franchise tax on electric, gas and water utilities remained.Section 12 of R.A. No. 7716 provides: Section 12. Section 117 of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows: SEC. 117. Tax on Franchises. Any provision of general or special law to the contrary notwithstanding there shall be levied, assessed and collected in respect to all franchises on electric, gas and water utilities a tax of two percent (2%) on the gross receipts derived from the business covered by the law granting the franchise. (Emphasis added) Subsequently, R.A. No. 8241[37] took effect on January 1, 1997[38] containing more amendments to the NIRC. Radio and/or television companies whose annual gross receipts do not exceed P10,000,000.00 were granted the option to choose between paying 3% national franchise tax or 10% VAT. Section 9 of R.A. No. 8241 provides: SECTION 9. Section 12 of Republic Act No. 7716 is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 12. Section 117 of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows: Sec. 117. Tax on franchise. Any provision of general or special law to the contrary, notwithstanding,there shall be levied, assessed and collected in respect to all franchises on radio and/or television broadcasting companies whose annual gross receipts of the

preceding year does not exceed Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00), subject to Section 107(d) of this Code, a tax of three percent (3%) and on electric, gas and water utilities, a tax of two percent (2%) on the gross receipts derived from the business covered by the law granting the franchise: Provided, however, That radio and television broadcasting companies referred to in this section, shall have an option to be registered as a value-added tax payer and pay the tax due thereon: Provided, further, That once the option is exercised, it shall not be revoked. (Emphasis supplied) On the other had, radio and/or television companies with yearly gross receipts exceeding P10,000,000.00 were subject to 10% VAT, pursuant to Section 102 of the NIRC. On January 1, 1998, R.A. No. 8424[39] was passed confirming the 10% VAT liability of radio and/or television companies with yearly gross receipts exceeding P10,000,000.00. R.A. No. 9337 was subsequently enacted and became effective on July 1, 2005. The said law further amended the NIRC by increasing the rate of VAT to 12%. The effectivity of the imposition of the 12% VAT was later moved from January 1, 2006 to February 1, 2006. In consonance with the above survey of pertinent laws on the matter, ABS-CBN is subject to the payment of VAT. It does not have the option to choose between the payment of franchise tax or VAT since it is a broadcasting company with yearly gross receipts exceeding Ten Million Pesos (P10,000,000.00). VAT is a percentage tax imposed on any person whether or not a franchise grantee, who in the course of trade or business, sells, barters, exchanges, leases, goods or properties, renders services. It is also levied on every importation of goods whether or not in the course of trade or business. The tax base of the VAT is limited only to the value added to such goods, properties, or services by the seller, transferor or lessor. Further, the VAT is an indirect tax and can be passed on to the buyer.   The franchise tax, on the other hand, is a percentage tax imposed only on franchise holders. It is imposed under Section 119 of the Tax Code and is a direct liability of the franchise grantee. The clause in lieu of all taxes does not pertain to VAT or any other tax. It cannot apply when what is paid is a tax other than a franchise tax. Since the franchise tax on the broadcasting companies with yearly gross receipts exceeding ten million pesos has been abolished, the in lieu of all taxes clause has now become functus officio, rendered inoperative. In sum, ABS-CBNs claims for exemption must fail on twin grounds. First, the in lieu of all taxes clause in its franchise failed to specify the taxes the company is sought to be exempted from. Neither did it particularize the jurisdiction from which the taxing power is withheld. Second, the clause has become functus officio because as the law now stands, ABS-CBN is no longer subject to a franchise tax. It is now liable for VAT. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the appealed Decision REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. The petition in the trial court for refund of local franchise tax is DISMISSED. SO ORDERED.

LLADOC VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE [14 SCRA 292; NO.L-19201; 16 JUN 1965]

Facts: Sometime in 1957, M.B. Estate Inc., of Bacolod City, donated 10,000.00 pesos in cash to Fr. Crispin Ruiz, the parish priest of Victorias, Negros Occidental, and predecessor of Fr. Lladoc, for the construction of a new Catholic church in the locality. The donated amount was spent for such purpose.

On March 3, 1958, the donor M.B. Estate filed the donor's gift taxreturn. Under date of April 29, 1960. Commissioner of Internal Revenue issued an assessment for the donee's gift tax against theCatholic Parish of Victorias of which petitioner was the parish priest.\Issue: Whether or not the imposition of gift tax despite the fact the Fr. Lladoc was not the Parish priest at the time of donation,Catholic Parish priest of Victorias did not have juridical personality as the constitutional exemption for religious purpose is valid. 

Held: Yes, imposition of the gift tax was valid, under Section 22(3) Article VI of the Constitution contemplates exemption only from payment of taxes assessed on such properties as Property taxescontra distinguished from Excise taxes The imposition of the gift taxon the property used for religious purpose is not a violation of the Constitution. A gift tax is not a property by way of gift inter vivos.The head of the Diocese and not the parish priest is the real party in interest in the imposition of the donee's tax on the property donated to the church for religious purpose.

G.R. No. L-19201 June 16, 1965REV. FR. CASIMIRO LLADOC, petitioner,

vs.The COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE and The COURT of TAX APPEALS, respondents.

Hilado and Hilado for petitioner.Office of the Solicitor General for respondents.

PAREDES, J.:

Sometime in 1957, the M.B. Estate, Inc., of Bacolod City, donated P10,000.00 in cash to Rev. Fr. Crispin Ruiz, then parish priest of Victorias, Negros Occidental, and predecessor of herein petitioner, for the construction of a new Catholic Church in the locality. The total amount was actually spent for the purpose intended.

On March 3, 1958, the donor M.B. Estate, Inc., filed the donor's gift tax return. Under date of April 29, 1960, the respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue issued an assessment for donee's gift tax against the Catholic Parish of Victorias, Negros Occidental, of which petitioner was the priest. The tax amounted to P1,370.00 including surcharges, interests of 1% monthly from May 15, 1958 to June 15, 1960, and the compromise for the late filing of the return.

Petitioner lodged a protest to the assessment and requested the withdrawal thereof. The protest and the motion for reconsideration presented to the Commissioner of Internal

Revenue were denied. The petitioner appealed to the Court of Tax Appeals on November 2, 1960. In the petition for review, the Rev. Fr. Casimiro Lladoc claimed, among others, that at the time of the donation, he was not the parish priest in Victorias; that there is no legal entity or juridical person known as the "Catholic Parish Priest of Victorias," and, therefore, he should not be liable for the donee's gift tax. It was also asserted that the assessment of the gift tax, even against the Roman Catholic Church, would not be valid, for such would be a clear violation of the provisions of the Constitution.

After hearing, the CTA rendered judgment, the pertinent portions of which are quoted below:

... . Parish priests of the Roman Catholic Church under canon laws are similarly situated as its Archbishops and Bishops with respect to the properties of the church within their parish. They are the guardians, superintendents or administrators of these properties, with the right of succession and may sue and be sued.

x x x           x x x           x x x

The petitioner impugns the, fairness of the assessment with the argument that he should not be held liable for gift taxes on donation which he did not receive personally since he was not yet the parish priest of Victorias in the year 1957 when said donation was given. It is intimated that if someone has to pay at all, it should be petitioner's predecessor, the Rev. Fr. Crispin Ruiz, who received the donation in behalf of the Catholic parish of Victorias or the Roman Catholic Church. Following petitioner's line of thinking, we should be equally unfair to hold that the assessment now in question should have been addressed to, and collected from, the Rev. Fr. Crispin Ruiz to be paid from income derived from his present parish where ever it may be. It does not seem right to indirectly burden the present parishioners of Rev. Fr. Ruiz for donee's gift tax on a donation to which they were not benefited.

x x x           x x x           x x x

We saw no legal basis then as we see none now, to include within the Constitutional exemption, taxes which partake of the nature of an excise upon the use made of the properties or upon the exercise of the privilege of receiving the properties. (Phipps vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 91 F [2d] 627; 1938, 302 U.S. 742.)

It is a cardinal rule in taxation that exemptions from payment thereof are highly disfavored by law, and the party claiming exemption must justify his claim by a clear, positive, or express grant of such privilege by law. (Collector vs. Manila Jockey Club, G.R. No. L-8755, March 23, 1956; 53 O.G. 3762.)

The phrase "exempt from taxation" as employed in Section 22(3), Article VI of the Constitution of the Philippines, should not be interpreted to mean exemption from all kinds of taxes. Statutes exempting charitable and religious property from taxation should be construed fairly though strictly and in such manner as to give effect to the main intent of the lawmakers. (Roman Catholic Church vs. Hastrings 5 Phil. 701.)

x x x           x x x           x x x

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, the decision of the respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue appealed from, is hereby affirmed except with regard to the imposition of the compromise penalty in the amount of P20.00 (Collector of Internal Revenue v. U.S.T., G.R. No. L-11274, Nov. 28, 1958); ..., and the petitioner, the Rev. Fr. Casimiro Lladoc is hereby ordered to pay to the respondent the amount of P900.00 as donee's gift tax, plus the surcharge of five per centum (5%) as ad valorem penalty under Section 119 (c) of the Tax Code, and one per centum (1%) monthly interest from May 15, 1958 to the date of actual payment. The surcharge of 25% provided in Section 120 for failure to file a return may not be imposed as the failure to file a return was not due to willful neglect.( ... ) No costs.

The above judgment is now before us on appeal, petitioner assigning two (2) errors allegedly committed by the Tax Court, all of which converge on the singular issue of whether or not petitioner should be liable for the assessed donee's gift tax on the P10,000.00 donated for the construction of the Victorias Parish Church.

Section 22 (3), Art. VI of the Constitution of the Philippines, exempts from taxation cemeteries, churches and parsonages or convents, appurtenant thereto, and all lands, buildings, and improvements used exclusively for religious purposes. The exemption is only from the payment of taxes assessed on such properties enumerated, as property taxes, as contra distinguished from excise taxes. In the present case, what the Collector assessed was a donee's gift tax; the assessment was not on the properties themselves. It did not rest upon general ownership; it was an excise upon the use made of the properties, upon the exercise of the privilege of receiving the properties (Phipps vs. Com. of Int. Rec. 91 F 2d 627). Manifestly, gift tax is not within the exempting provisions of the section just mentioned. A gift tax is not a property tax, but an excise tax imposed on the transfer of property by way of giftinter vivos, the imposition of which on property used exclusively for religious purposes, does not constitute an impairment of the Constitution. As well observed by the learned respondent Court, the phrase "exempt from taxation," as employed in the Constitution (supra) should not be interpreted to mean exemption from all kinds of taxes. And there being no clear, positive or express grant of such privilege by law, in favor of petitioner, the exemption herein must be denied.

The next issue which readily presents itself, in view of petitioner's thesis, and Our finding that a tax liability exists, is, who should be called upon to pay the gift tax? Petitioner postulates that he should not be liable, because at the time of the donation he was not the priest of Victorias. We note the merit of the above claim, and in order to put things in their proper light, this Court, in its Resolution of March 15, 1965, ordered the parties to show cause why the Head of the Diocese to which the parish of Victorias pertains, should not be substituted in lieu of petitioner Rev. Fr. Casimiro Lladoc it appearing that the Head of such Diocese is the real party in interest. The Solicitor General, in representation of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, interposed no objection to such a substitution. Counsel for the petitioner did not also offer objection thereto.

On April 30, 1965, in a resolution, We ordered the Head of the Diocese to present whatever legal issues and/or defenses he might wish to raise, to which resolution counsel for petitioner, who also appeared as counsel for the Head of the Diocese, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Bacolod, manifested that it was submitting itself to the

jurisdiction and orders of this Court and that it was presenting, by reference, the brief of petitioner Rev. Fr. Casimiro Lladoc as its own and for all purposes.

In view here of and considering that as heretofore stated, the assessment at bar had been properly made and the imposition of the tax is not a violation of the constitutional provision exempting churches, parsonages or convents, etc. (Art VI, sec. 22 [3], Constitution), the Head of the Diocese, to which the parish Victorias Pertains, is liable for the payment thereof.

The decision appealed from should be, as it is hereby affirmed insofar as tax liability is concerned; it is modified, in the sense that petitioner herein is not personally liable for the said gift tax, and that the Head of the Diocese, herein substitute petitioner, should pay, as he is presently ordered to pay, the said gift tax, without special, pronouncement as to costs.

Abra Valley College v. Aquino

Facts:

                Petitioner, an educational corporation and institution of higher learning duly incorporated with the Securities and Exchange Commission in 1948, filed a complaint to annul and declare void the “Notice of Seizure’ and the “Notice of Sale” of its lot and building located at Bangued, Abra, for non-payment of real estate taxes and penalties amounting to P5,140.31. Said “Notice of Seizure” by respondents Municipal Treasurer and Provincial Treasurer, defendants below, was issued for the satisfaction of the said taxes thereon.

The parties entered into a stipulation of facts adopted and embodied by the trial court in its questioned decision. The trial court ruled for the government, holding that the second floor of the building is being used by the director for residential purposes and that the ground floor used and rented by Northern Marketing Corporation, a commercial establishment, and thus the property is not being used exclusively for educational purposes. Instead of perfecting an appeal, petitioner availed of the instant petition for review on certiorari with prayer for preliminary injunction before the Supreme Court, by filing said petition on 17 August 1974.

Issue:

                whether or not the lot and building are used exclusively for educational purposes

Held:

                Section 22, paragraph 3, Article VI, of the then 1935 Philippine Constitution, expressly grants exemption from realty taxes for cemeteries, churches and parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto, and all lands, buildings, and improvements used exclusively for religious, charitable or educational purposes.ﾝ Reasonable emphasis has always been made that the exemption extends to facilities which are incidental to and reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the main purposes. The use of the school building or lot for commercial purposes is neither contemplated by law, nor by jurisprudence. In the case at bar, the lease of the first floor of the building to the Northern Marketing Corporation cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered incidental to the purpose of education. The test of exemption from taxation is the use of the property for purposes mentioned in the Constitution.

                The decision of the CFI Abra (Branch I) is affirmed subject to the modification that half of the assessed tax be returned to the petitioner. The modification is derived from the fact that the ground floor is being used for commercial purposes (leased) and the second floor being used as incidental to education (residence of the director).

SECOND DIVISIONG.R. No. L-39086 June 15, 1988

ABRA VALLEY COLLEGE, INC., represented by PEDRO V. BORGONIA, petitioner, vs.

HON. JUAN P. AQUINO, Judge, Court of First Instance, Abra; ARMIN M. CARIAGA, Provincial Treasurer, Abra; GASPAR V. BOSQUE, Municipal Treasurer, Bangued, Abra; HEIRS OF

PATERNO MILLARE,respondents.

 PARAS, J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision * of the defunct Court of First Instance of Abra, Branch I, dated June 14, 1974, rendered in Civil Case No. 656, entitled "Abra Valley Junior College, Inc., represented by Pedro V. Borgonia, plaintiff vs. Armin M. Cariaga as Provincial Treasurer of Abra, Gaspar V. Bosque as Municipal Treasurer of Bangued, Abra and Paterno Millare, defendants," the decretal portion of which reads:

IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Court hereby declares:

That the distraint seizure and sale by the Municipal Treasurer of Bangued, Abra, the Provincial Treasurer of said province against the lot and building of the Abra Valley Junior College, Inc., represented by Director Pedro Borgonia located at Bangued, Abra, is valid;

That since the school is not exempt from paying taxes, it should therefore pay all back taxes in the amount of P5,140.31 and back taxes and penalties from the promulgation of this decision;

That the amount deposited by the plaintaff him the sum of P60,000.00 before the trial, be confiscated to apply for the payment of the back taxes and for the redemption of the property in question, if the amount is less than P6,000.00, the remainder must be returned to the Director of Pedro Borgonia, who represents the plaintiff herein;

That the deposit of the Municipal Treasurer in the amount of P6,000.00 also before the trial must be returned to said Municipal Treasurer of Bangued, Abra;

And finally the case is hereby ordered dismissed with costs against the plaintiff.

SO ORDERED. (Rollo, pp. 22-23)

Petitioner, an educational corporation and institution of higher learning duly incorporated with the Securities and Exchange Commission in 1948, filed a complaint (Annex "1" of Answer by the respondents Heirs of Paterno Millare; Rollo, pp. 95-97) on July 10, 1972 in the court a quo to annul and declare void the "Notice of Seizure' and the "Notice of Sale" of its lot and building located at Bangued, Abra, for non-payment of real estate taxes and penalties amounting to P5,140.31. Said "Notice of Seizure" of the college lot and building covered by Original Certificate of Title No. Q-83 duly registered in the name of petitioner, plaintiff below, on July 6, 1972, by respondents Municipal Treasurer and Provincial Treasurer, defendants below, was issued for the satisfaction of the said taxes thereon. The "Notice of Sale" was caused to be served upon the petitioner by the

respondent treasurers on July 8, 1972 for the sale at public auction of said college lot and building, which sale was held on the same date. Dr. Paterno Millare, then Municipal Mayor of Bangued, Abra, offered the highest bid of P6,000.00 which was duly accepted. The certificate of sale was correspondingly issued to him.

On August 10, 1972, the respondent Paterno Millare (now deceased) filed through counstel a motion to dismiss the complaint.

On August 23, 1972, the respondent Provincial Treasurer and Municipal Treasurer, through then Provincial Fiscal Loreto C. Roldan, filed their answer (Annex "2" of Answer by the respondents Heirs of Patemo Millare; Rollo, pp. 98-100) to the complaint. This was followed by an amended answer (Annex "3," ibid, Rollo, pp. 101-103) on August 31, 1972.

On September 1, 1972 the respondent Paterno Millare filed his answer (Annex "5," ibid; Rollo, pp. 106-108).

On October 12, 1972, with the aforesaid sale of the school premises at public auction, the respondent Judge, Hon. Juan P. Aquino of the Court of First Instance of Abra, Branch I, ordered (Annex "6," ibid; Rollo, pp. 109-110) the respondents provincial and municipal treasurers to deliver to the Clerk of Court the proceeds of the auction sale. Hence, on December 14, 1972, petitioner, through Director Borgonia, deposited with the trial court the sum of P6,000.00 evidenced by PNB Check No. 904369.

On April 12, 1973, the parties entered into a stipulation of facts adopted and embodied by the trial court in its questioned decision. Said Stipulations reads:

STIPULATION OF FACTS

COME NOW the parties, assisted by counsels, and to this Honorable Court respectfully enter into the following agreed stipulation of facts:

1. That the personal circumstances of the parties as stated in paragraph 1 of the complaint is admitted; but the particular person of Mr. Armin M. Cariaga is to be substituted, however, by anyone who is actually holding the position of Provincial Treasurer of the Province of Abra;

2. That the plaintiff Abra Valley Junior College, Inc. is the owner of the lot and buildings thereon located in Bangued, Abra under Original Certificate of Title No. 0-83;

3. That the defendant Gaspar V. Bosque, as Municipal treasurer of Bangued, Abra caused to be served upon the Abra Valley Junior College, Inc. a Notice of Seizure on the property of said school under Original Certificate of Title No. 0-83 for the satisfaction of real property taxes thereon, amounting to P5,140.31; the Notice of Seizure being the one attached to the complaint as Exhibit A;

4. That on June 8, 1972 the above properties of the Abra Valley Junior College, Inc. was sold at public auction for the satisfaction of the unpaid real property taxes thereon and

the same was sold to defendant Paterno Millare who offered the highest bid of P6,000.00 and a Certificate of Sale in his favor was issued by the defendant Municipal Treasurer.

5. That all other matters not particularly and specially covered by this stipulation of facts will be the subject of evidence by the parties.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed of the Honorable Court to consider and admit this stipulation of facts on the point agreed upon by the parties.

Bangued, Abra, April 12, 1973.

Sgd. Agripino Brillantes Typ AGRIPINO BRILLANTES Attorney for Plaintiff

Sgd. Loreto Roldan Typ LORETO ROLDAN Provincial Fiscal Counsel for Defendants Provincial Treasurer of Abra and the Municipal Treasurer of Bangued, Abra

Sgd. Demetrio V. Pre Typ. DEMETRIO V. PRE Attorney for Defendant Paterno Millare (Rollo, pp. 17-18)

Aside from the Stipulation of Facts, the trial court among others, found the following: (a) that the school is recognized by the government and is offering Primary, High School and College Courses, and has a school population of more than one thousand students all in all; (b) that it is located right in the heart of the town of Bangued, a few meters from the plaza and about 120 meters from the Court of First Instance building; (c) that the elementary pupils are housed in a two-storey building across the street; (d) that the high school and college students are housed in the main building; (e) that the Director with his family is in the second floor of the main building; and (f) that the annual gross income of the school reaches more than one hundred thousand pesos.

From all the foregoing, the only issue left for the Court to determine and as agreed by the parties, is whether or not the lot and building in question are used exclusively for educational purposes. (Rollo, p. 20)

The succeeding Provincial Fiscal, Hon. Jose A. Solomon and his Assistant, Hon. Eustaquio Z. Montero, filed a Memorandum for the Government on March 25, 1974, and a Supplemental Memorandum on May 7, 1974, wherein they opined "that based on the evidence, the laws applicable, court decisions and jurisprudence, the school building and school lot used for educational purposes of the Abra Valley College, Inc., are exempted from the payment of taxes." (Annexes "B," "B-1" of Petition; Rollo, pp. 24-49; 44 and 49).

Nonetheless, the trial court disagreed because of the use of the second floor by the Director of petitioner school for residential purposes. He thus ruled for the government and rendered the assailed decision.

After having been granted by the trial court ten (10) days from August 6, 1974 within which to perfect its appeal (Per Order dated August 6, 1974; Annex "G" of Petition; Rollo, p. 57) petitioner instead availed of the instant petition for review on certiorari with prayer for preliminary injunction before this Court, which petition was filed on August 17, 1974 (Rollo, p.2).

In the resolution dated August 16, 1974, this Court resolved to give DUE COURSE to the petition (Rollo, p. 58). Respondents were required to answer said petition (Rollo, p. 74).

Petitioner raised the following assignments of error:

I

THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN SUSTAINING AS VALID THE SEIZURE AND SALE OF THE COLLEGE LOT AND BUILDING USED FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES OF THE PETITIONER.

II

THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN DECLARING THAT THE COLLEGE LOT AND BUILDING OF THE PETITIONER ARE NOT USED EXCLUSIVELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES MERELY BECAUSE THE COLLEGE PRESIDENT RESIDES IN ONE ROOM OF THE COLLEGE BUILDING.

III

THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN DECLARING THAT THE COLLEGE LOT AND BUILDING OF THE PETITIONER ARE NOT EXEMPT FROM PROPERTY TAXES AND IN ORDERING PETITIONER TO PAY P5,140.31 AS REALTY TAXES.

IV

THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN ORDERING THE CONFISCATION OF THE P6,000.00 DEPOSIT MADE IN THE COURT BY PETITIONER AS PAYMENT OF THE P5,140.31 REALTY TAXES. (See Brief for the Petitioner, pp. 1-2)

The main issue in this case is the proper interpretation of the phrase "used exclusively for educational purposes."

Petitioner contends that the primary use of the lot and building for educational purposes, and not the incidental use thereof, determines and exemption from property taxes under Section 22 (3), Article VI of the 1935 Constitution. Hence, the seizure and sale of subject college lot and building, which are contrary thereto as well as to the provision of

Commonwealth Act No. 470, otherwise known as the Assessment Law, are without legal basis and therefore void.

On the other hand, private respondents maintain that the college lot and building in question which were subjected to seizure and sale to answer for the unpaid tax are used: (1) for the educational purposes of the college; (2) as the permanent residence of the President and Director thereof, Mr. Pedro V. Borgonia, and his family including the in-laws and grandchildren; and (3) for commercial purposes because the ground floor of the college building is being used and rented by a commercial establishment, the Northern Marketing Corporation (See photograph attached as Annex "8" (Comment; Rollo, p. 90]).

Due to its time frame, the constitutional provision which finds application in the case at bar is Section 22, paragraph 3, Article VI, of the then 1935 Philippine Constitution, which expressly grants exemption from realty taxes for "Cemeteries, churches and parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto, and all lands, buildings, and improvements used exclusively for religious, charitable or educational purposes ...

Relative thereto, Section 54, paragraph c, Commonwealth Act No. 470 as amended by Republic Act No. 409, otherwise known as the Assessment Law, provides:

The following are exempted from real property tax under the Assessment Law:

xxx xxx xxx

(c) churches and parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto, and all lands, buildings, and improvements used exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific or educational purposes.

xxx xxx xxx

In this regard petitioner argues that the primary use of the school lot and building is the basic and controlling guide, norm and standard to determine tax exemption, and not the mere incidental use thereof.

As early as 1916 in YMCA of Manila vs. Collector of lnternal Revenue, 33 Phil. 217 [1916], this Court ruled that while it may be true that the YMCA keeps a lodging and a boarding house and maintains a restaurant for its members, still these do not constitute business in the ordinary acceptance of the word, but an institution used exclusively for religious, charitable and educational purposes, and as such, it is entitled to be exempted from taxation.

In the case of Bishop of Nueva Segovia v. Provincial Board of Ilocos Norte, 51 Phil. 352 [1972], this Court included in the exemption a vegetable garden in an adjacent lot and another lot formerly used as a cemetery. It was clarified that the term "used exclusively" considers incidental use also. Thus, the exemption from payment of land tax in favor of the convent includes, not only the land actually occupied by the building but also the adjacent garden devoted to the incidental use of the parish priest. The lot which is not

used for commercial purposes but serves solely as a sort of lodging place, also qualifies for exemption because this constitutes incidental use in religious functions.

The phrase "exclusively used for educational purposes" was further clarified by this Court in the cases of Herrera vs. Quezon City Board of assessment Appeals, 3 SCRA 186 [1961] and Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Bishop of the Missionary District, 14 SCRA 991 [1965], thus —

Moreover, the exemption in favor of property used exclusively for charitable or educational purposes is 'not limited to property actually indispensable' therefor (Cooley on Taxation, Vol. 2, p. 1430), but extends to facilities which are incidental to and reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of said purposes, such as in the case of hospitals, "a school for training nurses, a nurses' home, property use to provide housing facilities for interns, resident doctors, superintendents, and other members of the hospital staff, and recreational facilities for student nurses, interns, and residents' (84 CJS 6621), such as "Athletic fields" including "a firm used for the inmates of the institution. (Cooley on Taxation, Vol. 2, p. 1430).

The test of exemption from taxation is the use of the property for purposes mentioned in the Constitution (Apostolic Prefect v. City Treasurer of Baguio, 71 Phil, 547 [1941]).

It must be stressed however, that while this Court allows a more liberal and non-restrictive interpretation of the phrase "exclusively used for educational purposes" as provided for in Article VI, Section 22, paragraph 3 of the 1935 Philippine Constitution, reasonable emphasis has always been made that exemption extends to facilities which are incidental to and reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the main purposes. Otherwise stated, the use of the school building or lot for commercial purposes is neither contemplated by law, nor by jurisprudence. Thus, while the use of the second floor of the main building in the case at bar for residential purposes of the Director and his family, may find justification under the concept of incidental use, which is complimentary to the main or primary purpose—educational, the lease of the first floor thereof to the Northern Marketing Corporation cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered incidental to the purpose of education.

It will be noted however that the aforementioned lease appears to have been raised for the first time in this Court. That the matter was not taken up in the to court is really apparent in the decision of respondent Judge. No mention thereof was made in the stipulation of facts, not even in the description of the school building by the trial judge, both embodied in the decision nor as one of the issues to resolve in order to determine whether or not said properly may be exempted from payment of real estate taxes (Rollo, pp. 17-23). On the other hand, it is noteworthy that such fact was not disputed even after it was raised in this Court.

Indeed, it is axiomatic that facts not raised in the lower court cannot be taken up for the first time on appeal. Nonetheless, as an exception to the rule, this Court has held that although a factual issue is not squarely raised below, still in the interest of substantial justice, this Court is not prevented from considering a pivotal factual matter. "The Supreme Court is clothed with ample authority to review palpable errors not assigned as such if it finds that their consideration is necessary in arriving at a just decision." (Perez vs. Court of Appeals, 127 SCRA 645 [1984]).

Under the 1935 Constitution, the trial court correctly arrived at the conclusion that the school building as well as the lot where it is built, should be taxed, not because the second floor of the same is being used by the Director and his family for residential purposes, but because the first floor thereof is being used for commercial purposes. However, since only a portion is used for purposes of commerce, it is only fair that half of the assessed tax be returned to the school involved.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the decision of the Court of First Instance of Abra, Branch I, is hereby AFFIRMED subject to the modification that half of the assessed tax be returned to the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Herrera vs. The Quezon City Board Of Assessment Appeals

FACTS:

            Petitioners Jose and Ester Herrera were authorized by the Director of the Bureau of Hospitals to establish and operate the St. Catherine's Hospital.  In 1953, the petitioners sent a letter to the Quezon City Assessor requesting exemption from payment of real estate tax on the lot, building and other improvements comprising the hospital stating that the same was established for charitable and humanitarian purposes and not for commercial gain which was granted effective the years 1953 to 1955.  Subsequently, however, in a letter dated August 10, 1955 the Quezon City Assessor notified the petitioners that the aforesaid properties were re-classified from exempt to "taxable" and thus assessed for real property taxes effective 1956. The petitioners appealed the assessment to the Quezon City Board of Assessment Appeals, which, affirmed the decision of the City Assessor. A motion for reconsideration thereof was denied. From this decision, the petitioners instituted the instant appeal.

            The building involved in this case is principally used as a hospital.  From the evidence presented by petitioners, it is made to appear that there are two kinds of charity patients  (a) those who come for consultation only ("out-charity patients"); and (b) those who remain in the hospital for treatment ("lying-in-patients").  Petitioners also operate within the premises of the hospital the "St. Catherine's School of Midwifery" which was granted government recognition by the Secretary of Education.  The students practice in the St. Catherine's Hospital, as well as in the St. Mary's Hospital, which is also owned by the petitioners. A separate set of accounting books is maintained by the school for midwifery distinct from that kept by the hospital.  However, the petitioners have refused to submit a separate statement of accounts of the school.

ISSUE:

            Whether or not the said properties are used exclusively for charitable or educational purposes which are exempt from real property tax

HELD:

            YES.

  The Court of Tax Appeals decided the issue in the negative, upon the ground that the St. Catherine's Hospital has a pay ward for ... pay-patients, who are charged for the use of the private rooms, operating room, laboratory room, delivery room, etc., like other hospitals operated for profit and that petitioners and their family occupy a portion of the building for their residence.

            It should be noted, however, that, according to the very statement of facts made in the decision appealed from, of the thirty-two (32) beds in the hospital, twenty (20) are for charity-patients; that the income realized from pay-patients is spent for improvement of the charity wards; and that petitioners, Dr. Ester Ochangco Herrera, as directress of said hospital, does not receive any salary, although its resident physician gets a monthly salary of P170.00. It is well settled, in this connection, that the admission of pay-patients

does not detract from the charitable character of a hospital, if all its funds are devoted exclusively to the maintenance of the institution as a public charity.  In other words, where rendering charity is its primary object, and the funds derived from payments made by patients able to pay are devoted to the benevolent purposes of the institution, the mere fact that a profit has been made will not deprive the hospital of its benevolent character.

            Moreover, the exemption in favor of property used exclusively for charitable or educational purposes is not limited to property actually indispensable therefor but extends to facilities which are incidental to and reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of said purposes, such as, in the case of hospitals, a school for training nurses, a nurses' home, property use to provide housing facilities for interns, resident doctors, superintendents, and other members of the hospital staff, and recreational facilities for student nurses, interns and residents.

Within the purview of the Constitutional exemption from taxation, the St. Catherine's Hospital is, therefore, a charitable institution, and the fact that it admits pay-patients does not bar it from claiming that it is devoted exclusively to benevolent purposes, it being admitted that the income derived from pay-patients is devoted to the improvement of the charity wards, which represent almost two-thirds (2/3) of the bed capacity of the hospital, aside from "out-charity patients" who come only for consultation.

EN BANCG.R. No. L-15270 September 30, 1961

JOSE V. HERRERA and ESTER OCHANGCO HERRERA, petitioners, vs.

THE QUEZON CITY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, respondent.Angel A. Sison for petitioners.Jaime Agloro for respondent.

CONCEPCION, J.:

Appeal, by petitioners Jose V. Herrera and Ester Ochangco Herrera, from a decision of the Court of Tax Appeals affirming that of the Board of Assessment Appeals of Quezon City, which held that certain properties of said petitioners are subject to assessment for purposes of real estate tax.

The facts and the issue are set forth in the aforementioned decision of the Court of Tax Appeals, from which we quote:

On July 24, 1952, the Director of the Bureau of Hospitals authorized the petitioners to establish and operate the "St. Catherine's Hospital", located at 58 D. Tuazon, Sta. Mesa Heights, Quezon City (Exhibit "F-1", p. 7, BIR rec.). On or about January 3, 1953, the petitioners sent a letter to the Quezon City Assessor requesting exemption from payment of real estate tax on the lot, building and other improvements comprising the hospital stating that the same was established for charitable and humanitarian purposes and not for commercial gain (Exhibit "F-2", pp. 8-9, BIR rec.). After an inspection of the premises in question and after a careful study of the case, the exemption from real property taxes was granted effective the years 1953, 1954 and 1955.

Subsequently, however, in a letter dated August 10, 1955 (Exhibit "E", p. 65, CTA rec.) the Quezon City Assessor notified the petitioners that the aforesaid properties were re-classified from exempt to "taxable" and thus assessed for real property taxes effective 1956, enclosing therewith copies of Tax Declarations Nos. 19321 to 19322 covering the said properties. The petitioners appealed the assessment to the Quezon City Board of Assessment Appeals, which, in a decision dated March 31, 1956 and received by the former on May 17, 1956, affirmed the decision of the City Assessor. A motion for reconsideration thereof was denied on March 8, 1957. From this decision, the petitioners instituted the instant appeal.1awphîl.nèt

The building involved in this case is principally used as a hospital. It is mainly a surgical and orthopedic hospital with emphasis on obstetrical cases, the latter constituting 90% of the total number of cases registered therein. The hospital has thirty-two (32) beds, of which twenty (20) are for charity-patients and twelve (12) for pay-patients. From the evidence presented by petitioners, it is made to appear that there are two kinds of charity patients — (a) those who come for consultation only ("out-charity patients"); and (b) those who remain in the hospital for treatment ("lying-in-patients"). The out-charity patients are given free consultation and prescription, although sometimes they are furnished with free medicines which are not costly like aspirin, sulfatiazole, etc. The charity lying-in-patients are given free medical service and medicine although the food served to the pay-patients is very much better than that given to the former. Although no condition is imposed by the hospital on the admission of charity lying-in-patients, they however, usually give donations to the hospital. On the other hand, the pay-patients are required to pay for hospital services ranging from the minimum charge of P5.00 to the maximum of P40.00 for each day of stay in the hospital. The income realized from pay-patients is spent for the improvement of the charity wards. The hospital personnel is composed of three nurses, two graduate midwives, a resident physician receiving a salary of P170.00 a month and the petitioner, Dr. Ester Ochangco Herrera, as directress. As such directress, the latter does not receive any salary.

Petitioners also operate within the premises of the hospital the "St. Catherine's School of Midwifery" which was granted government recognition by the Secretary of Education on February 1, 1955 (Exhibit "F-3", p. 10, BIR rec.) This school has an enrollment of about two hundred students. The students are charged a matriculation fee of P300.00 for 1-½ years, plus P50.00 a month for board and lodging, which includes transportation to the St. Mary's Hospital. The students practice in the St. Catherine's Hospital, as well as in the St. Mary's Hospital, which is also owned by the petitioners. A separate set of accounting books is maintained by the school for midwifery distinct from that kept by the hospital. The petitioners alleged that the accounts of the school are not included in Exhibits "A", "A-1", "A-2", "B", "B-1", "B-2", "C", "C-1" and "C-2" which relate to the hospital only. However, the petitioners have refused to submit a separate statement of accounts of the school. A brief tabulation indicating the amount of income of the hospital for the years 1954, 1955 and 1956, and its operational expenses, is as follows:

1 9 5 4

Income Expenses Deficit

Charity Ward Pay Ward

P14,779.50 P 5,280.04P10,803.26

P1,303.80

P16,083.30

(Exhibits "A", "A-1" and "A-2")

1 9 5 5

Income Expenses Deficit

Charity Ward Pay Ward

P17,433.30

P 6,859.3214,038.92

P20,898.24

P3,464.94

(Exhibits "B", "B-1" and "B-2")

1 9 5 6

Income Expenses Deficit

Charity Ward Pay Ward

P21,467.40

P 5,559.8916,249.04

P21,809.93

P 341.53

(Exhibits "C", "C-1" and "C-2")

Aside from the St. Catherine and St. Mary hospitals, the petitioners declared that they also own lands and coconut plantations in Quezon Province, and other real estate in the City of Manila consisting of apartments for rent. The petitioner, Jose V. Herrera, is an architect, actively engaged in the practice of his profession, with office at Tuason Building, Escolta, Manila. He was formerly Chairman, Board of Examiners for Architects and Chairman, Board of Architects connected with the United Nations. He was also connected with the Allied Technologists which constructed the Veterans Hospital in Quezon City.

The only issue raised, is whether or not the lot, building and other improvements occupied by the St. Catherine Hospital are exempt from the real property tax. The resolution of this question boils down to the corollary issue as to whether or not the said properties are used exclusively for charitable or educational purposes. (Petitioners' brief, pp. 24-29).

The Court of Tax Appeals decided the issue in the negative, upon the ground that the St. Catherine's Hospital "has a pay ward for ... pay-patients, who are charged for the use of the private rooms, operating room, laboratory room, delivery room, etc., like other

hospitals operated for profit" and that "petitioners and their family occupy a portion of the building for their residence." With respect to petitioners' claim for exemption based upon the operation of the school of midwifery, the Court conceded that "the proposition might be proper if the property used for the school of midwifery were separate and distinct from the hospital." It added, however, that, "in the instant case, the portions of the building used for classrooms of the school of midwifery have not been shown to be exclusively for school purposes"; that said portions "rather ... have a dual use, i.e., for classroom and for hospital use, the latter not being a purpose that renders the property tax exempt;" that part of the building and lot in question "is used as a hospital, part as residence of the petitioners, part as garage, part as dormitory and part as school"; and that "the portion dedicated to educational and charitable purposes can not be identified from those destined to other uses; and the building is itself an indivisible unit of property."

It should be noted, however, that, according to the very statement of facts made in the decision appealed from, of the thirty-two (32) beds in the hospital, twenty (20) are for charity-patients; that "the income realized from pay-patients is spent for improvement of the charity wards;" and that "petitioners, Dr. Ester Ochangco Herrera, as directress" of said hospital, "does not receive any salary," although its resident physician gets a monthly salary of P170.00. It is well settled, in this connection, that the admission of pay-patients does not detract from the charitable character of a hospital, if all its funds are devoted "exclusively to the maintenance of the institution" as a "public charity" (84 C.J.S., 617; see, also, 51 Am. Jur. 607; Cooley on Taxation, Vol. 2, p. 1562; 144 A.L.R., 1489-1492). "In other words, where rendering charity is its primary object, and the funds derived from payments made by patients able to pay are devoted to the benevolent purposes of the institution, the mere fact that a profit has been made will not deprive the hospital of its benevolent character" (Prairie Du Chien Sanitarium Co. vs. City of Prairie Du Chien, 242 Wis. 262, 7 NW [2d] 832, 144 A.L.R. 1480).

Thus, we have held that the U.S.T. Hospital was not established for profit-making purposes, although it had 140 paying beds maintained only to partly finance the expenses of the free wards, containing 203 beds for charity patients (U.S.T. Hospital Employees Association vs. Sto. Tomas University Hospital, L-6988, May 24, 1954), that St. Paul's Hospital of Iloilo, a corporation organized for "charitable educational and religious purposes" can not be considered as engaged in business merely because its pharmacy department charges paying patients the cost of their medicine, plus 10% thereof, to partly offset the cost of medicines supplied free of charge to charity patients (Collector of Internal Revenue vs. St. Paul's Hospital of Iloilo, L-12127, May 25, 1959), and that the amendment of the original articles of incorporation of the University of Visayas to convert it from a non-stock to a stock corporation and the increase of its assets from P9,000 to P50,000, distributed among the members of the original non-stock corporation in terms of shares of stock, as well as the subsequent move of its board of trustees to double the stock dividends of the corporation, in view of a gain of P200,000.00 in property, besides good-will, which was not carried out, does not justify the inference that the corporation has become one for business and profit, none of its profits having inured to the benefit of any stockholder or individual (Collector of Internal Revenue vs. University of Visayas, L-13554, February 28, 1961).

Moreover, the exemption in favor of property used exclusively for charitable or educational purposes is "not limited to property actually indispensable" therefor (Cooley on Taxation, Vol. 2, p. 1430), but extends to facilities which are "incidental to and reasonably necessary for" the accomplishment of said purposes, such as, in the case of

hospitals, "a school for training nurses, a nurses' home, property use to provide housing facilities for interns, resident doctors, superintendents, and other members of the hospital staff, and recreational facilities for student nurses, interns and residents" (84 C.J.S., 621), such as "athletic fields," including "a farm used for the inmates of the institution" (Cooley on Taxation, Vol. 2, p. 1430).

Within the purview of the Constitutional exemption from taxation, the St. Catherine's Hospital is, therefore, a charitable institution, and the fact that it admits pay-patients does not bar it from claiming that it is devoted exclusively to benevolent purposes, it being admitted that the income derived from pay-patients is devoted to the improvement of the charity wards, which represent almost two-thirds (2/3) of the bed capacity of the hospital, aside from "out-charity patients" who come only for consultation.

Again, the existence of "St. Catherine's School of Midwifery", with an enrollment of about 200 students, who practice partly in St. Catherine's Hospital and partly in St. Mary's Hospital, which, likewise, belongs to petitioners herein, does not, and cannot, affect the exemption to which St. Catherine's Hospital is entitled under our fundamental law. On the contrary, it furnishes another ground for exemption. Seemingly, the Court of Tax Appeals was impressed by the fact that the size of said enrollment and the matriculation fee charged from the students of midwifery, aside from the amount they paid for board and lodging, including transportation to St. Mary's Hospital, warrants the belief that petitioners derive a substantial profit from the operation of the school aforementioned. Such factor is, however, immaterial to the issue in the case at bar, for "all lands, building and improvements used exclusively for religious, charitable or educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation," pursuant to the Constitution, regardless of whether or not material profits are derived from the operation of the institutions in question. In other words, Congress may, if it deems fit to do so, impose taxes upon such "profits", but said "lands, buildings and improvements" are beyond its taxing power.

Similarly, the garage in the building above referred to — which was obviously essential to the operation of the school of midwifery, for the students therein enrolled practiced, not only in St. Catherine's Hospital, but, also, in St. Mary's Hospital, and were entitled to transportation thereto — for Mrs. Herrera received no compensation as directress of St. Catherine's Hospital — were incidental to the operation of the latter and of said school, and, accordingly, did not affect the charitable character of said hospital and the educational nature of said school.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals, as well as that of the Assessment Board of Appeals of Quezon City, are hereby reversed and set aside, and another one entered declaring that the lot, building and improvements constituting the St. Catherine's Hospital are exempt from taxation under the provisions of the Constitution, without special pronouncement as to costs. It is so ordered.

Bishop of Nueva Segovia vs. Provincial Board of Ilocos Norte [GR 27588, 31 December 1927]

Facts: The Roman Catholic Apostolic Church is the owner of aparcel of land in San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte. On the south side is a part of the Church yard, the convent and an adjacent lost used for avegetable garden in which there is a stable and a well for the use of the convent. In the center is the remainder of the churchyard and the Church. On the north side is an old cemetery with its two walls still standing, and a portion where formerly stood a tower. The provincial board assessed land tax on lots comprising the north and south side, which the church paid under protest. It filed suit to recover the amount. 

Issue: Whether the lots are covered by the Church’s tax exemption. 

Held: The exemption in favor of the convent in the payment of land tax refers to the home of the priest who presides over the church and who has to take care of himself in order to discharge his duties. Theexemption includes not only the land actually occupied by the Church but also the adjacent ground destined to the ordinary incidental uses of man. A vegetable garden, thus, which belongs to aconvent, where its use is limited to the necessity of the priest, comes under the exemption. Further, land used as a lodging house by the people who participate in religious festivities, which constitutes an incidental use in religious functions, likewise comes within theexemption. It cannot be taxed according to its former use, i.e. a cemetery.

EN BANCG.R. No. L-27588 December 31, 1927

THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF NUEVA SEGOVIA, as representative of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, plaintiff-appellant,

vs.THE PROVINCIAL BOARD OF ILOCOS NORTE, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

Vicente Llanes and Proceso Coloma for plaintiff-appellant.Provincial Fiscal Santos for defendant-appellants.

AVANCEÑA, J.:

The plaintiff, the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, represented by the Bishop of Nueva Segovia, possesses and is the owner of a parcel of land in the municipality of San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte, all four sides of which face on public streets. On the south side is a part of the churchyard, the convent and an adjacent lot used for a vegetable garden, containing an area off 1,624 square meters, in which there is a stable and a well for the use of the convent. In the center is the remainder of the churchyard and the church. On the north is an old cemetery with two of its walls still standing, and a portion where formerly stood a tower, the base of which still be seen, containing a total area of 8,955 square meters.

As required by the defendants, on July 3, 1925 the plaintiff paid, under protest, the land tax on the lot adjoining the convent and the lot which formerly was the cemetery with the portion where the tower stood.

The plaintiff filed this action for the recovery of the sum paid by to the defendants by way of land tax, alleging that the collection of this tax is illegal. The lower court absolved the

defendants from the complaint in regard to the lot adjoining convent and declared that the tax collected on the lot, which formerly was the cemetery and on the portion where the lower stood, was illegal. Both parties appealed from this judgment.

The exemption in favor of the convent in the payment of the land tax (sec. 344 [c] Administrative Code) refers to the home of the parties who presides over the church and who has to take care of himself in order to discharge his duties. In therefore must, in the sense, include not only the land actually occupied by the church, but also the adjacent ground destined to the ordinary incidental uses of man. Except in large cities where the density of the population and the development of commerce require the use of larger tracts of land for buildings, a vegetable garden belongs to a house and, in the case of a convent, it use is limited to the necessities of the priest, which comes under the exemption.lawphi1.net

In regard to the lot which formerly was the cemetery, while it is no longer used as such, neither is it used for commercial purposes and, according to the evidence, is now being used as a lodging house by the people who participate in religious festivities, which constitutes an incidental use in religious functions, which also comes within the exemption.

The judgment appealed from is reversed in all it parts and it is held that both lots are exempt from land tax and the defendants are ordered to refund to plaintiff whatever was paid as such tax, without any special pronouncement as to costs. So ordered.

Johnson, Street, Villamor, Ostrand, Johns and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.

Case Digest: Lung Center of the Philippines vs. Quezon City and Constantino Rosas

FACTS:

The Petitioner is a non-stock, non-profit entity which owns a parcel of land in Quezon City.  Erected in the middle of the aforesaid lot is a hospital known as the Lung Center of the Philippines.  The ground floor is being leased to a canteen, medical professionals whom use the same as their private clinics, as well as to other private parties.  The right portion of the lot is being leased for commercial purposes to the Elliptical Orchids and Garden Center.  The petitioner accepts paying and non-paying patients. It also renders medical services to out-patients, both paying and non-paying. Aside from its income from paying patients, the petitioner receives annual subsidies from the government.

Petitioner filed a Claim for Exemption from realty taxes amounting to about Php4.5 million, predicating its claim as a charitable institution. The city assessor denied the Claim.  When appealed to the QC-Local Board of Assessment, the same was dismissed.  The decision of the QC-LBAA was affirmed by the Central Board of Assessment Appeals, despite the Petitioners claim that 60% of its hospital beds are used exclusively for charity.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Petitioner is entitled to exemption from realty taxes notwithstanding the fact that it admits paying clients and leases out a portion of its property for commercial purposes.

HELD:

The Court held that the petitioner is indeed a charitable institution based on its charter and articles of incorporation.  As a general principle, a charitable institution does not lose its character as such and its exemption from taxes simply because it derives income from paying patients, whether out-patient or confined in the hospital, or receives subsidies from the government, so long as the money received is devoted or used altogether to the charitable object which it is intended to achieve; and no money inures to the private benefit of the persons managing or operating the institution.

Despite this, the Court held that the portions of real property that are leased to private entities are not exempt from real property taxes as these are not actually, directly and exclusively used for charitable purposes.  (strictissimi juris) Moreover, P.D. No. 1823 only speaks of tax exemptions as regards to:

        income and gift taxes for all donations, contributions, endowments and equipment and supplies to be imported by authorized entities or persons and by the Board of Trustees of the Lung Center of the Philippines for the actual use and benefit of the Lung Center; and

         taxes, charges and fees imposed by the Government or any political subdivision or instrumentality thereof with respect to equipment purchases (expression unius est exclusion alterius/expressium facit cessare tacitum).

[G.R. No. 144104. June 29, 2004]

LUNG CENTER OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. QUEZON CITY and CONSTANTINO P. ROSAS, in his capacity as City Assessor of Quezon City, respondents.

D E C I S I O N

CALLEJO, SR., J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, as amended, of the Decision[1] dated July 17, 2000 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 57014 which affirmed the decision of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals holding that the lot owned by the petitioner and its hospital building constructed thereon are subject to assessment for purposes of real property tax.

The Antecedents

The petitioner Lung Center of the Philippines is a non-stock and non-profit entity established on January 16, 1981 by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 1823.[2] It is the registered owner of a parcel of land, particularly described as Lot No. RP-3-B-3A-1-B-1, SWO-04-000495, located at Quezon Avenue corner Elliptical Road, Central District, Quezon City. The lot has an area of 121,463 square meters and is covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 261320 of the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City. Erected in the middle of the aforesaid lot is a hospital known as the Lung Center of the Philippines. A big space at the ground floor is being leased to private parties, for canteen and small store spaces, and to medical or professional practitioners who use the same as their private clinics for their patients whom they charge for their professional services. Almost one-half of the entire area on the left side of the building along Quezon Avenue is vacant and idle, while a big portion on the right side, at the corner of Quezon Avenue and Elliptical Road, is being leased for commercial purposes to a private enterprise known as the Elliptical Orchids and Garden Center.

The petitioner accepts paying and non-paying patients. It also renders medical services to out-patients, both paying and non-paying. Aside from its income from paying patients, the petitioner receives annual subsidies from the government.

On June 7, 1993, both the land and the hospital building of the petitioner were assessed for real property taxes in the amount of P4,554,860 by the City Assessor of Quezon City.[3] Accordingly, Tax Declaration Nos. C-021-01226 (16-2518) and C-021-01231 (15-2518-A) were issued for the land and the hospital building, respectively.[4] On August 25, 1993, the petitioner filed a Claim for Exemption[5] from real property taxes with the City Assessor, predicated on its claim that it is a charitable institution. The petitioners request was denied, and a petition was, thereafter, filed before the Local Board of Assessment Appeals of Quezon City (QC-LBAA, for brevity) for the reversal of the

resolution of the City Assessor. The petitioner alleged that under Section 28, paragraph 3 of the 1987 Constitution, the property is exempt from real property taxes. It averred that a minimum of 60% of its hospital beds are exclusively used for charity patients and that the major thrust of its hospital operation is to serve charity patients. The petitioner contends that it is a charitable institution and, as such, is exempt from real property taxes. The QC-LBAA rendered judgment dismissing the petition and holding the petitioner liable for real property taxes.[6]

The QC-LBAAs decision was, likewise, affirmed on appeal by the Central Board of Assessment Appeals of Quezon City (CBAA, for brevity)[7] which ruled that the petitioner was not a charitable institution and that its real properties were not actually, directly and exclusively used for charitable purposes; hence, it was not entitled to real property tax exemption under the constitution and the law. The petitioner sought relief from the Court of Appeals, which rendered judgment affirming the decision of the CBAA.[8]

Undaunted, the petitioner filed its petition in this Court contending that:

A. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN DECLARING PETITIONER AS NOT ENTITLED TO REALTY TAX EXEMPTIONS ON THE GROUND THAT ITS LAND, BUILDING AND IMPROVEMENTS, SUBJECT OF ASSESSMENT, ARE NOT ACTUALLY, DIRECTLY AND EXCLUSIVELY DEVOTED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES.

B. WHILE PETITIONER IS NOT DECLARED AS REAL PROPERTY TAX EXEMPT UNDER ITS CHARTER, PD 1823, SAID EXEMPTION MAY NEVERTHELESS BE EXTENDED UPON PROPER APPLICATION.

The petitioner avers that it is a charitable institution within the context of Section 28(3), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. It asserts that its character as a charitable institution is not altered by the fact that it admits paying patients and renders medical services to them, leases portions of the land to private parties, and rents out portions of the hospital to private medical practitioners from which it derives income to be used for operational expenses. The petitioner points out that for the years 1995 to 1999, 100% of its out-patients were charity patients and of the hospitals 282-bed capacity, 60% thereof, or 170 beds, is allotted to charity patients. It asserts that the fact that it receives subsidies from the government attests to its character as a charitable institution. It contends that the exclusivity required in the Constitution does not necessarily mean solely. Hence, even if a portion of its real estate is leased out to private individuals from whom it derives income, it does not lose its character as a charitable institution, and its exemption from the payment of real estate taxes on its real property. The petitioner cited our ruling in Herrera v. QC-BAA[9] to bolster its pose. The petitioner further contends that even if P.D. No. 1823 does not exempt it from the payment of real estate taxes, it is not precluded from seeking tax exemption under the 1987 Constitution.

In their comment on the petition, the respondents aver that the petitioner is not a charitable entity. The petitioners real property is not exempt from the payment of real estate taxes under P.D. No. 1823 and even under the 1987 Constitution because it failed to prove that it is a charitable institution and that the said property is actually, directly and exclusively used for charitable purposes. The respondents noted that in a newspaper report, it appears that graft charges were filed with the Sandiganbayan against the director of the petitioner, its administrative officer, and Zenaida Rivera, the proprietress

of the Elliptical Orchids and Garden Center, for entering into a lease contract over 7,663.13 square meters of the property in 1990 for only P20,000 a month, when the monthly rental should be P357,000 a month as determined by the Commission on Audit; and that instead of complying with the directive of the COA for the cancellation of the contract for being grossly prejudicial to the government, the petitioner renewed the same on March 13, 1995 for a monthly rental of only P24,000.They assert that the petitioner uses the subsidies granted by the government for charity patients and uses the rest of its income from the property for the benefit of paying patients, among other purposes. They aver that the petitioner failed to adduce substantial evidence that 100% of its out-patients and 170 beds in the hospital are reserved for indigent patients.The respondents further assert, thus:

13. That the claims/allegations of the Petitioner LCP do not speak well of its record of service. That before a patient is admitted for treatment in the Center, first impression is that it is pay-patient and required to pay a certain amount as deposit. That even if a patient is living below the poverty line, he is charged with high hospital bills. And, without these bills being first settled, the poor patient cannot be allowed to leave the hospital or be discharged without first paying the hospital bills or issue a promissory note guaranteed and indorsed by an influential agency or person known only to the Center; that even the remains of deceased poor patients suffered the same fate.Moreover, before a patient is admitted for treatment as free or charity patient, one must undergo a series of interviews and must submit all the requirements needed by the Center, usually accompanied by endorsement by an influential agency or person known only to the Center. These facts were heard and admitted by the Petitioner LCP during the hearings before the Honorable QC-BAA and Honorable CBAA. These are the reasons of indigent patients, instead of seeking treatment with the Center, they prefer to be treated at the Quezon Institute. Can such practice by the Center be called charitable?[10]

The Issues

The issues for resolution are the following: (a) whether the petitioner is a charitable institution within the context of Presidential Decree No. 1823 and the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions and Section 234(b) of Republic Act No. 7160; and (b) whether the real properties of the petitioner are exempt from real property taxes.

The Courts Ruling

The petition is partially granted.

On the first issue, we hold that the petitioner is a charitable institution within the context of the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions. To determine whether an enterprise is a charitable institution/entity or not, the elements which should be considered include the statute creating the enterprise, its corporate purposes, its constitution and by-laws, the methods of administration, the nature of the actual work performed, the character of the services rendered, the indefiniteness of the beneficiaries, and the use and occupation of the properties.[11]

In the legal sense, a charity may be fully defined as a gift, to be applied consistently with existing laws, for the benefit of an indefinite number of persons, either by bringing their

minds and hearts under the influence of education or religion, by assisting them to establish themselves in life or otherwise lessening the burden of government.[12] It may be applied to almost anything that tend to promote the well-doing and well-being of social man. It embraces the improvement and promotion of the happiness of man.[13] The word charitable is not restricted to relief of the poor or sick.[14] The test of a charity and a charitable organization are in law the same. The test whether an enterprise is charitable or not is whether it exists to carry out a purpose reorganized in law as charitable or whether it is maintained for gain, profit, or private advantage.

Under P.D. No. 1823, the petitioner is a non-profit and non-stock corporation which, subject to the provisions of the decree, is to be administered by the Office of the President of the Philippines with the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Human Settlements. It was organized for the welfare and benefit of the Filipino people principally to help combat the high incidence of lung and pulmonary diseases in the Philippines. The raison detre for the creation of the petitioner is stated in the decree, viz:

Whereas, for decades, respiratory diseases have been a priority concern, having been the leading cause of illness and death in the Philippines, comprising more than 45% of the total annual deaths from all causes, thus, exacting a tremendous toll on human resources, which ailments are likely to increase and degenerate into serious lung diseases on account of unabated pollution, industrialization and unchecked cigarette smoking in the country;

Whereas, the more common lung diseases are, to a great extent, preventable, and curable with early and adequate medical care, immunization and through prompt and intensive prevention and health education programs;

Whereas, there is an urgent need to consolidate and reinforce existing programs, strategies and efforts at preventing, treating and rehabilitating people affected by lung diseases, and to undertake research and training on the cure and prevention of lung diseases, through a Lung Center which will house and nurture the above and related activities and provide tertiary-level care for more difficult and problematical cases;

Whereas, to achieve this purpose, the Government intends to provide material and financial support towards the establishment and maintenance of a Lung Center for the welfare and benefit of the Filipino people.[15]

The purposes for which the petitioner was created are spelled out in its Articles of Incorporation, thus:

SECOND: That the purposes for which such corporation is formed are as follows:

1. To construct, establish, equip, maintain, administer and conduct an integrated medical institution which shall specialize in the treatment, care, rehabilitation and/or relief of lung and allied diseases in line with the concern of the government to assist and provide material and financial support in the establishment and maintenance of a lung center primarily to benefit the people of the Philippines and in pursuance of the policy of the State to secure the well-being of the people by providing them specialized health and

medical services and by minimizing the incidence of lung diseases in the country and elsewhere.

2. To promote the noble undertaking of scientific research related to the prevention of lung or pulmonary ailments and the care of lung patients, including the holding of a series of relevant congresses, conventions, seminars and conferences;

3. To stimulate and, whenever possible, underwrite scientific researches on the biological, demographic, social, economic, eugenic and physiological aspects of lung or pulmonary diseases and their control; and to collect and publish the findings of such research for public consumption;

4. To facilitate the dissemination of ideas and public acceptance of information on lung consciousness or awareness, and the development of fact-finding, information and reporting facilities for and in aid of the general purposes or objects aforesaid, especially in human lung requirements, general health and physical fitness, and other relevant or related fields;

5. To encourage the training of physicians, nurses, health officers, social workers and medical and technical personnel in the practical and scientific implementation of services to lung patients;

6. To assist universities and research institutions in their studies about lung diseases, to encourage advanced training in matters of the lung and related fields and to support educational programs of value to general health;

7. To encourage the formation of other organizations on the national, provincial and/or city and local levels; and to coordinate their various efforts and activities for the purpose of achieving a more effective programmatic approach on the common problems relative to the objectives enumerated herein;

8. To seek and obtain assistance in any form from both international and local foundations and organizations; and to administer grants and funds that may be given to the organization;

9. To extend, whenever possible and expedient, medical services to the public and, in general, to promote and protect the health of the masses of our people, which has long been recognized as an economic asset and a social blessing;

10. To help prevent, relieve and alleviate the lung or pulmonary afflictions and maladies of the people in any and all walks of life, including those who are poor and needy, all without regard to or discrimination, because of race, creed, color or political belief of the persons helped; and to enable them to obtain treatment when such disorders occur;

11. To participate, as circumstances may warrant, in any activity designed and carried on to promote the general health of the community;

12. To acquire and/or borrow funds and to own all funds or equipment, educational materials and supplies by purchase, donation, or otherwise and to dispose of and distribute the same in such manner, and, on such basis as the Center shall, from time to time, deem proper and best, under the particular circumstances, to serve its general and non-profit purposes and objectives;

13. To buy, purchase, acquire, own, lease, hold, sell, exchange, transfer and dispose of properties, whether real or personal, for purposes herein mentioned; and

14. To do everything necessary, proper, advisable or convenient for the accomplishment of any of the powers herein set forth and to do every other act and thing incidental thereto or connected therewith.[16]

Hence, the medical services of the petitioner are to be rendered to the public in general in any and all walks of life including those who are poor and the needy without discrimination. After all, any person, the rich as well as the poor, may fall sick or be injured or wounded and become a subject of charity.[17]

As a general principle, a charitable institution does not lose its character as such and its exemption from taxes simply because it derives income from paying patients, whether out-patient, or confined in the hospital, or receives subsidies from the government, so long as the money received is devoted or used altogether to the charitable object which it is intended to achieve; and no money inures to the private benefit of the persons managing or operating the institution.[18] InCongregational Sunday School, etc. v. Board of Review,[19] the State Supreme Court of Illinois held, thus:

[A]n institution does not lose its charitable character, and consequent exemption from taxation, by reason of the fact that those recipients of its benefits who are able to pay are required to do so, where no profit is made by the institution and the amounts so received are applied in furthering its charitable purposes, and those benefits are refused to none on account of inability to pay therefor. The fundamental ground upon which all exemptions in favor of charitable institutions are based is the benefit conferred upon the public by them, and a consequent relief, to some extent, of the burden upon the state to care for and advance the interests of its citizens.[20]

As aptly stated by the State Supreme Court of South Dakota in Lutheran Hospital Association of South Dakota v. Baker:[21]

[T]he fact that paying patients are taken, the profits derived from attendance upon these patients being exclusively devoted to the maintenance of the charity, seems rather to enhance the usefulness of the institution to the poor; for it is a matter of common observation amongst those who have gone about at all amongst the suffering classes, that the deserving poor can with difficulty be persuaded to enter an asylum of any kind confined to the reception of objects of charity; and that their honest pride is much less wounded by being placed in an institution in which paying patients are also received. The fact of receiving money from some of the patients does not, we think, at all impair the character of the charity, so long as the money thus received is devoted altogether to the charitable object which the institution is intended to further.[22]

The money received by the petitioner becomes a part of the trust fund and must be devoted to public trust purposes and cannot be diverted to private profit or benefit.[23]

Under P.D. No. 1823, the petitioner is entitled to receive donations. The petitioner does not lose its character as a charitable institution simply because the gift or donation is in the form of subsidies granted by the government. As held by the State Supreme Court of Utah in Yorgason v. County Board of Equalization of Salt Lake County:[24]

Second, the government subsidy payments are provided to the project. Thus, those payments are like a gift or donation of any other kind except they come from the government. In both Intermountain Health Care and the present case, the crux is the presence or absence of material reciprocity. It is entirely irrelevant to this analysis that the government, rather than a private benefactor, chose to make up the deficit resulting from the exchange between St. Marks Tower and the tenants by making a contribution to the landlord, just as it would have been irrelevant in Intermountain Health Care if the patients income supplements had come from private individuals rather than the government.

Therefore, the fact that subsidization of part of the cost of furnishing such housing is by the government rather than private charitable contributions does not dictate the denial of a charitable exemption if the facts otherwise support such an exemption, as they do here.[25]

In this case, the petitioner adduced substantial evidence that it spent its income, including the subsidies from the government for 1991 and 1992 for its patients and for the operation of the hospital. It even incurred a net loss in 1991 and 1992 from its operations.

Even as we find that the petitioner is a charitable institution, we hold, anent the second issue, that those portions of its real property that are leased to private entities are not exempt from real property taxes as these are not actually, directly and exclusively used for charitable purposes.

The settled rule in this jurisdiction is that laws granting exemption from tax are construed strictissimi juris against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing power. Taxation is the rule and exemption is the exception. The effect of an exemption is equivalent to an appropriation. Hence, a claim for exemption from tax payments must be clearly shown and based on language in the law too plain to be mistaken.[26] As held in Salvation Army v. Hoehn:[27]

An intention on the part of the legislature to grant an exemption from the taxing power of the state will never be implied from language which will admit of any other reasonable construction. Such an intention must be expressed in clear and unmistakable terms, or must appear by necessary implication from the language used, for it is a well settled principle that, when a special privilege or exemption is claimed under a statute, charter or act of incorporation, it is to be construed strictly against the property owner and in favor of the public.This principle applies with peculiar force to a claim of exemption from taxation . [28]

Section 2 of Presidential Decree No. 1823, relied upon by the petitioner, specifically provides that the petitioner shall enjoy the tax exemptions and privileges:

SEC. 2. TAX EXEMPTIONS AND PRIVILEGES. Being a non-profit, non-stock corporation organized primarily to help combat the high incidence of lung and pulmonary diseases in the Philippines, all donations, contributions, endowments and equipment and supplies to be imported by authorized entities or persons and by the Board of Trustees of the Lung Center of the Philippines, Inc., for the actual use and benefit of the Lung Center, shall be exempt from income and gift taxes, the same further deductible in full for the purpose of determining the maximum deductible amount under Section 30, paragraph (h), of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended.

The Lung Center of the Philippines shall be exempt from the payment of taxes, charges and fees imposed by the Government or any political subdivision or instrumentality thereof with respect to equipment purchases made by, or for the Lung Center.[29]

It is plain as day that under the decree, the petitioner does not enjoy any property tax exemption privileges for its real properties as well as the building constructed thereon. If the intentions were otherwise, the same should have been among the enumeration of tax exempt privileges under Section 2:

It is a settled rule of statutory construction that the express mention of one person, thing, or consequence implies the exclusion of all others. The rule is expressed in the familiar maxim, expressio unius est exclusio alterius.

The rule of expressio unius est exclusio alterius is formulated in a number of ways. One variation of the rule is principle that what is expressed puts an end to that which is implied. Expressium facit cessare tacitum. Thus, where a statute, by its terms, is expressly limited to certain matters, it may not, by interpretation or construction, be extended to other matters.

...

The rule of expressio unius est exclusio alterius and its variations are canons of restrictive interpretation. They are based on the rules of logic and the natural workings of the human mind. They are predicated upon ones own voluntary act and not upon that of others. They proceed from the premise that the legislature would not have made specified enumeration in a statute had the intention been not to restrict its meaning and confine its terms to those expressly mentioned.[30]

The exemption must not be so enlarged by construction since the reasonable presumption is that the State has granted in express terms all it intended to grant at all, and that unless the privilege is limited to the very terms of the statute the favor would be intended beyond what was meant.[31]

Section 28(3), Article VI of the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides, thus:

(3) Charitable institutions, churches and parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and all lands, buildings, and improvements, actually, directly and exclusively used for religious, charitable or educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation.[32]

The tax exemption under this constitutional provision covers property taxes only.[33] As Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., then a member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, explained: . . . what is exempted is not the institution itself . . .; those exempted from real estate taxes are lands, buildings and improvements actually, directly and exclusively used for religious, charitable or educational purposes.[34]

Consequently, the constitutional provision is implemented by Section 234(b) of Republic Act No. 7160 (otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991) as follows:

SECTION 234. Exemptions from Real Property Tax. The following are exempted from payment of the real property tax:

...

(b) Charitable institutions, churches, parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, non-profit or religious cemeteries and all lands, buildings, and improvements actually, directly, and exclusively used for religious, charitable or educational purposes.[35]

We note that under the 1935 Constitution, ... all lands, buildings, and improvements used exclusively for charitable purposes shall be exempt from taxation.[36] However, under the 1973 and the present Constitutions, for lands, buildings, and improvements of the charitable institution to be considered exempt, the same should not only be exclusively used for charitable purposes; it is required that such property be used actually and directly for such purposes.[37]

In light of the foregoing substantial changes in the Constitution, the petitioner cannot rely on our ruling in Herrera v. Quezon City Board of Assessment Appeals which was promulgated on September 30, 1961 before the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions took effect.[38] As this Court held in Province of Abra v. Hernando:[39]

Under the 1935 Constitution: Cemeteries, churches, and parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto, and all lands, buildings, and improvements used exclusively for religious, charitable, or educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation. The present Constitution added charitable institutions, mosques, and non-profit cemeteries and required that for the exemption of lands, buildings, and improvements, they should not only be exclusively but also actually and directly used for religious or charitable purposes. The Constitution is worded differently. The change should not be ignored. It must be duly taken into consideration. Reliance on past decisions would have sufficed were the words actually as well as directly not added. There must be proof therefore of the actual and direct use of the lands, buildings, and improvements for religious or charitable purposes to be exempt from taxation.

Under the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions and Rep. Act No. 7160 in order to be entitled to the exemption, the petitioner is burdened to prove, by clear and unequivocal proof, that (a) it is a charitable institution; and (b) its real properties areACTUALLY, DIRECTLY and EXCLUSIVELY used for charitable purposes. Exclusive is defined as possessed and enjoyed to the exclusion of others; debarred from participation or enjoyment; and exclusively is defined, in a manner to exclude; asenjoying a privilege exclusively.[40] If real property is used for one or more commercial purposes, it is not exclusively used for the exempted purposes but is subject to taxation.[41] The words dominant use or principal use cannot be substituted for the words used exclusively without doing violence to the Constitutions and the law.[42] Solely is synonymous with exclusively.[43]

What is meant by actual, direct and exclusive use of the property for charitable purposes is the direct and immediate and actual application of the property itself to the purposes for which the charitable institution is organized. It is not the use of the income from the real property that is determinative of whether the property is used for tax-exempt purposes.[44]

The petitioner failed to discharge its burden to prove that the entirety of its real property is actually, directly and exclusively used for charitable purposes. While portions of the hospital are used for the treatment of patients and the dispensation of medical services to them, whether paying or non-paying, other portions thereof are being leased to private individuals for their clinics and a canteen. Further, a portion of the land is being leased to a private individual for her business enterprise under the business name Elliptical Orchids and Garden Center. Indeed, the petitioners evidence shows that it collected P1,136,483.45 as rentals in 1991 and P1,679,999.28 for 1992 from the said lessees.

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.[45] 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.

IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The respondent Quezon City Assessor is hereby DIRECTED to determine, after due hearing, the precise portions of the land and the area thereof which are leased to private persons, and to compute the real property taxes due thereon as provided for by law.

SO ORDERED.

Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. St Luke's Medical Center

Facts:

St. Luke’s Medical Center, Inc. (St. Luke’s) is a hospital organized as a non-stock and non-profit corporation. St. Luke’s accepts both paying and non-paying patients. The BIR assessed St. Luke’s deficiency taxes for 1998 comprised of deficiency income tax,

value-added tax, and withholding tax. The BIR claimed that St. Luke’s should be liable for income tax at a preferential rate of 10% as provided for by Section 27(B). Further, the BIR claimed that St. Luke’s was actually operating for profit in 1998 because only 13% of its  revenues  came from  charitable purposes. Moreover, the hospital’s board of trustees, officers and employees directly benefit  from  its  profits  and  assets.

On the other hand, St. Luke’s maintained that it is a non-stock and non-profit institution for charitable and social welfare purposes exempt from income tax under Section 30(E) and (G) of the NIRC. It argued that the making of profit per se does not destroy its income tax exemption.

Issue:

            The sole issue is whether St. Luke’s is liable for deficiency income tax in 1998 under Section 27(B) of the NIRC, which imposes a preferential tax rate of 10^ on the income of proprietary non-profit hospitals.

Ruling:

            Section 27(B) of the NIRC does not remove the income tax exemption of proprietary non-profit hospitals under Section 30(E) and (G). Section 27(B) on one hand, and Section 30(E) and (G) on  the other  hand,  can  be  construed  together without  the  removal  of  such  tax exemption.

Section 27(B) of the NIRC imposes a 10% preferential tax rate on the income  of  (1)  proprietary  non-profit  educational  institutions and (2) proprietary non-profit hospitals. The only qualifications for hospitals are that they must be proprietary and non-profit.“Proprietary” means private, following the definition of a “proprietary educational institution” as “any private school  maintained  and  administered  by  private individuals  or groups” with a government permit. “Non-profit” means no net income or asset accrues to or benefits any member or specific person, with all the net income or asset devoted to the institution’s purposes and all its activities conducted not for profit.

“Non-profit” does not necessarily mean “charitable.” In Collector of Internal Revenue v. Club Filipino Inc. de Cebu, this Court considered as non-profit a sports club organized for recreation and entertainment of its stockholders and members. The club was primarily funded by membership fees and dues. If it had profits, they were used for overhead expenses and improving its golf course. The club was non-profit because of its purpose and  there  was  no  evidence  that  it was  engaged  in  a  profit-making enterprise.

The sports club in Club Filipino Inc. de Cebu may be non-profit, but it was not charitable. The  Court  defined  “charity”  in  Lung  Center  of  the Philippines  v. Quezon  City as  “a  gift,  to  be  applied  consistently  with existing laws, for the benefit of an indefinite number of persons, either by bringing their minds and hearts under the influence of education or religion, by assisting them to establish themselves in life or [by] otherwise lessening the  burden  of  government.” However, despite its being a tax exempt institution, any income such institution earns from activities conducted for profit is taxable, as expressly provided in the last paragraph of Sec. 30.

To be a charitable institution, however, an organization must meet the substantive  test  of  charity  in  Lung  Center.  The   issue  in  Lung  Center concerns exemption from real property tax and not income tax. However, it provides for the test of charity in our jurisdiction. Charity is essentially a gift to an indefinite number of persons which lessens the burden of government. In  other  words,  charitable  institutions  provide  for  free  goods  and services to the public which would otherwise fall on the shoulders of government. Thus, as a matter of efficiency, the government forgoes taxes which  should  have  been  spent  to  address  public  needs,  because  certain private entities already assume a part of the burden. This is the rationale for the  tax  exemption  of  charitable  institutions.  The  loss  of  taxes  by  the government is compensated by its relief from doing public works which would have been funded by appropriations from the Treasury

The Constitution exempts charitable institutions only from real property taxes. In the NIRC, Congress decided to extend the exemption to income taxes. However, the way Congress crafted Section 30(E) of the NIRC is materially different from Section 28(3), Article VI of the Constitution.  

Section 30(E) of the NIRC defines the corporation or association that is exempt from income tax. On the other hand, Section 28(3), Article VI of the Constitution does not define a charitable institution, but requires that the institution “actually, directly and exclusively” use the property for a charitable purpose. 

To be exempt from real property taxes, Section 28(3), Article VI of the Constitution requires that a charitable institution use the property “actually, directly and exclusively” for charitable purposes. 

To be exempt from income taxes, Section 30(E) of the NIRC requires  that  a  charitable  institution  must  be  “organized  and  operated exclusively” for charitable purposes.  Likewise, to be exempt from income taxes, Section 30(G) of the NIRC requires that the institution be “operated exclusively” for social welfare. 

However, the last paragraph of Section 30 of the NIRC qualifies the words “organized and operated exclusively” by providing that:

Notwithstanding the provisions in the preceding paragraphs, the income of whatever kind and character of the foregoing organizations from any of their  properties,  real  or  personal,  or  from  any  of  their  activities conducted  for  profit  regardless  of  the  disposition  made  of  such income, shall be subject to tax imposed under this Code. 

In short, the last paragraph of Section 30 provides that if a tax exempt charitable institution conducts “any” activity for profit, such activity is not tax  exempt  even  as  its  not-for-profit activities  remain  tax  exempt.

Thus, even if the charitable institution must be “organized and operated exclusively” for charitable purposes, it is nevertheless allowed to engage in “activities conducted for profit” without losing its tax exempt status for its not-for-profit activities.The only consequence is that the “income  of  whatever  kind  and  character” of  a  charitable  institution “from  any  of  its  activities  conducted  for  profit,  regardless  of  the

disposition made of such income, shall be subject to tax.”  Prior to the introduction of Section 27(B), the tax rate on such income from for-profit activities was the ordinary corporate rate under Section 27(A).  With the introduction of Section 27(B), the tax rate is now 10%.

The Court finds that St. Luke’s is a corporation that is not “operated exclusively” for charitable or social welfare purposes insofar as its revenues from paying patients are concerned. This ruling is based not only on a strict interpretation of a provision granting tax exemption, but also on the clear and plain text of Section 30(E) and (G). Section 30(E) and (G) of the NIRC requires that an institution be “operated exclusively” for charitable or social welfare purposes to be completely exempt from income tax. An institution under Section 30(E) or (G) does not lose its tax exemption if it earns income from its for-profit activities. Such income from for-profit activities, under the last paragraph of Section 30, is merely subject to income tax, previously at the ordinary corporate rate but now at the preferential 10% rate pursuant to Section 27(B). 

St. Luke’s fails to meet the requirements under Section 30(E) and (G) of the NIRC to be completely tax exempt from all its income. However, it remains a proprietary non-profit hospital under Section 27(B) of the NIRC as long as it does not distribute any of its profits to its members and such profits are reinvested pursuant to its corporate purposes. St. Luke’s, as a proprietary non-profit hospital, is entitled to the preferential tax rate of 10% on its net income from its for-profit activities.

St. Luke’s is therefore liable for deficiency income tax in 1998 under Section 27(B) of the NIRC. However, St. Luke’s has good reasons to rely on the letter dated 6 June 1990 by the BIR, which opined that St. Luke’s is “a corporation for purely charitable and social welfare purposes” and thus exempt from income tax.

In Michael J. Lhuillier, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the Court said that “good faith and honest belief that one is not subject to tax on the basis of previous interpretation of government agencies tasked to implement the tax law, are sufficient justification to delete the imposition of surcharges and interest.”

WHEREFORE,  St. Luke’s Medical Center,  Inc.  is ORDERED TO  PAY  the  deficiency  income  tax  in 1998  based  on the  10%  preferential  income tax rate  under Section 27(8) of the National  Internal Revenue Code.  However, it  is  not liable for surcharges and  interest  on  such  deficiency  income  tax  under  Sections  248  and  249  of the  National  Internal  Revenue  Code.  All  other  parts  of the  Decision  and Resolution of the Court of Tax Appeals are AFFIRMED.

SECOND DIVISIONG.R. No. 195909               September 26, 2012

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER, vs.

ST. LUKE'S MEDICAL CENTER, INC., RESPONDENT.x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

G.R. No. 195960

ST. LUKE'S MEDICAL CENTER, INC., PETITIONER, vs.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.D E C I S I O N

CARPIO, J.:

The Case

These are consolidated 1 petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision of 19 November 2010 of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) En Banc and its Resolution 2 of 1 March 2011 in CTA Case No. 6746. This Court resolves this case on a pure question of law, which involves the interpretation of Section 27(B) vis-à-vis Section 30(E) and (G) of the National Internal Revenue Code of the Philippines (NIRC), on the income tax treatment of proprietary non-profit hospitals.

The Facts

St. Luke's Medical Center, Inc. (St. Luke's) is a hospital organized as a non-stock and non-profit corporation. Under its articles of incorporation, among its corporate purposes are:

(a) To establish, equip, operate and maintain a non-stock, non-profit Christian, benevolent, charitable and scientific hospital which shall give curative, rehabilitative and spiritual care to the sick, diseased and disabled persons; provided that purely medical and surgical services shall be performed by duly licensed physicians and surgeons who may be freely and individually contracted by patients;

(b) To provide a career of health science education and provide medical services to the community through organized clinics in such specialties as the facilities and resources of the corporation make possible;

(c) To carry on educational activities related to the maintenance and promotion of health as well as provide facilities for scientific and medical researches which, in the opinion of the Board of Trustees, may be justified by the facilities, personnel, funds, or other requirements that are available;

(d) To cooperate with organized medical societies, agencies of both government and private sector; establish rules and regulations consistent with the highest professional ethics;

x x x x 3

On 16 December 2002, the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) assessed St. Luke's deficiency taxes amounting toP76,063,116.06 for 1998, comprised of deficiency income tax, value-added tax, withholding tax on compensation and expanded withholding tax. The BIR reduced the amount to P63,935,351.57 during trial in the First Division of the CTA. 4

On 14 January 2003, St. Luke's filed an administrative protest with the BIR against the deficiency tax assessments. The BIR did not act on the protest within the 180-day period under Section 228 of the NIRC. Thus, St. Luke's appealed to the CTA.

The BIR argued before the CTA that Section 27(B) of the NIRC, which imposes a 10% preferential tax rate on the income of proprietary non-profit hospitals, should be applicable to St. Luke's. According to the BIR, Section 27(B), introduced in 1997, "is a new provision intended to amend the exemption on non-profit hospitals that were previously categorized as non-stock, non-profit corporations under Section 26 of the 1997 Tax Code x x x." 5 It is a specific provision which prevails over the general exemption on income tax granted under Section 30(E) and (G) for non-stock, non-profit charitable institutions and civic organizations promoting social welfare. 6

The BIR claimed that St. Luke's was actually operating for profit in 1998 because only 13% of its revenues came from charitable purposes. Moreover, the hospital's board of trustees, officers and employees directly benefit from its profits and assets. St. Luke's had total revenues of P1,730,367,965 or approximately P1.73 billion from patient services in 1998. 7

St. Luke's contended that the BIR should not consider its total revenues, because its free services to patients wasP218,187,498 or 65.20% of its 1998 operating income (i.e., total revenues less operating expenses) ofP334,642,615. 8 St. Luke's also claimed that its income does not inure to the benefit of any individual.

St. Luke's maintained that it is a non-stock and non-profit institution for charitable and social welfare purposes under Section 30(E) and (G) of the NIRC. It argued that the making of profit per se does not destroy its income tax exemption.

The petition of the BIR before this Court in G.R. No. 195909 reiterates its arguments before the CTA that Section 27(B) applies to St. Luke's. The petition raises the sole issue of whether the enactment of Section 27(B) takes proprietary non-profit hospitals out of the income tax exemption under Section 30 of the NIRC and instead, imposes a preferential rate of 10% on their taxable income. The BIR prays that St. Luke's be ordered to payP57,659,981.19 as deficiency income and expanded withholding tax for 1998 with surcharges and interest for late payment.

The petition of St. Luke's in G.R. No. 195960 raises factual matters on the treatment and withholding of a part of its income, 9 as well as the payment of surcharge and delinquency interest. There is no ground for this Court to undertake such a factual review. Under the Constitution 10 and the Rules of Court, 11 this Court's review power is generally limited to "cases in which only an error or question of law is involved." 12 This Court cannot depart from this limitation if a party fails to invoke a recognized exception.

The Ruling of the Court of Tax Appeals

The CTA En Banc Decision on 19 November 2010 affirmed in toto the CTA First Division Decision dated 23 February 2009 which held:

WHEREFORE, the Amended Petition for Review [by St. Luke's] is hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED. Accordingly, the 1998 deficiency VAT assessment issued by respondent against petitioner in the amount of P110,000.00 is hereby CANCELLED and WITHDRAWN. However, petitioner is hereby ORDERED to PAY deficiency income tax and deficiency expanded withholding tax for the taxable year 1998 in the respective amounts of P5,496,963.54 andP778,406.84 or in the sum of P6,275,370.38, x x x.

x x x x

In addition, petitioner is hereby ORDERED to PAY twenty percent (20%) delinquency interest on the total amount of P6,275,370.38 counted from October 15, 2003 until full payment thereof, pursuant to Section 249(C)(3) of the NIRC of 1997.

SO ORDERED. 13

The deficiency income tax of P5,496,963.54, ordered by the CTA En Banc to be paid, arose from the failure of St. Luke's to prove that part of its income in 1998 (declared as "Other Income-Net") 14 came from charitable activities. The CTA cancelled the remainder of the P63,113,952.79 deficiency assessed by the BIR based on the 10% tax rate under Section 27(B) of the NIRC, which the CTA En Banc held was not applicable to St. Luke's. 15

The CTA ruled that St. Luke's is a non-stock and non-profit charitable institution covered by Section 30(E) and (G) of the NIRC. This ruling would exempt all income derived by St. Luke's from services to its patients, whether paying or non-paying. The CTA reiterated its earlier decision in St. Luke's Medical Center, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 16 which examined the primary purposes of St. Luke's under its articles of incorporation and various documents 17 identifying St. Luke's as a charitable institution.

The CTA adopted the test in Hospital de San Juan de Dios, Inc. v. Pasay City, 18 which states that "a charitable institution does not lose its charitable character and its consequent exemption from taxation merely because recipients of its benefits who are able to pay are required to do so, where funds derived in this manner are devoted to the charitable purposes of the institution x x x." 19 The generation of income from paying patients does not per se destroy the charitable nature of St. Luke's.

Hospital de San Juan cited Jesus Sacred Heart College v. Collector of Internal Revenue, 20 which ruled that the old NIRC (Commonwealth Act No. 466, as amended) 21 "positively exempts from taxation those corporations or associations which, otherwise, would be subject thereto, because of the existence of x x x net income." 22 The NIRC of 1997 substantially reproduces the provision on charitable institutions of the old NIRC. Thus, in rejecting the argument that tax exemption is lost whenever there is net income, the Court in Jesus Sacred Heart College declared: "[E]very responsible organization must be run to at least insure its existence, by operating within the limits of its own resources, especially its regular income. In other words, it should always strive, whenever possible, to have a surplus." 23

The CTA held that Section 27(B) of the present NIRC does not apply to St. Luke's. 24 The CTA explained that to apply the 10% preferential rate, Section 27(B) requires a hospital to be "non-profit." On the other hand, Congress specifically used the word "non-stock" to qualify a charitable "corporation or association" in Section 30(E) of the NIRC. According to the CTA, this is unique in the present tax code, indicating an intent to exempt this type of charitable organization from income tax. Section 27(B) does not require that the hospital be "non-stock." The CTA stated, "it is clear that non-stock, non-profit hospitals operated exclusively for charitable purpose are exempt from income tax on income received by them as such, applying the provision of Section 30(E) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended." 25

The Issue

The sole issue is whether St. Luke's is liable for deficiency income tax in 1998 under Section 27(B) of the NIRC, which imposes a preferential tax rate of 10% on the income of proprietary non-profit hospitals.

The Ruling of the Court

St. Luke's Petition in G.R. No. 195960

As a preliminary matter, this Court denies the petition of St. Luke's in G.R. No. 195960 because the petition raises factual issues. Under Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, "[t]he petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth." St. Luke's cites Martinez v. Court of Appeals 26 which permits factual review "when the Court of Appeals [in this case, the CTA] manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion." 27

This Court does not see how the CTA overlooked relevant facts. St. Luke's itself stated that the CTA "disregarded the testimony of [its] witness, Romeo B. Mary, being allegedly self-serving, to show the nature of the 'Other Income-Net' x x x." 28 This is not a case of overlooking or failing to consider relevant evidence. The CTA obviously considered the evidence and concluded that it is self-serving. The CTA declared that it has "gone through the records of this case and found no other evidence aside from the self-serving affidavit executed by [the] witnesses [of St. Luke's] x x x." 29

The deficiency tax on "Other Income-Net" stands. Thus, St. Luke's is liable to pay the 25% surcharge under Section 248(A)(3) of the NIRC. There is "[f]ailure to pay the deficiency tax within the time prescribed for its payment in the notice of assessment[.]" 30 St. Luke's is also liable to pay 20% delinquency interest under Section 249(C)(3) of the NIRC. 31 As explained by the CTA En Banc, the amount of P6,275,370.38 in the dispositive portion of the CTA First Division Decision includes only deficiency interest under Section 249(A) and (B) of the NIRC and not delinquency interest. 32

The Main Issue

The issue raised by the BIR is a purely legal one. It involves the effect of the introduction of Section 27(B) in the NIRC of 1997 vis-à-vis Section 30(E) and (G) on the income tax exemption of charitable and social welfare institutions. The 10% income tax rate under Section 27(B) specifically pertains to proprietary educational institutions and proprietary non-profit hospitals. The BIR argues that Congress intended to remove the exemption that non-profit hospitals previously enjoyed under Section 27(E) of the NIRC of 1977, which is now substantially reproduced in Section 30(E) of the NIRC of 1997. 33 Section 27(B) of the present NIRC provides:

SEC. 27. Rates of Income Tax on Domestic Corporations. -

x x x x

(B) Proprietary Educational Institutions and Hospitals. - Proprietary educational institutions and hospitals which are non-profit shall pay a tax of ten percent (10%) on their taxable income except those covered by Subsection (D) hereof: Provided, That if the gross income from unrelated trade, business or other activity exceeds fifty percent (50%) of the total gross income derived by such educational institutions or hospitals from all sources, the tax prescribed in Subsection (A) hereof shall be imposed on the entire taxable income. For purposes of this Subsection, the term 'unrelated trade, business or other activity' means any trade, business or other activity, the conduct of which is not substantially related to the exercise or performance by such educational institution or hospital of its primary purpose or function. A 'proprietary educational institution' is any private school maintained and administered by private individuals or groups with an issued permit to operate from the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS), or the Commission on Higher Education (CHED), or the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA), as the case may be, in accordance with existing laws and regulations. (Emphasis supplied)

St. Luke's claims tax exemption under Section 30(E) and (G) of the NIRC. It contends that it is a charitable institution and an organization promoting social welfare. The arguments of St. Luke's focus on the wording of Section 30(E) exempting from income tax non-stock, non-profit charitable institutions. 34 St. Luke's asserts that the legislative intent of introducing Section 27(B) was only to remove the exemption for "proprietary non-profit" hospitals. 35 The relevant provisions of Section 30 state:

SEC. 30. Exemptions from Tax on Corporations. - The following organizations shall not be taxed under this Title in respect to income received by them as such:

x x x x

(E) Nonstock corporation or association organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, athletic, or cultural purposes, or for the rehabilitation of veterans, no part of its net income or asset shall belong to or inure to the benefit of any member, organizer, officer or any specific person;

x x x x

(G) Civic league or organization not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare;

x x x x

Notwithstanding the provisions in the preceding paragraphs, the income of whatever kind and character of the foregoing organizations from any of their properties, real or personal, or from any of their activities conducted for profit regardless of the disposition made of such income, shall be subject to tax imposed under this Code. (Emphasis supplied)

The Court partly grants the petition of the BIR but on a different ground. We hold that Section 27(B) of the NIRC does not remove the income tax exemption of proprietary non-profit hospitals under Section 30(E) and (G). Section 27(B) on one hand, and Section 30(E) and (G) on the other hand, can be construed together without the removal of such tax exemption. The effect of the introduction of Section 27(B) is to subject the taxable income of two specific institutions, namely, proprietary non-profit educational institutions 36 and proprietary non-profit hospitals, among the institutions covered by Section 30, to the 10% preferential rate under Section 27(B) instead of the ordinary 30% corporate rate under the last paragraph of Section 30 in relation to Section 27(A)(1).

Section 27(B) of the NIRC imposes a 10% preferential tax rate on the income of (1) proprietary non-profit educational institutions and (2) proprietary non-profit hospitals. The only qualifications for hospitals are that they must be proprietary and non-profit. "Proprietary" means private, following the definition of a "proprietary educational institution" as "any private school maintained and administered by private individuals or groups" with a government permit. "Non-profit" means no net income or asset accrues to or benefits any member or specific person, with all the net income or asset devoted to the institution's purposes and all its activities conducted not for profit.

"Non-profit" does not necessarily mean "charitable." In Collector of Internal Revenue v. Club Filipino Inc. de Cebu,37 this Court considered as non-profit a sports club organized for recreation and entertainment of its stockholders and members. The club was primarily funded by membership fees and dues. If it had profits, they were used for overhead expenses and improving its golf course. 38 The club was non-profit because of its purpose and there was no evidence that it was engaged in a profit-making enterprise. 39

The sports club in Club Filipino Inc. de Cebu may be non-profit, but it was not charitable. The Court defined "charity" in Lung Center of the Philippines v. Quezon City 40 as "a gift, to be applied consistently with existing laws, for the benefit of an indefinite number of persons, either by bringing their minds and hearts under the influence of education or religion, by assisting them to establish themselves in life or [by] otherwise lessening the burden of government." 41 A non-profit club for the benefit of its members fails this test. An organization may be considered as non-profit if it does not distribute any part of its income to stockholders or members. However, despite its being a tax exempt institution, any income such institution earns from activities conducted for profit is taxable, as expressly provided in the last paragraph of Section 30.

To be a charitable institution, however, an organization must meet the substantive test of charity in Lung Center. The issue in Lung Center concerns exemption from real property tax and not income tax. However, it provides for the test of charity in our jurisdiction. Charity is essentially a gift to an indefinite number of persons which lessens the burden of government. In other words, charitable institutions provide for free goods and services to the public which would otherwise fall on the shoulders of government. Thus, as a matter of efficiency, the government forgoes taxes which should have been spent to address public needs, because certain private entities already assume a part of the burden. This is the rationale for the tax exemption of charitable institutions. The loss of taxes by the government is compensated by its relief from doing public works which would have been funded by appropriations from the Treasury. 42

Charitable institutions, however, are not ipso facto entitled to a tax exemption. The requirements for a tax exemption are specified by the law granting it. The power of Congress to tax implies the power to exempt from tax. Congress can create tax exemptions, subject to the constitutional provision that "[n]o law granting any tax exemption shall be passed without the concurrence of a majority of all the Members of Congress." 43 The requirements for a tax exemption are strictly construed against the taxpayer 44 because an exemption restricts the collection of taxes necessary for the existence of the government.

The Court in Lung Center declared that the Lung Center of the Philippines is a charitable institution for the purpose of exemption from real property taxes. This ruling uses the same premise as Hospital de San Juan 45 and Jesus Sacred Heart College 46 which says that receiving income from paying patients does not destroy the charitable nature of a hospital.

As a general principle, a charitable institution does not lose its character as such and its exemption from taxes simply because it derives income from paying patients, whether out-patient, or confined in the hospital, or receives subsidies from the government, so long as the money received is devoted or used altogether to the charitable object which it is intended to achieve; and no money inures to the private benefit of the persons managing or operating the institution. 47

For real property taxes, the incidental generation of income is permissible because the test of exemption is the use of the property. The Constitution provides that "[c]haritable institutions, churches and personages or convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and all lands, buildings, and improvements, actually, directly, and exclusively used for religious, charitable, or educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation." 48The test of exemption is not strictly a requirement on the intrinsic nature or character of the institution. The test requires that the institution use the property in a certain way, i.e. for a charitable purpose. Thus, the Court held that the Lung Center of the Philippines did not lose its charitable character when it used a portion of its lot for commercial purposes. The effect of failing to meet the use requirement is simply to remove from the tax exemption that portion of the property not devoted to charity.

The Constitution exempts charitable institutions only from real property taxes. In the NIRC, Congress decided to extend the exemption to income taxes. However, the way Congress crafted Section 30(E) of the NIRC is materially different from Section 28(3), Article VI of the Constitution. Section 30(E) of the NIRC defines the corporation or

association that is exempt from income tax. On the other hand, Section 28(3), Article VI of the Constitution does not define a charitable institution, but requires that the institution "actually, directly and exclusively" use the property for a charitable purpose.Section 30(E) of the NIRC provides that a charitable institution must be:(1) A non-stock corporation or association;(2) Organized exclusively for charitable purposes;(3) Operated exclusively for charitable purposes; and(4) No part of its net income or asset shall belong to or inure to the benefit of any member, organizer, officer or any specific person.

Thus, both the organization and operations of the charitable institution must be devoted "exclusively" for charitable purposes. The organization of the institution refers to its corporate form, as shown by its articles of incorporation, by-laws and other constitutive documents. Section 30(E) of the NIRC specifically requires that the corporation or association be non-stock, which is defined by the Corporation Code as "one where no part of its income is distributable as dividends to its members, trustees, or officers" 49 and that any profit "obtain[ed] as an incident to its operations shall, whenever necessary or proper, be used for the furtherance of the purpose or purposes for which the corporation was organized." 50 However, under Lung Center, any profit by a charitable institution must not only be plowed back "whenever necessary or proper," but must be "devoted or used altogether to the charitable object which it is intended to achieve." 51

The operations of the charitable institution generally refer to its regular activities. Section 30(E) of the NIRC requires that these operations be exclusive to charity. There is also a specific requirement that "no part of [the] net income or asset shall belong to or inure to the benefit of any member, organizer, officer or any specific person." The use of lands, buildings and improvements of the institution is but a part of its operations.

There is no dispute that St. Luke's is organized as a non-stock and non-profit charitable institution. However, this does not automatically exempt St. Luke's from paying taxes. This only refers to the organization of St. Luke's. Even if St. Luke's meets the test of charity, a charitable institution is not ipso facto tax exempt. To be exempt from real property taxes, Section 28(3), Article VI of the Constitution requires that a charitable institution use the property "actually, directly and exclusively" for charitable purposes. To be exempt from income taxes, Section 30(E) of the NIRC requires that a charitable institution must be "organized and operated exclusively" for charitable purposes. Likewise, to be exempt from income taxes, Section 30(G) of the NIRC requires that the institution be "operated exclusively" for social welfare.

However, the last paragraph of Section 30 of the NIRC qualifies the words "organized and operated exclusively" by providing that:

Notwithstanding the provisions in the preceding paragraphs, the income of whatever kind and character of the foregoing organizations from any of their properties, real or personal, or from any of their activities conducted for profit regardless of the disposition made of such income, shall be subject to tax imposed under this Code. (Emphasis supplied)

In short, the last paragraph of Section 30 provides that if a tax exempt charitable institution conducts "any" activity for profit, such activity is not tax exempt even as its not-for-profit activities remain tax exempt. This paragraph qualifies the requirements in Section 30(E) that the "[n]on-stock corporation or association [must be] organized and operated exclusively for x x x charitable x x x purposes x x x." It likewise qualifies the requirement in Section 30(G) that the civic organization must be "operated exclusively" for the promotion of social welfare.

Thus, even if the charitable institution must be "organized and operated exclusively" for charitable purposes, it is nevertheless allowed to engage in "activities conducted for profit" without losing its tax exempt status for its not-for-profit activities. The only consequence is that the "income of whatever kind and character" of a charitable institution "from any of its activities conducted for profit, regardless of the disposition made of such income, shall be subject to tax." Prior to the introduction of Section 27(B), the tax rate on such income from for-profit activities was the ordinary corporate rate under Section 27(A). With the introduction of Section 27(B), the tax rate is now 10%.

In 1998, St. Luke's had total revenues of P1,730,367,965 from services to paying patients. It cannot be disputed that a hospital which receives approximately P1.73 billion from paying patients is not an institution "operated exclusively" for charitable purposes. Clearly, revenues from paying patients are income received from "activities conducted for profit." 52 Indeed, St. Luke's admits that it derived profits from its paying patients. St. Luke's declared P1,730,367,965 as "Revenues from Services to Patients" in contrast to its "Free Services" expenditure ofP218,187,498. In its Comment in G.R. No. 195909, St. Luke's showed the following "calculation" to support its claim that 65.20% of its "income after expenses was allocated to free or charitable services" in 1998. 53

REVENUES FROM SERVICES TO PATIENTS

P1,730,367,965.00

OPERATING EXPENSES

Professional care of patients P1,016,608,394.00

Administrative 287,319,334.00

Household and Property 91,797,622.00

P1,395,725,350.00

INCOME FROM OPERATIONS P334,642,615.00

100%

Free Services -218,187,498.00

-65.20%

INCOME FROM OPERATIONS, Net of P116,455,11 34.80%

FREE SERVICES 7.00

OTHER INCOME 17,482,304.00

EXCESS OF REVENUES OVER EXPENSES

P133,937,421.00

 In Lung Center, this Court declared:

"[e]xclusive" is defined as possessed and enjoyed to the exclusion of others; debarred from participation or enjoyment; and "exclusively" is defined, "in a manner to exclude; as enjoying a privilege exclusively." x x x The words "dominant use" or "principal use" cannot be substituted for the words "used exclusively" without doing violence to the Constitution and the law. Solely is synonymous with exclusively. 54

The Court cannot expand the meaning of the words "operated exclusively" without violating the NIRC. Services to paying patients are activities conducted for profit. They cannot be considered any other way. There is a "purpose to make profit over and above the cost" of services. 55 The P1.73 billion total revenues from paying patients is not even incidental to St. Luke's charity expenditure of P218,187,498 for non-paying patients.

St. Luke's claims that its charity expenditure of P218,187,498 is 65.20% of its operating income in 1998. However, if a part of the remaining 34.80% of the operating income is reinvested in property, equipment or facilities used for services to paying and non-paying patients, then it cannot be said that the income is "devoted or used altogether to the charitable object which it is intended to achieve." 56 The income is plowed back to the corporation not entirely for charitable purposes, but for profit as well. In any case, the last paragraph of Section 30 of the NIRC expressly qualifies that income from activities for profit is taxable "regardless of the disposition made of such income."

Jesus Sacred Heart College declared that there is no official legislative record explaining the phrase "any activity conducted for profit." However, it quoted a deposition of Senator Mariano Jesus Cuenco, who was a member of the Committee of Conference for the Senate, which introduced the phrase "or from any activity conducted for profit."

P. Cuando ha hablado de la Universidad de Santo Tomás que tiene un hospital, no cree Vd. que es una actividad esencial dicho hospital para el funcionamiento del colegio de medicina de dicha universidad?

x x x x

R. Si el hospital se limita a recibir enformos pobres, mi contestación seria afirmativa; pero considerando que el hospital tiene cuartos de pago, y a los mismos generalmente van enfermos de buena posición social económica, lo que se paga por estos enfermos debe estar sujeto a 'income tax', y es una de las razones que hemos tenido para insertar las palabras o frase 'or from any activity conducted for profit.' 57

The question was whether having a hospital is essential to an educational institution like the College of Medicine of the University of Santo Tomas. Senator Cuenco answered that if the hospital has paid rooms generally occupied by people of good economic standing, then it should be subject to income tax. He said that this was one of the reasons Congress inserted the phrase "or any activity conducted for profit."

The question in Jesus Sacred Heart College involves an educational institution. 58 However, it is applicable to charitable institutions because Senator Cuenco's response shows an intent to focus on the activities of charitable institutions. Activities for profit should not escape the reach of taxation. Being a non-stock and non-profit corporation does not, by this reason alone, completely exempt an institution from tax. An institution cannot use its corporate form to prevent its profitable activities from being taxed.

The Court finds that St. Luke's is a corporation that is not "operated exclusively" for charitable or social welfare purposes insofar as its revenues from paying patients are concerned. This ruling is based not only on a strict interpretation of a provision granting tax exemption, but also on the clear and plain text of Section 30(E) and (G). Section 30(E) and (G) of the NIRC requires that an institution be "operated exclusively" for charitable or social welfare purposes to be completely exempt from income tax. An institution under Section 30(E) or (G) does not lose its tax exemption if it earns income from its for-profit activities. Such income from for-profit activities, under the last paragraph of Section 30, is merely subject to income tax, previously at the ordinary corporate rate but now at the preferential 10% rate pursuant to Section 27(B).

A tax exemption is effectively a social subsidy granted by the State because an exempt institution is spared from sharing in the expenses of government and yet benefits from them. Tax exemptions for charitable institutions should therefore be limited to institutions beneficial to the public and those which improve social welfare. A profit-making entity should not be allowed to exploit this subsidy to the detriment of the government and other taxpayers.1âwphi1

St. Luke's fails to meet the requirements under Section 30(E) and (G) of the NIRC to be completely tax exempt from all its income. However, it remains a proprietary non-profit hospital under Section 27(B) of the NIRC as long as it does not distribute any of its profits to its members and such profits are reinvested pursuant to its corporate purposes. St. Luke's, as a proprietary non-profit hospital, is entitled to the preferential tax rate of 10% on its net income from its for-profit activities.

St. Luke's is therefore liable for deficiency income tax in 1998 under Section 27(B) of the NIRC. However, St. Luke's has good reasons to rely on the letter dated 6 June 1990 by the BIR, which opined that St. Luke's is "a corporation for purely charitable and social welfare purposes"59 and thus exempt from income tax. 60 In Michael J. Lhuillier, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 61 the Court said that "good faith and honest belief that one is not subject to tax on the basis of previous interpretation of government agencies tasked to implement the tax law, are sufficient justification to delete the imposition of surcharges and interest." 62

WHEREFORE, the petition of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in G.R. No. 195909 is PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc dated 19

November 2010 and its Resolution dated 1 March 2011 in CTA Case No. 6746 are MODIFIED. St. Luke's Medical Center, Inc. is ORDERED TO PAY the deficiency income tax in 1998 based on the 10% preferential income tax rate under Section 27(B) of the National Internal Revenue Code. However, it is not liable for surcharges and interest on such deficiency income tax under Sections 248 and 249 of the National Internal Revenue Code. All other parts of the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Tax Appeals are AFFIRMED.

The petition of St. Luke's Medical Center, Inc. in G.R. No. 195960 is DENIED for violating Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

SO ORDERED.

FIRST DIVISIONG.R. No. 189999 June 27, 2012

ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION, Petitioner, vs.

CITY OF ANGELES, JULIET G. QUINSAAT, in her capacity as Treasurer of Angeles City and ENGR. DONATO N. DIZON, in his capacity as Acting Angeles City Building Official, Respondents.

D E C I S I O NVILLARAMA, JR., J.:

Before us is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, which seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision1 dated July 28, 2009 and Resolution2 dated October 12, 2009 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 90591. The CA reversed the Decision3 dated September 21, 2007 of the Regional Trial Court of Angeles City, Branch 57 in Civil Case No. 12995 declaring petitioner exempt from the payment of building permit and other fees and ordering respondents to refund the same with interest at the legal rate.

The factual antecedents:

Petitioner Angeles University Foundation (AUF) is an educational institution established on May 25, 1962 and was converted into a non-stock, non-profit education foundation under the provisions of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 60554on December 4, 1975.

Sometime in August 2005, petitioner filed with the Office of the City Building Official an application for a building permit for the construction of an 11-storey building of the Angeles University Foundation Medical Center in its main campus located at MacArthur Highway, Angeles City, Pampanga. Said office issued a Building Permit Fee Assessment in the amount of P126,839.20. An Order of Payment was also issued by the City Planning and Development Office, Zoning Administration Unit requiring petitioner to pay the sum of P238,741.64 as Locational Clearance Fee.5

In separate letters dated November 15, 2005 addressed to respondents City Treasurer Juliet G. Quinsaat and Acting City Building Official Donato N. Dizon, petitioner claimed that it is exempt from the payment of the building permit and locational clearance fees,

citing legal opinions rendered by the Department of Justice (DOJ). Petitioner also reminded the respondents that they have previously issued building permits acknowledging such exemption from payment of building permit fees on the construction of petitioner’s 4-storey AUF Information Technology Center building and the AUF Professional Schools building on July 27, 2000 and March 15, 2004, respectively.6

Respondent City Treasurer referred the matter to the Bureau of Local Government Finance (BLGF) of the Department of Finance, which in turn endorsed the query to the DOJ. Then Justice Secretary Raul M. Gonzalez, in his letter-reply dated December 6, 2005, cited previous issuances of his office (Opinion No. 157, s. 1981 and Opinion No. 147, s. 1982) declaring petitioner to be exempt from the payment of building permit fees. Under the 1st Indorsement dated January 6, 2006, BLGF reiterated the aforesaid opinion of the DOJ stating further that "xxx the Department of Finance, thru this Bureau, has no authority to review the resolution or the decision of the DOJ."7

Petitioner wrote the respondents reiterating its request to reverse the disputed assessments and invoking the DOJ legal opinions which have been affirmed by Secretary Gonzalez. Despite petitioner’s plea, however, respondents refused to issue the building permits for the construction of the AUF Medical Center in the main campus and renovation of a school building located at Marisol Village. Petitioner then appealed the matter to City Mayor Carmelo F. Lazatin but no written response was received by petitioner.8

Consequently, petitioner paid under protest9 the following:Medical Center (new construction)Building Permit and Electrical Fee P 217,475.20Locational Clearance Fee 283,741.64Fire Code Fee 144,690.00

Total - P 645,906.84School Building (renovation)Building Permit and Electrical Fee P 37,857.20Locational Clearance Fee 6,000.57Fire Code Fee 5,967.74

Total - P 49,825.51

Petitioner likewise paid the following sums as required by the City Assessor’s Office:Real Property Tax – Basic Fee P 86,531.10SEF 43,274.54Locational Clearance Fee 1,125.00

Total – P130,930.6410[GRAND TOTAL - P 826,662.99]

By reason of the above payments, petitioner was issued the corresponding Building Permit, Wiring Permit, Electrical Permit and Sanitary Building Permit. On June 9, 2006, petitioner formally requested the respondents to refund the fees it paid under protest. Under letters dated June 15, 2006 and August 7, 2006, respondent City Treasurer denied the claim for refund.11

On August 31, 2006, petitioner filed a Complaint12 before the trial court seeking the refund of P826,662.99 plus interest at the rate of 12% per annum, and also praying for the award of attorney’s fees in the amount of P300,000.00 and litigation expenses.

In its Answer,13 respondents asserted that the claim of petitioner cannot be granted because its structures are not among those mentioned in Sec. 209 of the National Building Code as exempted from the building permit fee. Respondents argued that R.A. No. 6055 should be considered repealed on the basis of Sec. 2104 of the National Building Code. Since the disputed assessments are regulatory in nature, they are not taxes from which petitioner is exempt. As to the real property taxes imposed on petitioner’s property located in Marisol Village, respondents pointed out that said premises will be used as a school dormitory which cannot be considered as a use exclusively for educational activities.

Petitioner countered that the subject building permit are being collected on the basis of Art. 244 of theImplementing Rules and Regulations of the Local Government Code, which impositions are really taxes considering that they are provided under the chapter on "Local Government Taxation" in reference to the "revenue raising power" of local government units (LGUs). Moreover, petitioner contended that, as held in Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Edu,14 fees may be regarded as taxes depending on the purpose of its exaction. In any case, petitioner pointed out that the Local Government Code of 1991 provides in Sec. 193 that non-stock and non-profit educational institutions like petitioner retained the tax exemptions or incentives which have been granted to them. Under Sec. 8 of R.A. No. 6055 and applicable jurisprudence and DOJ rulings, petitioner is clearly exempt from the payment of building permit fees.15

On September 21, 2007, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of the petitioner and against the respondents. The dispositive portion of the trial court’s decision16 reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is rendered as follows:

a. Plaintiff is exempt from the payment of building permit and other fees Ordering the Defendants to refund the total amount of Eight Hundred Twenty Six Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Two Pesos and 99/100 Centavos (P826,662.99) plus legal interest thereon at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum commencing on the date of extra-judicial demand or June 14, 2006, until the aforesaid amount is fully paid.

b. Finding the Defendants liable for attorney’s fees in the amount of Seventy Thousand Pesos (Php70,000.00), plus litigation expenses.

c. Ordering the Defendants to pay the costs of the suit.

SO ORDERED.17

Respondents appealed to the CA which reversed the trial court, holding that while petitioner is a tax-free entity, it is not exempt from the payment of regulatory fees. The CA noted that under R.A. No. 6055, petitioner was granted exemption only from income tax derived from its educational activities and real property used exclusively for educational purposes. Regardless of the repealing clause in the National Building Code,

the CA held that petitioner is still not exempt because a building permit cannot be considered as the other "charges" mentioned in Sec. 8 of R.A. No. 6055 which refers to impositions in the nature of tax, import duties, assessments and other collections for revenue purposes, following the ejusdem generisrule. The CA further stated that petitioner has not shown that the fees collected were excessive and more than the cost of surveillance, inspection and regulation. And while petitioner may be exempt from the payment of real property tax, petitioner in this case merely alleged that "the subject property is to be used actually, directly and exclusively for educational purposes," declaring merely that such premises is intended to house the sports and other facilities of the university but by reason of the occupancy of informal settlers on the area, it cannot yet utilize the same for its intended use. Thus, the CA concluded that petitioner is not entitled to the refund of building permit and related fees, as well as real property tax it paid under protest.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the CA.

Hence, this petition raising the following grounds:

THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR AND DECIDED A QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE IN A WAY NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND THE APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THE HONORABLE COURT AND HAS DEPARTED FROM THE ACCEPTED AND USUAL COURSE OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS NECESSITATING THE HONORABLE COURT’S EXERCISE OF ITS POWER OF SUPERVISION CONSIDERING THAT:

I. IN REVERSING THE TRIAL COURT’S DECISION DATED 21 SEPTEMBER 2007, THE COURT OF APPEALS EFFECTIVELY WITHDREW THE PRIVILEGE OF EXEMPTION GRANTED TO NON-STOCK, NON-PROFIT EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATIONS BY VIRTUE OF RA 6055 WHICH WITHDRAWAL IS BEYOND THE AUTHORITY OF THE COURT OF APPEALS TO DO.

A. INDEED, RA 6055 REMAINS VALID AND IS IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT. HENCE, THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT RULED IN THE QUESTIONED DECISION THAT NON-STOCK, NON-PROFIT EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATIONS ARE NOT EXEMPT.

B. THE COURT OF APPEALS’ APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF EJUSDEM GENERIS IN RULING IN THE QUESTIONED DECISION THAT THE TERM "OTHER CHARGES IMPOSED BY THE GOVERNMENT" UNDER SECTION 8 OF RA 6055 DOES NOT INCLUDE BUILDING PERMIT AND OTHER RELATED FEES AND/OR CHARGES IS BASED ON ITS ERRONEOUS AND UNWARRANTED ASSUMPTION THAT THE TAXES, IMPORT DUTIES AND ASSESSMENTS AS PART OF THE PRIVILEGE OF EXEMPTION GRANTED TO NON-STOCK, NON-PROFIT EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATIONS ARE LIMITED TO COLLECTIONS FOR REVENUE PURPOSES.

C. EVEN ASSUMING THAT THE BUILDING PERMIT AND OTHER RELATED FEES AND/OR CHARGES ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE TERM "OTHER CHARGES IMPOSED BY THE GOVERNMENT" UNDER SECTION 8 OF RA 6055, ITS

IMPOSITION IS GENERALLY A TAX MEASURE AND THEREFORE, STILL COVERED UNDER THE PRIVILEGE OF EXEMPTION.

II. THE COURT OF APPEALS’ DENIAL OF PETITIONER AUF’S EXEMPTION FROM REAL PROPERTY TAXES CONTAINED IN ITS QUESTIONED DECISION AND QUESTIONED RESOLUTION IS CONTRARY TO APPLICABLE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE.18

Petitioner stresses that the tax exemption granted to educational stock corporations which have converted into non-profit foundations was broadened to include any other charges imposed by the Government as one of the incentives for such conversion. These incentives necessarily included exemption from payment of building permit and related fees as otherwise there would have been no incentives for educational foundations if the privilege were only limited to exemption from taxation, which is already provided under the Constitution.

Petitioner further contends that this Court has consistently held in several cases that the primary purpose of the exaction determines its nature. Thus, a charge of a fixed sum which bears no relation to the cost of inspection and which is payable into the general revenue of the state is a tax rather than an exercise of the police power. The standard set by law in the determination of the amount that may be imposed as license fees is such that is commensurate with the cost of regulation, inspection and licensing. But in this case, the amount representing the building permit and related fees and/or charges is such an exorbitant amount as to warrant a valid imposition; such amount exceeds the probable cost of regulation. Even with the alleged criteria submitted by the respondents (e.g., character of occupancy or use of building/structure, cost of construction, floor area and height), and the construction by petitioner of an 11-storey building, the costs of inspection will not amount to P645,906.84, presumably for the salary of inspectors or employees, the expenses of transportation for inspection and the preparation and reproduction of documents. Petitioner thus concludes that the disputed fees are substantially and mainly for purposes of revenue rather than regulation, so that even these fees cannot be deemed "charges" mentioned in Sec. 8 of R.A. No. 6055, they should properly be treated as tax from which petitioner is exempt.

In their Comment, respondents maintain that petitioner is not exempt from the payment of building permit and related fees since the only exemptions provided in the National Building Code are public buildings and traditional indigenous family dwellings. Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. Because the law did not include petitioner’s buildings from those structures exempt from the payment of building permit fee, it is therefore subject to the regulatory fees imposed under the National Building Code.

Respondents assert that the CA correctly distinguished a building permit fee from those "other charges" mentioned in Sec. 8 of R.A. No. 6055. As stated by petitioner itself, charges refer to pecuniary liability, as rents, and fees against persons or property. Respondents point out that a building permit is classified under the term "fee." A fee is generally imposed to cover the cost of regulation as activity or privilege and is essentially derived from the exercise of police power; on the other hand, impositions for services rendered by the local government units or for conveniences furnished, are referred to as "service charges".

Respondents also disagreed with petitioner’s contention that the fees imposed and collected are exorbitant and exceeded the probable expenses of regulation. These fees are based on computations and assessments made by the responsible officials of the City Engineer’s Office in accordance with the Schedule of Fees and criteria provided in the National Building Code. The bases of assessment cited by petitioner (e.g. salary of employees, expenses of transportation and preparation and reproduction of documents) refer to charges and fees on business and occupation under Sec. 147 of the Local Government Code, which do not apply to building permit fees. The parameters set by the National Building Code can be considered as complying with the reasonable cost of regulation in the assessment and collection of building permit fees. Respondents likewise contend that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty applies in this case. Petitioner should have presented evidence to prove its allegations that the amounts collected are exorbitant or unreasonable.

For resolution are the following issues: (1) whether petitioner is exempt from the payment of building permit and related fees imposed under the National Building Code; and (2) whether the parcel of land owned by petitioner which has been assessed for real property tax is likewise exempt.

R.A. No. 6055 granted tax exemptions to educational institutions like petitioner which converted to non-stock, non-profit educational foundations. Section 8 of said law provides:

SECTION 8. The Foundation shall be exempt from the payment of all taxes, import duties, assessments, and other charges imposed by the Government onall income derived from or property, real or personal, used exclusively for the educational activities of the Foundation.(Emphasis supplied.)

On February 19, 1977, Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1096 was issued adopting the National Building Code of the Philippines. The said Code requires every person, firm or corporation, including any agency or instrumentality of the government to obtain a building permit for any construction, alteration or repair of any building or structure.19Building permit refers to "a document issued by the Building Official x x x to an owner/applicant to proceed with the construction, installation, addition, alteration, renovation, conversion, repair, moving, demolition or other work activity of a specific project/building/structure or portions thereof after the accompanying principal plans, specifications and other pertinent documents with the duly notarized application are found satisfactory and substantially conforming with the National Building Code of the Philippines x x x and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR)."20 Building permit fees refers to the basic permit fee and other charges imposed under theNational Building Code.

Exempted from the payment of building permit fees are: (1) public buildings and (2) traditional indigenous family dwellings.21 Not being expressly included in the enumeration of structures to which the building permit fees do not apply, petitioner’s claim for exemption rests solely on its interpretation of the term "other charges imposed by the National Government" in the tax exemption clause of R.A. No. 6055.

A "charge" is broadly defined as the "price of, or rate for, something," while the word "fee" pertains to a "charge fixed by law for services of public officers or for use of a

privilege under control of government."22 As used in the Local Government Code of 1991 (R.A. No. 7160), charges refers to pecuniary liability, as rents or fees against persons or property, while fee means a charge fixed by law or ordinance for the regulation or inspection of a business or activity.23

That "charges" in its ordinary meaning appears to be a general term which could cover a specific "fee" does not support petitioner’s position that building permit fees are among those "other charges" from which it was expressly exempted. Note that the "other charges" mentioned in Sec. 8 of R.A. No. 6055 is qualified by the words "imposed by the Government on all x x x property used exclusively for the educational activities of the foundation." Building permit fees are not impositions on property but on the activity subject of government regulation. While it may be argued that the fees relate to particular properties, i.e., buildings and structures, they are actually imposed on certain activities the owner may conduct either to build such structures or to repair, alter, renovate or demolish the same. This is evident from the following provisions of the National Building Code:

Section 102. Declaration of Policy

It is hereby declared to be the policy of the State to safeguard life, health, property, and public welfare, consistent with theprinciples of sound environmental management and control; and tothis end, make it the purpose of this Code to provide for allbuildings and structures, a framework of minimum standards and requirements to regulate and control their location, site, design quality of materials, construction, use, occupancy, and maintenance.

Section 103. Scope and Application

(a) The provisions of this Code shall apply to the design,location, sitting, construction, alteration, repair,conversion, use, occupancy, maintenance, moving, demolitionof, and addition to public and private buildings andstructures, except traditional indigenous family dwellingsas defined herein.

x x x x

Section 301. Building Permits

No person, firm or corporation, including any agency orinstrumentality of the government shall erect, construct, alter, repair, move, convert or demolish any building or structure or causethe same to be done without first obtaining a building permittherefor from the Building Official assigned in the place where thesubject building is located or the building work is to be done. (Italics supplied.)

That a building permit fee is a regulatory imposition is highlighted by the fact that in processing an application for a building permit, the Building Official shall see to it that the applicant satisfies and conforms with approved standard requirements on zoning and land use, lines and grades, structural design, sanitary and sewerage, environmental health, electrical and mechanical safety as well as with other rules and regulations implementing the National Building Code.24 Thus, ancillary permits such as electrical

permit, sanitary permit and zoning clearance must also be secured and the corresponding fees paid before a building permit may be issued. And as can be gleaned from the implementing rules and regulations of the National Building Code, clearances from various government authorities exercising and enforcing regulatory functions affecting buildings/structures, like local government units, may be further required before a building permit may be issued.25

Since building permit fees are not charges on property, they are not impositions from which petitioner is exempt.

As to petitioner’s argument that the building permit fees collected by respondents are in reality taxes because the primary purpose is to raise revenues for the local government unit, the same does not hold water.

A charge of a fixed sum which bears no relation at all to the cost of inspection and regulation may be held to be a tax rather than an exercise of the police power.26 In this case, the Secretary of Public Works and Highways who is mandated to prescribe and fix the amount of fees and other charges that the Building Official shall collect in connection with the performance of regulatory functions,27 has promulgated and issued the Implementing Rules and Regulations28 which provide for the bases of assessment of such fees, as follows:

1. Character of occupancy or use of building

2. Cost of construction " 10,000/sq.m (A,B,C,D,E,G,H,I), 8,000 (F), 6,000 (J)

3. Floor area

4. Height

Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the above bases of assessment were arbitrarily determined or unrelated to the activity being regulated. Neither has petitioner adduced evidence to show that the rates of building permit fees imposed and collected by the respondents were unreasonable or in excess of the cost of regulation and inspection.

In Chevron Philippines, Inc. v. Bases Conversion Development Authority,29 this Court explained:

In distinguishing tax and regulation as a form of police power, the determining factor is the purpose of the implemented measure. If the purpose is primarily to raise revenue, then it will be deemed a tax even though the measure results in some form of regulation. On the other hand, if the purpose is primarily to regulate, then it is deemed a regulation and an exercise of the police power of the state, even though incidentally, revenue is generated. Thus, in Gerochi v. Department of Energy, the Court stated:

"The conservative and pivotal distinction between these two (2) powers rests in the purpose for which the charge is made. If generation of revenue is the primary purpose and regulation is merely incidental, the imposition is a tax; but if regulation is the primary

purpose, the fact that revenue is incidentally raised does not make the imposition a tax."30 (Emphasis supplied.)

Concededly, in the case of building permit fees imposed by the National Government under the National Building Code, revenue is incidentally generated for the benefit of local government units. Thus:

Section 208. Fees

Every Building Official shall keep a permanent record and accurate account of all fees and other charges fixed and authorized by the Secretary to be collected and received under this Code.

Subject to existing budgetary, accounting and auditing rules and regulations, the Building Official is hereby authorized to retain not more than twenty percent of his collection for the operating expenses of his office.

The remaining eighty percent shall be deposited with the provincial, city or municipal treasurer and shall accrue to the General Fund of the province, city or municipality concerned.

Petitioner’s reliance on Sec. 193 of the Local Government Code of 1991 is likewise misplaced. Said provision 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. (Emphasis supplied.)

Considering that exemption from payment of regulatory fees was not among those "incentives" granted to petitioner under R.A. No. 6055, there is no such incentive that is retained under the Local Government Code of 1991. Consequently, no reversible error was committed by the CA in ruling that petitioner is liable to pay the subject building permit and related fees.

Now, on petitioner’s claim that it is exempted from the payment of real property tax assessed against its real property presently occupied by informal settlers.

Section 28(3), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution provides:

x x x x

(3) Charitable institutions, churches and parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and all lands, buildings, and improvements, actually,

directly and exclusively used for religious, charitable or educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation.

x x x x (Emphasis supplied.)

Section 234(b) of the Local Government Code of 1991 implements the foregoing constitutional provision by declaring that --

SECTION 234. Exemptions from Real Property Tax.– The following are exempted from payment of the real property tax:

x x x x

(b) Charitable institutions, churches, parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, non-profit or religious cemeteries and all lands, buildings, and improvements actually, directly, and exclusively used for religious, charitable or educational purposes;

x x x x (Emphasis supplied.)

In Lung Center of the Philippines v. Quezon City,31 this Court held that only portions of the hospital actually, directly and exclusively used for charitable purposes are exempt from real property taxes, while those portions leased to private entities and individuals are not exempt from such taxes. We explained the condition for the tax exemption privilege of charitable and educational institutions, as follows:

Under the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions and Rep. Act No. 7160 in order to be entitled to the exemption, the petitioner is burdened to prove, by clear and unequivocal proof, that (a) it is a charitable institution; and (b) its real properties are ACTUALLY, DIRECTLY and EXCLUSIVELY used for charitable purposes. "Exclusive" is defined as possessed and enjoyed to the exclusion of others; debarred from participation or enjoyment; and "exclusively" is defined, "in a manner to exclude; as enjoying a privilege exclusively." If real property is used for one or more commercial purposes, it is not exclusively used for the exempted purposes but is subject to taxation. The words "dominant use" or "principal use" cannot be substituted for the words "used exclusively" without doing violence to the Constitutions and the law. Solely is synonymous with exclusively.1âwphi1

What is meant by actual, direct and exclusive use of the property for charitable purposes is the direct and immediate and actual application of the property itself to the purposes for which the charitable institution is organized. It is not the use of the income from the real property that is determinative of whether the property is used for tax-exempt purposes.32 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)

Petitioner failed to discharge its burden to prove that its real property is actually, directly and exclusively used for educational purposes. While there is no allegation or proof that petitioner leases the land to its present occupants, still there is no compliance with the constitutional and statutory requirement that said real property is actually, directly and exclusively used for educational purposes. The respondents correctly assessed the land

for real property taxes for the taxable period during which the land is not being devoted solely to petitioner’s educational activities. Accordingly, the CA did not err in ruling that petitioner is likewise not entitled to a refund of the real property tax it paid under protest.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated July 28, 2009 and Resolution dated October 12, 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 90591 are AFFIRMED.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

December 15, 1987

DOF ORDER NO. 137-87

SUBJECT : Rules and Regulations Implementing Section 4(3), Article XIV of the New Constitution —

Pursuant to Section 79(b) of the Revised Administrative Code, the following rules and regulations are hereby promulgated for the effective implementation of the provisions of the New Constitution, to wit:

"Section 4(3), Article XIV — All revenues and assets of non-stock, non-profit educational institution used actually, directly and exclusively for educational purposes, shall be exempt from taxes and duties . . ."

SECTION 1. Scope —

This set of guidelines shall govern the availment of exemption from the payment of internal revenue taxes and customs duties provided for under the National Internal Revenue Code, and the Tariff and Customs Code, both as amended.

1.1 Educational institution — means a non-stock, non-profit corporation/association duly registered under Philippine law, and operated exclusively for educational purposes, maintained and administered by private individuals or groups, and offering formal education, issued a permit, to operate by the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) in accordance with existing laws and regulations.

1.2. Educational Activity Includes —

1.2.1. Instructing or training of individuals either through formal education. Formal education refers to the institutionalized, chronologically graded and hierarchically structured educational system at all levels of education.

1.3. Utilization by Educational Institution — means

1.3.1. Any amount in cash or in kind (including administrative expenses) paid or utilized to accomplish one or more purposes for which it was created or organized, including grant of scholarship to deserving students and professorial chairs for the enhancement of professional course.

1.3.2. Any amount paid to acquire an asset used (or held for use) directly in carrying out one or more purposes for which the educational institution was created or organized, including the upgrading of existing facilities to support the conduct of the above activities.

1.3.3. Any amount in cash or in kind invested in an activity related to the educational purposes for which it was created or organized.

1.3.4. Any amount set aside for a specific project subject/ prior to approval of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in writing. Application thereof must contain the following:

(i) the nature and purpose of the specific project and the amount programmed therefor;

(ii) a detailed description of the project, including estimated costs, sources of any future funds expected to be used for completion of the project, and the location or locations (general or specific) of any physical facilities to be acquired or constructed as part of the project; and

(iii) a statement by an authorized official of the corporation or association that the amount to be set aside will actually be disbursed for the specific project within two (2) years from the date of approval by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, unless the nature of the project is such that the two (2) year period is impracticable.

1.3.5. Any amount set aside shall be evidenced by book entries and documents showing evidence of deposits or investments, including investment of the funds so set aside, or other documents that the Commissioner may require.

1.4. Non-Profit — means no part of the income inures directly or indirectly to any individual or member.

1.5. Operated exclusively — means primarily engaged in activities which accomplish the educational purposes. To meet the operational test, an organization must be engaged in activities furthering "public purposes" rather than private interests. It must not be operated for the benefit of designated individuals or the persons who created it.

1.6. Actually, Directly and Exclusively Used. — shall refer to the purpose for which the property is principally utilized for educational purposes.

1.7. Revenues — refer to income derived in pursuance of its purpose as an educational institution.

1.8. Assets — Any owned physical object (tangible) or right (intangible) having a money value; an item or source of wealth, expressed in terms of its cost, depreciated cost, or less frequently, some other value; hence, any cost benefiting a future period.

SECTION 2. Coverage of Exemption Under Section 4(3), Article XIV of the New Constitution —

The exemption herein contemplated refers to internal revenue taxes and customs duties, in appropriate cases, imposed by the national government on all revenues and assets of non-stock, non-profit educational institutions used actually, directly and exclusively for educational purposes.

2.1. Non-stock, non-profit educational institutions are exempt from tax on all revenues derived in pursuance of its purpose as an educational institution and used actually, directly, and exclusively for educational purposes. They shall, however, be subject to internal revenue taxes on income from trade, business or other activity the conduct of which is not related to the exercise of performance by such educational institution of its educational purpose or function.

2.2. Revenues derived from and assets used in the operations of cafeterias/canteens, dormitories, bookstores are exempt from taxation provided they are owned and operated by the educational institution as ancillary activities and the same are located within the school premises.

2.3. Revenues derived from and assets used in the operations of hospitals are exempt from taxation provided they are owned and operated by the educational institution as an indispensable requirement in the operation and maintenance of its medical school/college/institute.

SECTION 3. Non-Exemption from the Withholding Taxes. — Non stock educational institutions are constituted as withholding agents of the government to insure that the withholding tax liability of their employees, and other taxpayers to whom income payments are made, are complied with.

SECTION 4. Filing of Return — Educational institutions shall file information return annually on or before the 15th day of the 4th month following the end of the taxable year.

SECTION 5. Examination of Books of Accounts, etc. — The books of accounts and other pertinent records of educational institutions shall be subject to examination by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, for the purpose of ascertaining whether such organizations or institutions have been complying with the conditions under which they have been granted tax exemption and their tax liability, if any, pursuant to Section 275 of the Tax Code, as amended.

SECTION 6. Availment of Duty and Tax-Free Entry of Imported Articles. —

In order to avail of the duty and tax-free entry of imported articles under Section 4(3), Article XIV of the New Constitution, the following guidelines are hereby prescribed in addition to the usual import requirements:

6.1. The importer shall, prior to the importation, apply with the Department of Education, Culture and Sports for duty and tax exemption executed under oath by a duly authorized representative of the institution and supported by the following documents:

6.1.1. A copy of the Charter or other evidence of the character of the institution for which the articles are imported and the original of any order given by the importer.

6.1.3. Should the importation be made through a dealer or indentor, an affidavit of both the dealer or indentor and the ultimate consignee whose identity is indicated in the shipping documents. Such affidavit shall state the party who placed the order, the

number of items and their respective values and such other matters as are related to the transaction. cdt

6.2. The Department of Education, Culture and Sports shall verify and certify that the educational institution is non-stock and non-profit and that the imported articles are to be used actually, directly and exclusively for educational purposes and shall indorse the application for duty and tax exemption to the Department of Finance with appropriate recommendation.

6.3. The Department of Finance, based on the recommendation of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports, may allow the tax and/or duty-free entry of articles referred to under Section 4(3), Article XIV of the New Constitution upon compliance with the requirements herein indicated;

6.4. This does not, however, preclude the Department of Finance from requiring the submission of additional documents/undertakings should the need arise;

6.5. Articles entered tax and/or duty-free by educational institutions may not be sold, transferred or otherwise disposed of in any manner whatsoever to any person without the prior approval of the Department of Finance. Any transferee of said article shall be deemed the importer thereof, and the same shall be assessed at its entered value without depreciation. aisadC

SECTION 7. Applicability of Existing Rules of Exemption of Charitable Institutions, etc. —

The existing rules and regulations on the exemptions from internal revenue tax and customs duties of religious and charitable institutions shall remain applicable to said institutions/organizations.

SECTION 8. Penalty. —

The penalty provided for under existing laws shall be imposed for any violation of the provisions. cdtai

SECTION 9. Appeal to the Department. —

All matters arising out of or in connection with the implementation of this Order may be brought on appeal to the Department for review.

SECTION 10. Repealing Clause. —

All orders, circulars, rules and regulations inconsistent herewith are hereby revoked or modified accordingly.

SECTION 11. Effectivity. —

This Order shall take effect upon approval.

SECTION 12. Approved. —

December 16, 1987, Manila, Philippines.

(SGD.) VICENTE R. JAYME

Secretary

MEMORANDUM for —

Secretary Jayme

Thru-Undersecretary Fernando

Re : Proposed Rules and Regulations Implementing Section 4(3) of Article XIV of the New Constitution —

Proposed rules and regulations have been revised to reasonably reflect the suggestions of the education sector, represented by Secretary Fabella, Atty. Padilla, and Sister Luz.

Special Features —

1. The rules shall govern claims for exemption from internal revenue tax and customs duties. A separate set of guidelines is being prepared to cover real property tax and other local taxes imposed under the Local Tax Code. This is our arrangement with Director Carlos of our Bureau of Local Government Finance in order to simplify matters.

2. Reflective of the views of the education sector are the provisions on the following, namely:

a. Provisions on school cafeterias, canteens, bookstores, dormitories and hospitals.

b. Limitation of the definition of educational institution to mean only schools offering formal education. cdtai

We feel that the proposed regulations contain reasonable requirements for the effective implementation of Section 4(3) of Article XIV of the New Constitution.

We recommend approval:

COMMITTEE:

(SGD.) Collector TITUS VILLANUEVA (SGD.) Ms. ALICIA L. TOMACRUZ

Bureau of Customs Bureau of Internal Revenue

Member Member

Atty. SISON JARAPA (SGD.) Atty. ANTONIO P. BELICENA

National Tax Research Center Department Service Chief

Member Revenue Service

Member

(SGD.) MARCELO N. FERNANDO

Undersecretary

Chairman

CIR v. YMCAGR No. 124043, October 14, 1998

298 SCRA 83

FACTS: Private Respondent YMCA--a non-stock, non-profit institution, which conducts various programs beneficial to the public pursuant to its religious, educational and charitable objectives--leases out a portion of its premises to small shop owners, like restaurants and canteen operators, deriving substantial income for such. Seeing this, the commissioner of internal revenue (CIR) issued an assessment to private respondent for deficiency income tax, deficiency expanded withholding taxes on rentals and professional fees and deficiency withholding tax on wages. YMCA opposed arguing that its rental income is not subject to tax, mainly because of the provisions of Section 27 of NIRC which provides that civic league or organizations not organized for profit but operate exclusively for promotion of social welfare and those organized exclusively for pleasure, recreation and other non-profitble businesses shall not be taxed.

ISSUE: Is the contention of YMCA tenable?

HELD: No. Because taxes are the lifeblood of the nation, the Court has always applied the doctrine of strict in interpretation in construing tax exemptions. Furthermore, a claim of statutory exemption from taxation should be manifest and unmistakable from the language of the law on which it is based. Thus, the claimed exemption "must expressly be granted in a statute stated in a language too clear to be mistaken."

[G.R. No. 124043. October 14, 1998]COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, COURT OF TAX APPEALS and YOUNG MENS CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES,

INC.,respondents.D E C I S I O N

PANGANIBAN, J.:

Is the income derived from rentals of real property owned by the Young Mens Christian Association of the Philippines, Inc. (YMCA) established as a welfare, educational and charitable non-profit corporation -- subject to income tax under the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) and the Constitution?

The Case

This is the main question raised before us in this petition for review on certiorari challenging two Resolutions issued by the Court of Appeals[1] on September 28, 1995[2] and February 29, 1996[3] in CA-GR SP No. 32007. Both Resolutions affirmed the Decision of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) allowing the YMCA to claim tax exemption on the latters income from the lease of its real property.

The Facts

The Facts are undisputed.[4] Private Respondent YMCA is a non-stock, non-profit institution, which conducts various programs and activities that are beneficial to the public, especially the young people, pursuant to its religious, educational and charitable objectives.

In 1980, private respondent earned, among others, an income of P676,829.80 from leasing out a portion of its premises to small shop owners, like restaurants and canteen operators, and P44,259.00 from parking fees collected from non-members. On July 2, 1984, the commissioner of internal revenue (CIR) issued an assessment to private respondent, in the total amount of P415,615.01 including surcharge and interest, for deficiency income tax, deficiency expanded withholding taxes on rentals and professional fees and deficiency withholding tax on wages. Private respondent formally protested the assessment and, as a supplement to its basic protest, filed a letter dated October 8, 1985. In reply, the CIR denied the claims of YMCA.

Contesting the denial of its protest, the YMCA filed a petition for review at the Court if Tax Appeals (CTA) on March 14, 1989. In due course, the CTA issued this ruling in favor of the YMCA:

xxx [T]he leasing of private respondents facilities to small shop owners, to restaurant and canteen operators and the operation of the parking lot are reasonably incidental to and reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the objectives of the [private respondents]. It appears from the testimonies of the witnesses for the [private respondent] particularly Mr. James C. Delote, former accountant of YMCA, that these facilities were leased to members and that they have to service the needs of its members and their guests. The Rentals were minimal as for example, the barbershop was only charged P300 per month. He also testified that there was actually no lot devoted for parking space but the parking was done at the sides of the building. The parking was primarily for members with stickers on the windshields of their cars and they charged P.50 for non-members. The rentals and parking fees were just enough to cover the costs of operation and maintenance only. The earning[s] from these rentals and parking charges including those from lodging and other charges for the use of the recreational facilities constitute [the] bulk of its income which [is] channeled to support its many activities and attainment of its objectives. As pointed out earlier, the membership dues are very insufficient to support its program. We find it reasonably necessary therefore for [private respondent] to make [the] most out [of] its existing facilities to earn some income. It would have been different if under the circumstances, [private respondent] will purchase a lot and convert it to a parking lot to cater to the needs of the general public for a fee, or construct a building and lease it out to the highest bidder or at the market rate for commercial purposes, or should it invest its funds in the buy and sell of properties, real or personal. Under these circumstances, we could conclude that the activities are already profit oriented, not incidental and reasonably necessary to the pursuit of the objectives of the association and therefore, will fall under the last paragraph of section 27 of the Tax Code and any income derived therefrom shall be taxable.

Considering our findings that [private respondent] was not engaged in the business of operating or contracting [a] parking lot, we find no legal basis also for the imposition of [a] deficiency fixed tax and [a] contractors tax in the amount[s] of P353.15 and P3,129.73, respectively.

x x x x x x x x xWHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the following assessments are hereby dismissed for lack of merit:1980 Deficiency Fixed Tax P353,15;1980 Deficiency Contractors Tax P3,129.23;1980 Deficiency Income Tax P372,578.20.While the following assessments are hereby sustained:1980 Deficiency Expanded Withholding Tax P1,798.93;1980 Deficiency Withholding Tax on Wages P33,058.82

plus 10% surcharge and 20% interest per annum from July 2, 1984 until fully paid but not to exceed three (3) years pursuant to Section 51 (e)(2) & (3) of the National Internal Revenue Code effective as of 1984.[5]

Dissatisfied with the CTA ruling, the CIR elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA). In its Decision of February 16, 1994, the CA[6] initially decided in favor of the CIR and disposed of the appeal in the following manner:

Following the ruling in the afore-cited cases of Province of Abra vs. Hernando and Abra Valley College Inc. vs. Aquino, the ruling of the respondent Court of Tax Appeals that the leasing of petitioners (herein respondent) facilities to small shop owners, to restaurant and canteen operators and the operation of the parking lot are reasonably incidental to and reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the objectives of the petitioners,' and the income derived therefrom are tax exempt, must be reversed.

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby REVERSED in so far as it dismissed the assessment for:

1980 Deficiency Income Tax P 353.15

1980 Deficiency Contractors Tax P 3,129.23, &

1980 Deficiency Income Tax P372,578.20,

but the same is AFFIRMED in all other respect.[7]

Aggrieved, the YMCA asked for reconsideration based on the following grounds:

I

The findings of facts of the Public Respondent Court of Tax Appeals being supported by substantial evidence [are] final and conclusive.

II

The conclusions of law of [p]ublic [r]espondent exempting [p]rivate [r]espondent from the income on rentals of small shops and parking fees [are] in accord with the applicable law and jurisprudence.[8]

Finding merit in the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the YMCA, the CA reversed itself and promulgated on September 28, 1995 its first assailed Resolution which, in part, reads:

The Court cannot depart from the CTAs findings of fact, as they are supported by evidence beyond what is considered as substantial.

x x x x x x x x x

The second ground raised is that the respondent CTA did not err in saying that the rental from small shops and parking fees do not result in the loss of the exemption. Not even the petitioner would hazard the suggestion that YMCA is designed for profit. Consequently, the little income from small shops and parking fees help[s] to keep its head above the water, so to speak, and allow it to continue with its laudable work.

The Court, therefore, finds the second ground of the motion to be meritorious and in accord with law and jurisprudence.

WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is GRANTED; the respondent CTAs decision is AFFIRMED in toto.[9]

The internal revenue commissioners own Motion for Reconsideration was denied by Respondent Court in its second assailed Resolution of February 29, 1996. Hence, this petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.[10]

The Issues

Before us, petitioner imputes to the Court of Appeals the following errors:

I

In holding that it had departed from the findings of fact of Respondent Court of Tax Appeals when it rendered its Decision dated February 16, 1994; and

II

In affirming the conclusion of Respondent Court of Tax Appeals that the income of private respondent from rentals of small shops and parking fees [is] exempt from taxation.[11]

This Courts Ruling

The Petition is meritorious.

First Issue:

Factual Findings of the CTA

Private respondent contends that the February 16, 1994 CA Decision reversed the factual findings of the CTA. On the other hand, petitioner argues that the CA merely reversed the ruling of the CTA that the leasing of private respondents facilities to small shop owners, to restaurant and canteen operators and the operation of parking lots are reasonably incidental to and reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the objectives of the private respondent and that the income derived therefrom are tax exempt.[12] Petitioner insists that what the appellate court reversed was the legal conclusion, not the factual finding, of the CTA.[13] The commissioner has a point.

Indeed, it is a basic rule in taxation that the factual findings of the CTA, when supported by substantial evidence, will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is shown that the said court committed gross error in the appreciation of facts.[14] In the present case, this Court finds that the February 16, 1994 Decision of the CA did not deviate from this rule. The latter merely applied the law to the facts as found by the CTA and ruled on the issue raised by the CIR: Whether or not the collection or earnings of rental income from the lease of certain premises and income earned from parking fees shall fall under the last paragraph of Section 27 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1977, as amended.[15]

Clearly, the CA did not alter any fact or evidence. It merely resolved the aforementioned issue, as indeed it was expected to. That it did so in a manner different from that of the CTA did not necessarily imply a reversal of factual findings.

The distinction between a question of law and a question of fact is clear-cut. It has been held that [t]here is a question of law in a given case when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts; there is a question of fact when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of alleged facts.[16] In the present case, the CA did not doubt, much less change, the facts narrated by the CTA. It merely applied the law to the facts. That its interpretation or conclusion is different from that of the CTA is not irregular or abnormal.

Second Issue:

Is the Rental Income of the YMCA Taxable?

We now come to the crucial issue: Is the rental income of the YMCA from its real estate subject to tax? At the outset, we set forth the relevant provision of the NIRC:

SEC. 27. Exemptions from tax on corporations. -- The following organizations shall not be taxed under this Title in respect to income received by them as such --

x x x x x x x x x

(g) Civic league or organization not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare;

(h) Club organized and operated exclusively for pleasure, recreation, and other non-profitable purposes, no part of the net income of which inures to the benefit of any private stockholder or member;

x x x x x x x x x

Notwithstanding the provision in the preceding paragraphs, the income of whatever kind and character of the foregoing organization from any of their properties, real or personal, or from any of their activities conducted for profit, regardless of the disposition made of such income, shall be subject to the tax imposed under this Code. (as amended by Pres. Decree No. 1457)

Petitioners argues that while the income received by the organizations enumerated in Section 27 (now Section 26) of the NIRC is, as a rule, exempted from the payment of tax in respect to income received by them as such, the exemption does not apply to income derived xxx from any if their properties, real or personal, or from any of their activities conducted for profit, regardless, of the disposition made of such income xxx.

Petitioner adds that rented income derived by a tax-exempt organization from the lease of its properties, real or personal, [is] not, therefore, exempt from income taxation, even if such income [is] exclusively used for the accomplishment of its objectives.[17] We agree with the commissioner.

Because taxes are the lifeblood of the nation, the Court has always applied the doctrine of strict interpretation in construing tax exemptions.[18] Furthermore, a claim of statutory exemption from taxation should be manifest and unmistakable from the language of the law on which it is based. Thus, the claimed exemption must expressly be granted in a statute stated in a language too clear to be mistaken.[19]

In the instant case, the exemption claimed by the YMCA is expressly disallowed by the very wording of the last paragraph of then Section 27 of the NIRC which mandates that the income of exempt organizations (such as the YMCA) from any of their properties, real or personal, be subject to the imposed by the same Code. Because the last paragraph of said section unequivocally subjects to tax the rent income f the YMCA from its rental property,[20] the Court is duty-bound to abide strictly by its literal meaning and to refrain from resorting to any convoluted attempt at construction.

It is axiomatic that where the language of the law is clear and unambiguous, its express terms must be applied.[21] Parenthetically, a consideration of the question of construction must not even begin, particularly when such question is on whether to apply a strict construction or a literal one on statutes that grant tax exemptions to religious, charitable and educational propert[ies] or institutions.[22]

The last paragraph of Section 27, the YMCA argues, should be subject to the qualification that the income from the properties must arise from activities conducted for profit before it may be considered taxable.[23] This argument is erroneous. As previously

stated, a reading of said paragraph ineludibly shows that the income from any property of exempt organizations, as well as that arising from any activity it conducts for profit, is taxable. The phrase any of their activities conducted for profit does not qualify the word properties. This makes income from the property of the organization taxable, regardless of how that income is used -- whether for profit or for lofty non-profit purposes.

Verba legis non est recedendum. Hence, Respondent Court of Appeals committed reversible error when it allowed, on reconsideration, the tax exemption claimed by YMCA on income it derived from renting out its real property, on the solitary but unconvincing ground that the said income is not collected for profit but is merely incidental to its operation. The law does not make a distinction. The rental income is taxable regardless of whence such income is derived and how it used or disposed of. Where the law does not distinguish, neither should we.

Constitutional Provisions

on Taxation

Invoking not only the NIRC but also the fundamental law, private respondent submits that Article VI, Section 28 of par. 3 of the 1987 Constitution,[24] exempts charitable institutions from the payment not only of property taxes but also of income tax from any source.[25] In support of its novel theory, it compares the use of the words charitable institutions, actually and directly in the 1973 and the 1987 Constitutions, on the hand; and in Article VI Section 22, par. 3 of the 1935 Constitution, on the other hand.[26]

Private respondent enunciates three points. First, the present provision is divisible into two categories: (1) [c]haritable institutions, churches and parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto, mosques and non-profit cemeteries, the incomes of which are, from whatever source, all tax-exempt;[27] and (2) [a]ll lands, buildings and improvements actually and directly used for religious, charitable or educational purposes, which are exempt only from property taxes.[28] Second, Lladoc v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,[29] which limited the exemption only to the payment of property taxes, referred to the provision of the 1935 Constitution and not to its counterparts in the 1973 and the 1987 Constitutions.[30] Third, the phrase actually, directly and exclusively used for religious, charitable or educational purposes refers not only to all lands, buildings and improvements, but also to the above-quoted first category which includes charitable institutions like the private respondent.[31]

The Court is not persuaded. The debates, interpellations and expressions of opinion of the framers of the Constitution reveal their intent which, in turn, may have guided the people in ratifying the Charter.[32] Such intent must be effectuated.

Accordingly, Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., a former constitutional commissioner, who is now a member of this Court, stressed during the Concom debates that xxx what is exempted is not the institution itself xxx; those exempted from real estate taxes are lands, buildings and improvements actually, directly and exclusively used for religious, charitable or educational purposes.[33] Father Joaquin G. Bernas, an eminent authority on the Constitution and also a member of the Concom, adhered to the same view that the exemption created by said provision pertained only to property taxes.[34]

In his treatise on taxation, Mr. Justice Jose C. Vitug concurs, stating that [t]he tax exemption covers property taxes only."[35] Indeed, the income tax exemption claimed by private respondent finds no basis in Article VI, Section 28, par. 3 of the Constitution.

Private respondent also invokes Article XIV, Section 4, par. 3 of the Charter,[36] claiming that the YMCA is a non-stock, non-profit educational institution whose revenues and assets are used actually, directly and exclusively for educational purposes so it is exempt from taxes on its properties and income.[37] We reiterate that private respondent is exempt from the payment of property tax, but not income tax on the rentals from its property. The bare allegation alone that it is a non-stock, non-profit educational institution is insufficient to justify its exemption from the payment of income tax.

As previously discussed, laws allowing tax exemption are construed strictissimi juris. Hence, for the YMCA to be granted the exemption it claims under the aforecited provision, it must prove with substantial evidence that (1) it falls under the classification non-stock, non-profit educational institution; and (2) the income it seeks to be exempted from taxation is used actually, directly, and exclusively for educational purposes. However, the Court notes that not a scintilla of evidence was submitted by private respondent to prove that it met the said requisites.

Is the YMCA an educational institution within the purview of Article XIV, Section 4, par.3 of the Constitution? We rule that it is not.The term educational institution or institution of learning has acquired a well-known technical meaning, of which the members of the Constitutional Commission are deemed cognizant.[38] Under the Education Act of 1982, such term refers to schools.[39] The school system is synonymous with formal education,[40] which refers to the hierarchically structured and chronological graded learnings organized and provided by the formal school system and for which certification is required in order for the learner to progress through the grades or move to the higher levels.[41] The Court has examined the Amended Articles of Incorporation[42] and By-Laws[43] of the YMCA, but found nothing in them that even hints that it is a school or an educational institution.[44]

Furthermore, under the Education Act of 1982, even non-formal education is understood to be school-based and private auspices such as foundations and civic-spirited organizations are ruled out.[45] It is settled that the term educational institution, when used in laws granting tax exemptions, refers to a xxx school seminary, college or educational establishment xxx.[46] Therefore, the private respondent cannot be deemed one of the educational institutions covered by the constitutional provision under consideration.

xxx Words used in the Constitution are to be taken in their ordinary acceptation. While in its broadest and best sense education embraces all forms and phrases of instruction, improvement and development of mind and body, and as well of religious and moral sentiments, yet in the common understanding and application it means a place where systematic instruction in any or all of the useful branches of learning is given by methods common to schools and institutions of learning. That we conceive to be the true intent and scope of the term [educational institutions,] as used in the Constitution.[47]

Moreover, without conceding that Private Respondent YMCA is an educational institution, the Court also notes that the former did not submit proof of the proportionate

amount of the subject income that was actually, directly and exclusively used for educational purposes. Article XIII, Section 5 of the YMCA by-laws, which formed part of the evidence submitted, is patently insufficient, since the same merely signified that [t]he net income derived from the rentals of the commercial buildings shall be apportioned to the Federation and Member Associations as the National Board may decide.[48] In sum, we find no basis for granting the YMCA exemption from income tax under the constitutional provision invoked

Cases Cited by Private

Respondent Inapplicable

The cases[49] relied on by private respondent do not support its cause. YMCA of Manila v. Collector of Internal Revenue[50] andAbra Valley College, Inc. v. Aquino[51] are not applicable, because the controversy in both cases involved exemption from the payment of property tax, not income tax. Hospital de San Juan de Dios, Inc. v. Pasay City[52] is not in point either, because it involves a claim for exemption from the payment of regulatory fees, specifically electrical inspection fees, imposed by an ordinance of Pasay City -- an issue not at all related to that involved in a claimed exemption from the payment if income taxes imposed on property leases. In Jesus Sacred Heart College v. Com. Of Internal Revenue,[53] the party therein, which claimed an exemption from the payment of income tax, was an educational institution which submitted substantial evidence that the income subject of the controversy had been devoted or used solely for educational purposes. On the other hand, the private respondent in the present case had not given any proof that it is an educational institution, or that of its rent income is actually, directly and exclusively used for educational purposes.

Epilogue

In deliberating on this petition, the Court expresses its sympathy with private respondent. It appreciates the nobility its cause.However, the Courts power and function are limited merely to applying the law fairly and objectively. It cannot change the law or bend it to suit its sympathies and appreciations. Otherwise, it would be overspilling its role and invading the realm of legislation.

We concede that private respondent deserves the help and the encouragement of the government. It needs laws that can facilitate, and not frustrate, its humanitarian tasks. But the Court regrets that, given its limited constitutional authority, it cannot rule on the wisdom or propriety of legislation. That prerogative belongs to the political departments of government. Indeed, some of the member of the Court may even believe in the wisdom and prudence of granting more tax exemptions to private respondent. But such belief, however well-meaning and sincere, cannot bestow upon the Court the power to change or amend the law.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated September 28, 1995 and February 29, 1996 are hereby dated February 16, 1995 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated February 16, 1995 is REINSTATED, insofar as it ruled that the income tax. No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Abakada Guro Party List, et al vs Exec. Sec. Ermita

Facts: On May 24, 2005, the President signed into law Republic Act 9337 or the VAT Reform Act. Before the law took effect on July 1, 2005, the Court issued a TRO enjoining government from implementing the law in response to a slew of petitions for certiorari and prohibition questioning the constitutionality of the new law. 

The challenged section of R.A. No. 9337 is the common proviso in Sections 4, 5 and 6: “That the President, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Finance, shall, effective January 1, 2006, raisethe rate of value-added tax to 12%, after any of the following conditions has been satisfied: 

(i) Value-added tax collection as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the previous year exceeds two and four-fifth percent (2 4/5%); 

or (ii) National government deficit as a percentage of GDP of the previous year exceeds one and one-half percent (1½%)” 

Petitioners allege that the grant of stand-by authority to the President to increase the VAT rate is an abdication by Congress of its exclusive power to tax because such delegation is not covered by Section 28 (2), Article VI Consti. They argue that VAT is a tax levied on the sale or exchange of goods and services which can’t be included within the purview of tariffs under the exemption delegation since this refers to customs duties, tolls or tribute payable upon merchandise to the government and usually imposed on imported/exported goods. They also said that the President has powers to cause, influence or create the conditions provided by law to bring about the conditions precedent. Moreover, they allege that no guiding standards are made by law as to how the Secretary of Finance will make the recommendation. 

Issue: Whether or not the RA 9337's stand-by authority to the Executive to increase the VAT rate, especially on account of the recommendatory power granted to the Secretary of Finance, constitutes undue delegation of legislative power? NO 

Held: The powers which Congress is prohibited from delegating are those which are strictly, or inherently and exclusively, legislative. Purely legislative power which can never be delegated is the authority to make a complete law- complete as to the time when it shall take effect and as to whom it shall be applicable, and to determine the expediency of its enactment. It is the nature of the power and not the liability of its use or the manner of its exercise which determines the validity of its delegation. 

The exceptions are: 

(a) delegation of tariff powers to President under Constitution

(b) delegation of emergency powers to President under Constitution

(c) delegation to the people at large 

(d) delegation to local governments 

(e) delegation to administrative bodies 

For the delegation to be valid, it must be complete and it must fix a standard. A sufficient standard is one which defines legislative policy, marks its limits, maps out its boundaries and specifies the public agency to apply it. 

In this case, it is not a delegation of legislative power BUT a delegation of ascertainment of facts upon which enforcement and administration of the increased rate under the law is contingent. The legislature has made the operation of the 12% rate effective January 1, 2006, contingent upon a specified fact or condition. It leaves the entire operation or non-operation of the 12% rate upon factual matters outside of the control of the executive. No discretion would be exercised by the President. Highlighting the absence of discretion is the fact that the word SHALL is used in the common proviso. The use of the word SHALL connotes a mandatory order. Its use in a statute denotes an imperative obligation and is inconsistent with the idea of discretion. 

Thus, it is the ministerial duty of the President to immediately impose the 12% rate upon the existence of any of the conditions specified by Congress. This is a duty, which cannot be evaded by the President. It is a clear directive to impose the 12% VAT rate when the specified conditions are present. 

Congress just granted the Secretary of Finance the authority to ascertain the existence of a fact--- whether by December 31, 2005, the VAT collection as a percentage of GDP of the previous year exceeds 2 4/5 % or the national government deficit as a percentage of GDP of the previous year exceeds one and 1½%. If either of these two instances has occurred, the Secretary of Finance, by legislative mandate, must submit such information to the President. 

In making his recommendation to the President on the existence of either of the two conditions, the Secretary of Finance is not acting as the alter ego of the President or even her subordinate. He is acting as the agent of the legislative department, to determine and declare the event upon which its expressed will is to take effect. The Secretary of Finance becomes the means or tool by which legislative policy is determined and implemented, considering that he possesses all the facilities to gather data and information and has a much broader perspective to properly evaluate them. His function is to gather and collate statistical data and other pertinent information and verify if any of the two conditions laid out by Congress is present. 

Congress does not abdicate its functions or unduly delegate power when it describes what job must be done, who must do it, and what is the scope of his authority; in our complex economy that is frequently the only way in which the legislative process can go forward. 

There is no undue delegation of legislative power but only of the discretion as to the execution of a law. This is constitutionally permissible. Congress did not delegate the power to tax but the mere implementation of the law. 

EN BANCAgenda for October 18, 2005

Item No. 45

G.R. No. 168056 (ABAKADA Guro Party List Officer Samson S. Alcantara, et al. vs. The Hon. Executive Secretary Eduardo R. Ermita); G.R. No. 168207 (Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr., et al. vs. Executive Secretary Eduardo R. Ermita, et al.); G.R. No. 168461 (Association of Pilipinas Shell Dealers, Inc., et al. vs. Cesar V. Purisima, et al.); G.R. No. 168463 (Francis Joseph G. Escudero vs. Cesar V. Purisima, et al); and G.R. No. 168730 (Bataan Governor Enrique T. Garcia, Jr. vs. Hon. Eduardo R. Ermita, et al.)

 RESOLUTION

 For resolution are the following motions for reconsideration of the Courts Decision dated September 1, 2005 upholding the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 9337 or the VAT Reform Act[1]:

 1) Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioners in G.R. No. 168463, Escudero, et al., on the following grounds:

 A. THE DELETION OF THE NO PASS ON PROVISIONS FOR THE SALE OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS AND POWER GENERATION SERVICES CONSTITUTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION ON THE PART OF THE BICAMERAL CONFERENCE COMMITTEE.

 B. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9337 GROSSLY VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTIONAL IMPERATIVE ON EXCLUSIVE ORIGINATION OF REVENUE BILLS UNDER 24, ARTICLE VI, 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION.

 C. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9337S STAND-BY AUTHORITY TO THE EXECUTIVE TO INCREASE THE VAT RATE, ESPECIALLY ON ACCOUNT OF THE EFFECTIVE RECOMMENDATORY POWER GRANTED TO THE SECRETARY OF FINANCE, CONSTITUTES UNDUE DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY.

 2) Motion for Reconsideration of petitioner in G.R. No. 168730, Bataan Governor Enrique T. Garcia, Jr., with the argument that burdening the consumers with significantly higher prices under a VAT regime vis--vis a 3% gross tax renders the law unconstitutional for being arbitrary, oppressive and inequitable.

 and

 

3) Motion for Reconsideration by petitioners Association of Pilipinas Shell Dealers, Inc. in G.R. No. 168461, on the grounds that:

 I. This Honorable Court erred in upholding the constitutionality of Section 110(A)(2) and Section 110(B) of the NIRC, as amended by the EVAT Law, imposing limitations on the amount of input VAT that may be claimed as a credit against output VAT, as well as Section 114(C) of the NIRC, as amended by the EVAT Law, requiring the government or any of its instrumentalities to withhold a 5% final withholding VAT on their gross payments on purchases of goods and services, and finding that the questioned provisions:

 A. are not arbitrary, oppressive and consfiscatory as to amount to a deprivation of property without due process of law in violation of Article III, Section 1 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution;

B. do not violate the equal protection clause prescribed under Article III, Section 1 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution; and

C. apply uniformly to all those belonging to the same class and do not violate Article VI, Section 28(1) of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

 II. This Honorable Court erred in upholding the constitutionality of Section 110(B) of the NIRC, as amended by the EVAT Law, imposing a limitation on the amount of input VAT that may be claimed as a credit against output VAT notwithstanding the finding that the tax is not progressive as exhorted by Article VI, Section 28(1) of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

 Respondents filed their Consolidated Comment. Petitioner Garcia filed his Reply.

 Petitioners Escudero, et al., insist that the bicameral conference committee should not even have acted on the no pass-on provisions since there is no disagreement between House Bill Nos. 3705 and 3555 on the one hand, and Senate Bill No. 1950 on the other, with regard to the no pass-on provision for the sale of service for power generation because both the Senate and the House were in agreement that the VAT burden for the sale of such service shall not be passed on to the end-consumer. As to the no pass-on provision for sale of petroleum products, petitioners argue that the fact that the presence of such a no pass-on provision in the House version and the absence thereof in the Senate Bill means there is no conflict because a House provision cannot be in conflict with something that does not exist.

 Such argument is flawed. Note that the rules of both houses of Congress provide that a conference committee shall settle the differences in the respective bills of each house. Verily, the fact that a no pass-on provision is present in one version but absent in the other, and one version intends two industries, i.e., power generation companies and petroleum sellers, to bear the burden of the tax, while the other version intended only the industry of power generation, transmission and distribution to be saddled with such burden, clearly shows that there are indeed differences between the bills coming from each house, which differences should be acted upon by the bicameral conference committee. It is incorrect to conclude that there is no clash between two opposing forces

with regard to the no pass-on provision for VAT on the sale of petroleum products merely because such provision exists in the House version while it is absent in the Senate version. It is precisely the absence of such provision in the Senate bill and the presence thereof in the House bills that causes the conflict. The absence of the provision in the Senate bill shows the Senates disagreement to the intention of the House of Representatives make the sellers of petroleum bear the burden of the VAT. Thus, there are indeed two opposing forces: on one side, the House of Representatives which wants petroleum dealers to be saddled with the burden of paying VAT and on the other, the Senate which does not see it proper to make that particular industry bear said burden. Clearly, such conflicts and differences between the no pass-on provisions in the Senate and House bills had to be acted upon by the bicameral conference committee as mandated by the rules of both houses of Congress.

 Moreover, the deletion of the no pass-on provision made the present VAT law more in consonance with the very nature of VAT which, as stated in the Decision promulgated on September 1, 2005, is a tax on spending or consumption, thus, the burden thereof is ultimately borne by the end-consumer.

 Escudero, et al., then claim that there had been changes introduced in the Rules of the House of Representatives regarding the conduct of the House panel in a bicameral conference committee, since the time of Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance[2] to act as safeguards against possible abuse of authority by the House members of the bicameral conference committee. Even assuming that the rule requiring the House panel to report back to the House if there are substantial differences in the House and Senate bills had indeed been introduced after Tolentino, the Court stands by its ruling that the issue of whether or not the House panel in the bicameral conference committee complied with said internal rule cannot be inquired into by the Court. To reiterate, mere failure to conform to parliamentary usage will not invalidate the action (taken by a deliberative body) when the requisite number of members have agreed to a particular measure.[3]

 Escudero, et. al., also contend that Republic Act No. 9337 grossly violates the constitutional imperative on exclusive origination of revenue bills under Section 24 of Article VI of the Constitution when the Senate introduced amendments not connected with VAT.

 The Court is not persuaded.

 Article VI, Section 24 of the Constitution provides:

 Sec. 24 All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing increase of the public debt, bills of local application, and private bills shall originate exclusively in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments.

Section 24 speaks of origination of certain bills from the House of Representatives which has been interpreted in the Tolentino case as follows:

 To begin with, it is not the law but the revenue bill which is required by the Constitution to "originate exclusively" in the House of Representatives. It is important to emphasize this, because a bill originating in the House may undergo such extensive changes in the

Senate that the result may be a rewriting of the whole At this point, what is important to note is that, as a result of the Senate action, a distinct bill may be produced. To insist that a revenue statute and not only the bill which initiated the legislative process culminating in the enactment of the law must substantially be the same as the House bill would be to deny the Senate's power not only to "concur with amendments" but also to " propose amendments." It would be to violate the coequality of legislative power of the two houses of Congress and in fact make the House superior to the Senate.

 Given, then, the power of the Senate to propose amendments, the Senate can propose its own version even with respect to bills which are required by the Constitution to originate in the House.

. . .Indeed, what the Constitution simply means is that the initiative for filing revenue, tariff, or tax bills, bills authorizing an increase of the public debt, private bills and bills of local application must come from the House of Representatives on the theory that, elected as they are from the districts, the members of the House can be expected to be more sensitive to the local needs and problems. On the other hand, the senators, who are elected at large, are expected to approach the same problems from the national perspective. Both views are thereby made to bear on the enactment of such laws.[4]

 Clearly, after the House bills as approved on third reading are duly transmitted to the Senate, the Constitution states that the latter can propose or concur with amendments. The Court finds that the subject provisions found in the Senate bill are within the purview of such constitutional provision as declared in the Tolentino case.

 The intent of the House of Representatives in initiating House Bill Nos. 3555 and 3705 was to solve the countrys serious financial problems. It was stated in the respective explanatory notes that there is a need for the government to make significant expenditure savings and a credible package of revenue measures. These measures include improvement of tax administration and control and leakages in revenues from income taxes and value added tax. It is also stated that one opportunity that could be beneficial to the overall status of our economy is to review existing tax rates, evaluating the relevance given our present conditions. Thus, with these purposes in mind and to accomplish these purposes for which the house bills were filed, i.e., to raise revenues for the government, the Senate introduced amendments on income taxes, which as admitted by Senator Ralph Recto, would yield about P10.5 billion a year.

 Moreover, since the objective of these house bills is to raise revenues, the increase in corporate income taxes would be a great help and would also soften the impact of VAT measure on the consumers by distributing the burden across all sectors instead of putting it entirely on the shoulders of the consumers.

 As to the other National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) provisions found in Senate Bill No. 1950, i.e., percentage taxes, franchise taxes, amusement and excise taxes, these provisions are needed so as to cushion the effects of VAT on consumers. As we said in our decision, certain goods and services which were subject to percentage tax and excise tax would no longer be VAT exempt, thus, the consumer would be burdened more as they would be paying the VAT in addition to these taxes. Thus, there is a need to amend these sections to soften the impact of VAT. The Court finds no reason to

reverse the earlier ruling that the Senate introduced amendments that are germane to the subject matter and purposes of the house bills.

 Petitioners Escudero, et al., also reiterate that R.A. No. 9337s stand- by authority to the Executive to increase the VAT rate, especially on account of the recommendatory power granted to the Secretary of Finance, constitutes undue delegation of legislative power. They submit that the recommendatory power given to the Secretary of Finance in regard to the occurrence of either of two events using the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as a benchmark necessarily and inherently required extended analysis and evaluation, as well as policy making.

 There is no merit in this contention. The Court reiterates that in making his recommendation to the President on the existence of either of the two conditions, the Secretary of Finance is not acting as the alter ego of the President or even her subordinate.  He is acting as the agent of the legislative department, to determine and declare the event upon which its expressed will is to take effect. The Secretary of Finance becomes the means or tool by which legislative policy is determined and implemented, considering that he possesses all the facilities to gather data and information and has a much broader perspective to properly evaluate them.  His function is to gather and collate statistical data and other pertinent information and verify if any of the two conditions laid out by Congress is present.  Congress granted the Secretary of Finance the authority to ascertain the existence of a fact, namely, whether by December 31, 2005, the value-added tax collection as a percentage of GDP of the previous year exceeds two and four-fifth percent (24/5%) or the national government deficit as a percentage of GDP of the previous year exceeds one and one-half percent (1%).  If either of these two instances has occurred, the Secretary of Finance, by legislative mandate, must submit such information to the President. Then the 12% VAT rate must be imposed by the President effective January 1, 2006. Congress does not abdicate its functions or unduly delegate power when it describes what job must be done, who must do it, and what is the scope of his authority; in our complex economy that is frequently the only way in which the legislative process can go forward. There is no undue delegation of legislative power but only of the discretion as to the execution of a law.  This is constitutionally permissible. Congress did not delegate the power to tax but the mere implementation of the law.  The intent and will to increase the VAT rate to 12% came from Congress and the task of the President is to simply execute the legislative policy.  That Congress chose to use the GDP as a benchmark to determine economic growth is not within the province of the Court to inquire into, its task being to interpret the law.

 With regard to petitioner Garcias arguments, the Court also finds the same to be without merit. As stated in the assailed Decision, the Court recognizes the burden that the consumers will be bearing with the passage of R.A. No. 9337. But as was also stated by the Court, it cannot strike down the law as unconstitutional simply because of its yokes. The legislature has spoken and the only role that the Court plays in the picture is to determine whether the law was passed with due regard to the mandates of the Constitution. Inasmuch as the Court finds that there are no constitutional infirmities with its passage, the validity of the law must therefore be upheld.

 Finally, petitioners Association of Pilipinas Shell Dealers, Inc. reiterated their arguments in the petition, citing this time, the dissertation of Associate Justice Dante O. Tinga in his Dissenting Opinion.

 The glitch in petitioners arguments is that it presents figures based on an event that is yet to happen. Their illustration of the possible effects of the 70% limitation, while seemingly concrete, still remains theoretical. Theories have no place in this case as the Court must only deal with an existing case or controversy that is appropriate or ripe for judicial determination, not one that is conjectural or merely anticipatory.[5] The Court will not intervene absent an actual and substantial controversy admitting of specific relief through a decree conclusive in nature, as distinguished from an opinion advising what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts.[6]

 The impact of the 70% limitation on the creditable input tax will ultimately depend on how one manages and operates its business. Market forces, strategy and acumen will dictate their moves. With or without these VAT provisions, an entrepreneur who does not have the ken to adapt to economic variables will surely perish in the competition. The arguments posed are within the realm of business, and the solution lies also in business.

 Petitioners also reiterate their argument that the input tax is a property or a property right. In the same breath, the Court reiterates its finding that it is not a property or a property right, and a VAT-registered persons entitlement to the creditable input tax is a mere statutory privilege.

 Petitioners also contend that even if the right to credit the input VAT is merely a statutory privilege, it has already evolved into a vested right that the State cannot remove.

 As the Court stated in its Decision, the right to credit the input tax is a mere creation of law. Prior to the enactment of multi-stage sales taxation, the sales taxes paid at every level of distribution are not recoverable from the taxes payable.  With the advent of Executive Order No. 273 imposing a 10% multi-stage tax on all sales, it was only then that the crediting of the input tax paid on purchase or importation of goods and services by VAT-registered persons against the output tax was established. This continued with the Expanded VAT Law (R.A. No. 7716), and The Tax Reform Act of 1997 (R.A. No. 8424).  The right to credit input tax as against the output tax is clearly a privilege created by law, a privilege that also the law can limit.  It should be stressed that a person has no vested right in statutory privileges.[7]

 The concept of vested right is a consequence of the constitutional guaranty of due process that expresses a present fixed interest which in right reason and natural justice is protected against arbitrary state action; it includes not only legal or equitable title to the enforcement of a demand but also exemptions from new obligations created after the right has become vested. Rights are considered vested when the right to enjoyment is a present interest, absolute, unconditional, and perfect or fixed and irrefutable.[8] As adeptly stated by Associate Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario in her Concurring Opinion, which the Court adopts, petitioners right to the input VAT credits has not yet vested, thus

 

It should be remembered that prior to Rep. Act No. 9337, the petroleum dealers input VAT credits were inexistent they were unrecognized and disallowed by law.  The petroleum dealers had no such property called input VAT credits.  It is only rational, therefore, that they cannot acquire vested rights to the use of such input VAT credits when they were never entitled to such credits in the first place, at least, not until Rep. Act No. 9337. 

 My view, at this point, when Rep. Act No. 9337 has not yet even been implemented, is that petroleum dealers right to use their input VAT as credit against their output VAT unlimitedly has not vested, being a mere expectancy of a future benefit and being contingent on the continuance of Section 110 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, prior to its amendment by Rep. Act No. 9337.

 The elucidation of Associate Justice Artemio V. Panganiban is likewise worthy of note, to wit:

 Moreover, there is no vested right in generally accepted accounting principles.  These refer to accounting concepts, measurement techniques, and standards of presentation in a companys financial statements, and are not rooted in laws of nature, as are the laws of physical science, for these are merely developed and continually modified by local and international regulatory accounting bodies.  To state otherwise and recognize such asset account as a vested right is to limit the taxing power of the State.  Unlimited, plenary, comprehensive and supreme, this power cannot be unduly restricted by mere creations of the State.

 More importantly, the assailed provisions of R.A. No. 9337 already involve legislative policy and wisdom. So long as there is a public end for which R.A. No. 9337 was passed, the means through which such end shall be accomplished is for the legislature to choose so long as it is within constitutional bounds. As stated in Carmichael vs. Southern Coal & Coke Co.:

 If the question were ours to decide, we could not say that the legislature, in adopting the present scheme rather than another, had no basis for its choice, or was arbitrary or unreasonable in its action. But, as the state is free to distribute the burden of a tax without regard to the particular purpose for which it is to be used, there is no warrant in the Constitution for setting the tax aside because a court thinks that it could have distributed the burden more wisely. Those are functions reserved for the legislature.[9]

 WHEREFORE, the Motions for Reconsideration are hereby DENIED WITH FINALITY. The temporary restraining order issued by the Court is LIFTED.

  SO ORDERED.

(The Justices who filed their respective concurring and dissenting opinions maintain their respective positions. Justice Dante O. Tinga filed a dissenting opinion to the present Resolution; while Justice Consuelo Ynares- Santiago joins him in his dissenting opinion.)